Real Cultural Relativism isn’t warm and fuzzy
Posted By Marc on January 7, 2010
A friend and colleague over at the SWC, Beezebubalicious (what a handle!), just posted a link to a BBC story on the rise of human sacrifice in Uganda. What sparked some of my interest was that he said he found this “hard to understand from a cultural (or a relativist) point of view.” Why?
One of the rather pervasive “fictions” (I’d say “myth”, but it’s really a mytheme) surrounding the general understanding of cultural relativism is that it is all “warm and fuzzy”. You know, the “Oh, we’re all the same under the skin” type of mental drivel. What an absurd position! Still, it is both generally rampant and, unfortunately, present in academic Anthropology.
Cultural Relativism, as a concept, really starts gaining traction with a rejection of the older, 19th century, concept of Unilinear Evolution by Franz Boas. The principle is not that “we are all equal”, it is that “an individual human’s beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture.” (source). One of the key differences between these two understandings of the term is that the “warm and fuzzy” version applies a moral judgement (often of the “they have been oppressed!” variety), while the original meaning simply says that you cannot analyze anything if it is taken out of context – a point noted well before Boas by Dilthey. What Boas did when he incorporated Cultural Relativism as an axiomatic assumption in Anthropology was to operationalize Dilthey’s earlier work via the methodology of ethnography.
Now doing ethnographic fieldwork has a whole slew of problems with it, and I really only want to touch on one of them. This particular “problem” stems from the simple fact that the primary “tool” of ethnographic fieldwork is the mind of the Anthropologist. Sounds simple, but it has some profound implications.
The first implication is that, to quote Ted Carpenter, “They Became What They Beheld
The second implication arises from the first: how do we balance these multiple personas? Sometimes, not very well – “going native” is, IMHO, currently a major problem. For Boas, the solution was, actually, fairly simple: make certain that you have an over-riding persona that is committed to “science”, by which he meant the Baconian ideal of science (i.e. follow where the evidence leads you). Of course, that ideal of science is now out of vogue amongst many Anthropologists who often seem to emotionally conflate it with Positivism.
But if one can construct personas and can balance them, then Cultural Relativism via ethnographic fieldwork is a very powerful tool. That does not mean that it is “warm and fuzzy” or that adopting a Cultural relativist stance makes one want to hug everyone in the world. At its best, it allows you to have an excellent understanding of how cultures and societies operate giving you, amongst other things, an almost intuitive understanding of them. It can also be a very dark, and at times lonely, place to live depending on what personas you have developed.
When I read the article on increased human sacrifice in Uganda that Beezebubalicious posted, I entered in to one of those “dark spaces”. One of the areas I have studied and done fieldwork in is witchcraft, and it is impossible to study that area without coming across human sacrifice in one form or another. Believe me, this is not a “warm and fuzzy” area! That doesn’t mean that I don’t “understand” it – I do, although sometimes I wish I didn’t.
Marc on 
In Harmonium » Ethics, honour and the dangers of over-ritualization, part 3 on 
MM on 
Backwards Observer on
I suspect part of that “warm and fuzzy” conflation simply comes from a denial of reality that provides impetus to transform prior instilled narratives into imaginings that are much easier to swallow. Take the common one we’ve talked about so much before: equality of rights confined to a given geopolitical territory mutated and extended into an ambiguous idea of equality of value and ability amongst all people. I found it telling when many of my students were actually surprised that Canada, their “egalitarian” homeland, is in fact one of the most stratified societies to be found on the planet. In a way, I’m reminded of Heinlein in… I forget which book it was. It was where that subtle comment was made about the nature of humor, that the reason we find misfortune so comedic is because if we didn’t laugh it would crush us should we actually embrace it. This seems somewhat pertinent. Warm and fuzzy relativism does two things, then, I think. It allows one to firstly imagine a much kinder, gentler world. Secondly, it absolves the individual of any sort of involvement or discourse in the horrors of living (although I’d still weight the former as being more prevalent).
What’s so much fun about relativism in anthropological epistemology and ethics is that despite all the deconstruction a decade or two ago the discipline never really got very much beyond the Enlightenment. Ethically it’s still obvious that numerous anthropological accounts and assertions are still very much founded upon some sort of Rousseuian or Lockean ideas of what it means to be human. Ideas about freedom and possibilities are still rooted in these ideas about how one should live. In recent memory, much of the dialogue amongst feminist scholars on the issue of the hijab in the dual identity of being both a woman and a Muslim seems relevant to this point and how one even approaches such a point as an outsider or an insider. I think this latter example really highlights this issue of ethical and methodological axioms as being still founded in Enlightenment philosophy, but by the same token, really problematizes how one can even methodologically, never mind morally, employ a relativist model.
It’s a messy concept, no?
Hi Greg,
Definitely messy
. Let me just take up on one of your points,
What truly bothers me is that, in many ways, I feel that a lot of popular (and I emphasize that) understanding of Anthropological epistemology and ethics doesn’t even get to the enlightenment! I find that too much of the popular discourse in the area is extremely reminiscent of theological stylings of the Fraticelli; a curious mixture of Positivism, Political Correctness, and self loathing. Oh well, the nice thing about “Bunnies and Light” is that at least you can see to cook your rabbit!
I knew I couldn’t escape a theological discussion with you.
In all seriousness, though, there is an uncanny resemblance at times. I’m reminded of some of the work of the mid-90s when some anthropologists were seriously thinking we were moving towards a post-national world, where borders would miraculously dissolve, and we could hold hands while doing some sort of multi-cultural jig together. Well, that last part might be a bit of a sarcastic embellishment on my part (that aside, 9/11 dissipated that kind of thinking rather quickly). In any case, though, the act of taking some sort of neutral evidence, and then tacking on your own ideological hopes seems to fit the interpretive framework of some religious thought. In a way it’s almost, if not is, technocratic.
In many ways, the frictions to such theoretical assumptions, like that of cultural relativism, are obvious from the start. But, they’re just so morally enticing that we pay them no mind because they provide some sort of ontological comfort or ease. Right now a lot of my work deals with neoliberalism in transnational political-economy as a transformative force. They underlying assumption is always that, as a product of capitalist hegemony, it’s inherently bad or somehow disempowering. And yet, when I go to places in S.E. Asia and talk to locals they quite readily gush about the progress towards “modernity” that they’re currently experiencing. Of course, there are also some aspects that can be seen as negative to an outsider or local (e.g. the zoning of citizenship, who’s important who’s not, etc.). Nonetheless it seems too damn complex to make this clear, a priori assumption that it is some late-capitalist trend that will hurt the poor, exotic other, who is clearly being taken for a ride by the evil, white, corporate world.
In light of the evidence, it only seems reasonable to assume such if you’re already completely accepting of those older, post-Marxist tropes about the nature of stratification, production, and cultural interaction. It’s just easier and more morally acceptable, within social science, to do so rather than say: “it’s probably too soon to make any serious theoretical projections or statements about what’s happening at both a micro and macro level.”
Anyway, my apologies for once more veering off-topic.
No apologies necessary, Greg
.
Obviously, quoth he with tongue firmly planted in cheek, the poor, benighted “natives” you are studying are suffering from a serious case of False Consciousness (after all, they disagree with Proper thought….). I guess you are just suffering from the PC version of the White Man’s Burden of bringing enlightenment of their oppressed state to these poor, deluded “natives”…..
Gods, I can’t believe I didn’t collapse writing that drek! LOLOL
Back to the “warm and fuzzy” version of cultural relativism for a moment. I have a suspicion that it has been supported simple because the original version required a transcendental belief in via negativa Baconian science. Such a belief is totally opposed to the axiomatic assumptions of the self-proclaimed “gnostic” theologians of the PC movement. It is far harder for people to say something like “I don’t know” than it is to blame some reified entity such as “capitalism” (sounds like a Comtean Stage 1 belief system, doesn’t it?).
Damn, I’ve missed these discussions!
Hey Marc, do you have kids? Could you sacrifice them? Can’t imagine it? Can you be relative about it? Would you want to? Science is no comfort for me in this case. I find more comfort and sanity in my humanity. Is it not okay to say that this is “inhuman”, unethical and abhorrent? Or should we try and understand and explain it scientifically?
Interesting also how the “clients” often steal other people’s children, how the anti-human sacrifice and trafficking task force links this crime to rising levels of development and prosperity, and also how this is essentially an organized crime racket. Essentially, organized crime taking advantage of the belief system.
Hi Beelzebubalicious,
Yes, I have a daughter. Could I sacrifice her? Yuch, horrid question! But if “Could” is taken as “Can you possibly think of any situation where you would”, then the answer is yes. And yes, I can image it though it turns my stomach. Would I want to? NFW buddy-boy!
“Science”, in the Baconian via negativa sense isn’t comforting; for that you want the Positivist version.
You know, they aren’t opposed. “Inhuman”? No, it isn’t “inhuman” since it is something that humans do. “Unethical”? Definitely, at least according to my understanding of ethics. “Abhorrent”? Absolutely, to me. None of this precludes understanding and explaining it scientifically. Let me make one observation that you will probably hate: child sacrifice tends to be fairly common in cultures with a fairly high birth rate, massive social stress, and a low valuation of human life. We’ve certainly seen it before historically in those situations.
Quite interesting, and the information that most of the children are ‘stolen” really isn’t surprising; I would actually be much more surprised if most of the children involved were the “clients” children. As far as organized crime taking advantage of the belief system, again there is nothing new about this at all. Strip away the term “organized crime” and replace it with “a bunch of people out for their own good taking advantage of the belief system” and that would fit with many institutions. What I would like to know is if these organizers actually practice it themselves with their own children (i.e. are they “True Believers”) or is it merely a scam. The article implies the latter, but there have been cases of the former and it does make a difference in how you stop it.
Marc, one of the reformed witch doctors, who claims to have killed over 70 people, including his own son, describes how he actually did it (gruesome). Also note that by reforming and hunting down others, he feels that he is absolved of these crimes. I’d like to be there when he goes for judgement. It’s like the guys who try to repent before they go to the gas chamber. Sorry, that might work on Earth, but you’re going to have do better than that to get in to heaven, buddy.
I noticed that, and it reminded me of how a lot of “religious” con games operate. Let’s not get into the theological implications of your last sentence, otherwise I suspect we may well have a major disagreement
.
Speaking as a non-anthropologist (my education is hard science, business, and law) my understanding was a bit different. Our puritanical roots (at least in the US) fostered a tendency to judge actions according to an absolute moral code (God’s law). Any excuses to not judge someone against this code was (take your pick) limp-wristed, soft, bleeding-heart liberalism, or even “warm and fuzzy.”
My understanding of the moral judgment applied by “warm and fuzzy” types was that they wanted to insist that morality is relative. In effect, it was “warm and fuzzy” because they would dismiss claims that “barbarism” is “immoral” by pointing out that “morality is relative.”
Am I conflating laymen’s terms with terms of art? The reason that I ask is that my understanding of “warm and fuzzy” seems to mix the two types you described: “[o]ne of the key differences … is that the “warm and fuzzy” version applies a moral judgement … while the original meaning simply says that you cannot analyze anything if it is taken out of context…”
As I thought I understood it, the “warm and fuzzy” approach mixes the two by assuming that (1) the actions of someone who is unaware of a moral code cannot be judged against that code and (2) whether individuals are aware of the moral code is a question of context (which could include “oppression” or any other form of victimizing).
As I debate whether to hit the “submit” button, I am wondering if my question makes any sense.
Hi Schmedlap,
Hmmmm, this is a touch tricky, but here goes. First off, I use “morality” to refer to the “ethics” of a group’ basically, the pro-survival options / choices that work in and for that group. In this sense, “morality” is relative since it ties to a specific group at a point in space and time. The “morality” of the warm and fuzzy crowd is similar, and reflects the pro-survival options of that group. At this point in time, that tends towards what we generally call Politically Correct, with strong doses of anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism.
I’m not sure if that clarifies it or not – wry grin.
When the only tool you have is the Malleus Maleficarum, every problem looks like a witch?
http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/
LOL!
Hi Backwards Observer. Pretty much, although witchcraft and sorcery are both strong social institutions in the region. To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a sorcerer really is just a sorcerer….
I was interested to note that the MM became more popular after the printing press was invented. One could assume that this innovation led to the discovery and persecution of more witches and sorcerors. Getting back to Uganda, I would be interested to unpack the data supporting the supposed increase in child sacrifice. To be sure, one is too much, but given the nature of the crime and the subsequent outrage, one instance can
practically feel like an epidemic.
Wasn’t the MM also a scientific document? My hypothesis is that she’s a witch. If she floats, the hypothesis is proven.
Hi Beelzebubalicious,
The infamous Malleus Malleficarun (MM) was, indeed, published after the Gutenberg Press was invented. I remember tracking the shift in how witches were perceived in Europe, and it’s really quite fascinating. They were moved from “some deluded women” of the canon episcopi (~9th-10th century ce), who were, basically, considered under canon law to be mentally “challenged”, to heretics and an active danger to Christianity. Check out Jeffrey Russell’s A History of Witchcraft for a great overview along with Carlo Ginzburg’s The Night Battles.
Actually, according to the systems of the time, the MM wasn’t a scientific document. In fact, it was actually published illegally, and was more a collection of folk psychoses than what was considered, at the time, to be the scientific knowledge surrounding magic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
Yeah, I agree the data is crucial. Remember back in the late 1980′s when the Satanic Panic was hitting North America? Some of the “estimates” being bandied around the talk show scene were 50,000 children a year being bred, raised and sacrificed. In Canada, from what I can recall without finding my old notes on it, the “estimates” were around 3-5k per year. At the time I was looking at this, I was unable to uncover more than 10 that might have been cases, and only 1 that definitely was.
[...] In Harmonium » Real Cultural Relativism isn’t warm and fuzzy A friend and colleague over at the SWC, Beezebubalicious (what a handle!), just posted a link to a BBC story on the rise of human sacrifice in Uganda. What sparked some of my interest was that he said he found this “hard to understand from a cultural (or a relativist) point of view.” Why? [...]