1. After analyzing cultural relativism over the semester, I have come to the conclusion that cultural relativism under anthropological analysis defines every single culture with some aspect of worth as viewed by an individual within that society. Franz Boas, termed the “Father of American Anthropology”, first introduced the concept of cultural relativism. He wanted people to understand the way certain cultures conditioned people to interact with the world around them, which created a necessity to understand the culture being studied. In my words, cultural relativism is the concept that cultures should be viewed from the people among that culture. When studied by anthropologists, cultural relativism is employed to give all cultures an equal …show more content…
Not only this, but anthropologists will also employ Ethnography, writing down a description and analysis, based upon the fieldwork. This helps keep a record of what was learned, while also keeping the culture being studied under its own viewpoint. These factors help impact the analysis of a culture, while still being observed under a cultural relativism outlook.
2. In “Avatar”, the concept of cultural relativism is explored in numerous ways. The main character, Jake Sully, is a prime example of cultural relativism. As Jake submerges himself among the Na’vi and their culture, he begins to realize the culture, viewing it from the Na’vi perspective. After falling in love with a native, Neytiri, Jake realizes the innocence of the Na’vi and how they are simply trying to protect their homeland. He begins to understand the value in scared places to the Na’vi, most notably the Tree of Souls. Only after living with Na’vi and seeing the destruction of the military does Jake truly understand the value within the Na’vi people. Another prevalent film that conveys the theme of cultural relativism is “The Emerald Forest”. The son of Bill Markham, Tommy, is kidnapped at the start of the movie, spending the rest of his
In its entirety, moral relativism is comprised of the belief that, as members of various and countless cultures, we cannot judge each other’s morality. If this theory stands true, then “we have no basis for judging other cultures or values,” according to Professor McCombs’ Ethics 2. Our moral theories cannot extend throughout cultures, as we do not all share similar values. For instance, the Catholic tradition believes in the sacrament of Reconciliation. This sacrament holds that confessing one’s sins to a priest and
Cultural Relativism is a moral theory which states that due to the vastly differing cultural norms held by people across the globe, morality cannot be judged objectively, and must instead be judged subjectively through the lense of an individuals own cultural norms. Because it is obvious that there are many different beliefs that are held by people around the world, cultural relativism can easily be seen as answer to the question of how to accurately and fairly judge the cultural morality of others, by not doing so at all. However Cultural Relativism is a lazy way to avoid the difficult task of evaluating one’s own values and weighing them against the values of other cultures. Many Cultural Relativist might abstain from making moral judgments about other cultures based on an assumed lack of understanding of other cultures, but I would argue that they do no favors to the cultures of others by assuming them to be so firmly ‘other’ that they would be unable to comprehend their moral decisions. Cultural Relativism as a moral theory fails to allow for critical thoughts on the nature of morality and encourages the stagnation
Cultural relativism was introduced in the U.S. by Frank Boas in 1887 (ibid). This theory postulates that cultures must be understood in terms of the values and ideas of that specific culture; the underlying objective here was to delegitimize notions of ethnocentrism (the belief that one culture may judge another based on their cultural standards) (Miller, 12-3). Though this theory seems to provide a framework to eliminate a discriminatory belief, it would not allow then, for example, people to attack the events that took place in Germany circa 1930s-40s (Miller, 23). Critical cultural relativism avoids this ‘homogenizing trap’
The movie Avatar, is a scientific movie that is based on the indigenous people of Pandora. James Cameron provided a way for viewers to engage into the world of these 10-foot tall humanoid fictitious culture. To fully grasp the events that take place in the movie, society must understand what an industrial take over looks like. Even though the film is provided with false events, it still reigns true to the real-life events that have taken place for centuries. The mining of natural resources has played a part in the history of America, and hostile takeovers of indigenous people lands. To understand the culture of the Na’vi, and what aspects and practices might seem attractive, we must understand which real people in our world the Na’vi might
The movies The Searchers and Avatar are both very ideal examples of how people have occupied new land and tried to drive out the natives that live there. Even though these are both very different types of movies and written in different times, they definitely have some similarities. This has happened throughout the world’s history and probably will continue to happen for years to come.
The Challenge of Culture Relativism written by James Rachels argues the downsides and upsides to the idea of Cultural Relativism. This is the idea of Cultural Relativism: the principle that an individual human 's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual 's own culture. It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
Cultural relativism is powerful and unique, ascertaining and appreciating people cultural. Cultural relativism is unique but can be hard to understand, upsetting the views, morals, and outlines of culture from the standpoint of that civilization. When analyzing the hominid culture, it provides the luxury of understanding their philosophy from their viewpoint. Taking in another culture without being basis can be daunting. Anthropologist deliberated cultures by exploiting two methods, the emic perspective, and etic perspective. Crapo, R. H. 2013, Section 1.1 defines, the Etic perspective that is, an outsider's or observer's alleged "objective" account—creates a model of a culture by using cross-culturally valid categories, which anthropologists
If we look at the world today, there are millions of cultures centered everywhere. With this much cultures in the world, everyone is bound to believe that they’re all different. Even though they are different in some aspects, all of them are similar to each other in some way. So if this is the case, do we as human beings have the right to judge these cultures as ethically wrong or just a cultural difference? Cultural Relativism is the belief that we cannot judge the cultural practices of other societies and that we should let them do as they please. But if we cannot judge them, does it make it right when they threaten the lives of others? Through the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, we begin to have a deeper insight this idea of cultural relativism and the extent at which we should tolerate the cultural practices. The book follows Okonkwo, who is a socially popular warrior who wants to have the greatest title in the village to separate himself from his ‘weak’ father. The book goes in depth about the cultural practices of the Ibo people and what happens when missionaries come to the village to convert others. This brings up many different views on which we should decide to judge other cultures and when to interfere, and the answer is usually cultural relativism. However, cultural relativism can only keep the peace for so long before the people are forced to take action. Through cultural relativism, we should respect other cultural practices and beliefs until they threaten others by nullifying their rights. However, even though we should always find the most peaceful way to compromise with the little things, in life or death situations we must infringe the human rights in order to protect them.
Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ...
A competing idea, cultural relativism, is a process of understanding other cultures on their own terms, rather than judging according to one’s own culture. “understanding one’s own culture and other cultures can lead to more effective action across cultures” (251) This is often the perspective of social scientists who work with people and is the result of the work of anthropologist Franz Boas. Cultural relativism helps us to understand that there is not "one right way" to approach many of the aspects of daily living. It is important to try to employ cultural relativism because it helps see the society objectivity, encourages respect, creates learning opportunities that could make humanity stronger, a system of niche expertise, eliminates the concept of separate, but equal.
With cultural relativism, events in our lifetime would be stable and consistent. There would be no room for things to improve due to the fact we may think everything is as it should be. Just as Rachel's had mentioned previously, we can take into account slavery. (Sher, 155) There would be no progression in regards to the abolishment of slavery if we adhered to Cultural Relativism as a set standard. We would accept slavery as the way things are, we would hold this view that we could not voice our own opinion as we should “respect,” other cultures. Rachel’s also makes an important point stating there is actually less disagreement than it seems when it comes to Cultural Relativism. (Sher, 174) In summary, he explains that our disagreement between other cultures needs to be looked more into. The actions of an individual from another culture needs to be looked in at a different perspective. He uses people who refuse to eat cows as an example. Are we judging them because they don’t want to eat an animal? Or do they not want to eat an animal because they believe there is a form of reincarnation involved? Rachels says this is not too far from our beliefs in where for example, some believe in going to heaven. When comparing ourselves to them, we are valuing the same things but show it in different
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Each culture has their own unique set of beliefs and morals. What I believe to be ethical might be totally unethical or nonsense to you or even many others. For example, ISIS might believe that it is acceptable for them to behead others and perform terrorist acts in other countries. On the other hand, this would be completely unacceptable and unethical to many others because their cultures are completely different and these activities are not part of their culture. What is morally sound to an individual might not be to another individual. This then ties into cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is basically the idea that there are no universal morals that cultures share since each culture has a different view on what is right and wrong.
Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two contrasting terms that are displayed by different people all over the world. Simply put, ethnocentrism is defined as “judging other groups from the perspective of one’s own cultural point of view.” Cultural relativism, on the other hand, is defined as “the view that all beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the situation, environment, and individual.” Each of these ideas has found its way into the minds of people worldwide. The difficult part is attempting to understand why an individual portrays one or the other. It is a question that anthropologists have been asking themselves for years.