Relativism is Not a Morality

Posted on September 4, 2003 in Anthropology Morals & Ethics Social Justice

Again, I must say that Yule Heibel addresses some of the more interesting questions. I am a little at odds with her over this statement, but not much:

Leeming attacks (in my view rightly) cultural relativism that would assign to primitive, misogynistic cultures the same value as cultures that espouse Enlightenment principles. He opens his review by describing the reception his account of an arranged marriage between a 14-year-old girl and a 38-year-old man got when he described it as “legitimised rape.” His accusers found him guilty of “Orientalism,” or depicting “eastern cultures as strange and inferior to the West, rather than portraying them as both equally bad.” Sorry, I’m with Leeming: as a woman, I cannot be relativistic about human rights, and fundamentalists are no friends of mine. They are backwards and benighted. And so it seems are their relativist defenders in academe.

Those who insist that cultural relativism demands that we declare two cultures to be “equally wrong” on any given issue are — dare I say it? — wrong. In a comment on Yule’s blog, I went into the reasons for this:

“Relativism wasn’t meant as a philosophy or a moral guide, but as an technique for conducting scientific research. The anthropologist goes in, observes what is happening, and records it accurately. He/she does ~not~ make a moral judgement because her/his purpose is description.

“German-American anthropologist Franz Boas developed the practice in response to the concept of “degenerate” and “primitive” societies which prevailed in early 20th century anthropology. Boas’s approach challenged racist assumptions. He merely insisted that all human beings were capable of complex thought. He and followers such as Margaret Mead demonstrated this time and again in their writings.

“Despite the moral neutrality of their research, the early cultural relativists were not silent about human rights. They championed them time and again on behalf of indigenous peoples and minority groups — including African Americans and recent European immigrants — in the United States. Boas was expelled from the American Anthropological Association in 1917-1918 for insisting that anthropologists remain out of the war effort, that they [not] be turned into pawns for politicians.

“What happened is that under the effective onslaught against their racist and authoritarian notions, conservatives and despots the world over found what they thought was a loophole: if you made cultural relativism into a morality, then you could insist that your critics could not say anything about the things you did, including torture, war, oppression of women and minorities, etc. As a morality, cultural relativism became the tool of those who wanted to plunder the earth and its peoples.

“As is often the case, when authoritarian regimes apply any morality, it turned out to be one-sided. They would cry “You can’t criticize us for our ways” while imprisoning, torturing, and killing those within their own society who disagreed with them.

“The original relativists never meant to imply that all ideas were equal, that we had to accept the existence of spirits for example, because some person capable of reasonable thought claimed that they exist. They just asked that we keep our eyes and our minds reasonably open, to not allow bigotry to color our evaluation, e.g. “these people are of an inferior race and therefore incapable of intelligent discourse. We must govern them.” While Boas would have striven to keep his thoughts about the marriage case you described in your article, you could have hit him up for a donation for an organization which sought to persuade the Afghani government and people to abandon the practice. As I noted at the outset, there’s no inconsistency here: relativism is a scientific method. Only those who have had a stake in perpetuating injustice have tried to characterize it as a morality.”

I believe, however, that relativism can inform a morality. Consenting women may, for example, choose to wear the burka or the hijab for reasons of modesty and protection against men. It’s informative to listen to the testimony of Muslim women, for example, when they describe how naked and sexually exploited they feel Western women are. Yule may not take up the veil as a result, but in listening she may discover the roots of an oriental feminism. Likewise, it helps to realize that Islamic marriage laws are designed to protect the rights of the woman. A husband may use his wife’s property, but if he divorces her, it goes with her. There’s plenty of room for attack by moderate Muslims over the morality of those who marry for the money. I recognize a different morality here, one that may require some change but may also have much to teach us in the way we think about men and women in this society. It’s good to cross cultures and ask questions.

Asking questions instead of jumping to conclusions reveals to us diversity in society. One criticism that I level at Anthropology is that in looking at culture, it often ignores diversity of views and debate within societies. I know more than a few Muslims who argue against the strict Sharia of the Taliban. They, too, raise their voices against the marriage example that Yule describes. I suggest that the proper use of the term “Orientalism” is to identify statements and systems of thought which begin with the conclusion that Islamic societies are inferior to Western ones. I say to all parties to keep an open mind, to base any morality on compassion for all parties. I believe that there are things which the Muslim world — if not in all its expressed forms then in many of the high values it professes — can teach us. Muslims, likewise, must keep an open mind to the West. We will all go a long ways towards being more compassionate if Christians stop characterizing every Muslim man as an insatiable sex machine who wants to surround himself with dozens of wives and Muslims stop characterizing Western women as sluts who prance naked in the streets.

Relativist that I am, I retain my right to criticize customs and practices of either society that are out of keeping with my social ethics and compassionate outlook. I keep my mind open to different takes on the problems of life and attempt to understand them before I criticize them.