Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

What Is Anthropology? ANTH 2301 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes” Relativist critics frequently find it impossible to temporarily abandon their own cultural standards since they hold them in such high regard. They say that relativism is intrinsically immoral because they firmly believe that their own cultural values are the only ones that are true. Relativism, in their view, is the failure to criticise actions and viewpoints that they deem to be categorically detrimental and incorrect. For some detractors, relativism is identical with a poisonous kind of moral laxity that is summed up in the expression "anything goes." They argue that if society does not take a strong stand against some cultural habits, it might descend into a moral abyss in which no action, no matter how abhorrent, can be categorically denounced. Anthropologists, on the other hand, see cultural relativism as a rigorous and crucial approach to comprehensive study. Cultural relativism is a methodological technique that requires anthropologists to temporarily suspend judgement, not to condone destructive or violent acts they may come across in the field. This suspension is a conscious attempt to investigate and comprehend the intricacies of many cultures from the insider's point of view, not an act of moral indifference. Anthropologists seek to understand cultural activities in their particular settings in order to have a more profound and nuanced understanding of them. This method recognises that there are sometimes complex, nuanced causes behind actions that, from the perspective of an outsider, seem unexplainable or unacceptable. The understanding that cultural practices—even those that appear violent or exploitative— are entwined in a complex web of social, historical, economic, and environmental circumstances is the foundation of the anthropological perspective. Anthropologists seek to identify these fundamental causes by using a culturally relativistic viewpoint, which frequently reveals that these practices are not only the result of personal animosity or cultural regression. Rather, they might be adaptive techniques, answers to particular problems, or means of preserving social cohesiveness within a certain society. This is not to say that anthropologists support all cultural behaviours; rather, before making judgements, they try to comprehend the reasons behind them. The fact that judgmental interventions by ethnocentric outsiders may often cause more harm than help is one of the central principles of cultural relativism. Numerous instances of wellmeaning but ultimately detrimental intervention by outsiders imposing their own ideals and solutions on other cultures may be found throughout history. These interventions frequently result from misinterpreting and overestimating how universal one's own cultural standards are. Outsiders' activities have the potential to upend social institutions, alienate communities, and worsen the same issues they are trying to address when they disregard the context and significance of the behaviours they are trying to reform. Take missionary work, for example, which is being done all over the world. Missionaries frequently attempted to destroy local customs and beliefs that they perceived as pagan or immoral, motivated by their conviction that their own religious and moral norms were superior. Their efforts usually resulted in the loss of indigenous knowledge, the disintegration of social cohesiveness, and the formation of profound cultural rifts, even though they occasionally led to the embrace of new religions and lifestyles. Likewise, contemporary humanitarian efforts may encounter same difficulties even if they are frequently driven by sincere concern for human rights. If efforts to abolish customs such as child labour or female genital mutilation are not properly contextualised and culturally aware, they may result in hostility, anger, and unanticipated negative outcomes. Anthropologists contend that interacting with communities to learn about their viewpoints and cooperating to develop solutions that honour their cultural settings is a more successful strategy. This method, which is based on cultural relativism, does not mean that all cultural behaviours should be accepted without question. Instead, it advocates for a deliberate and knowledgeable involvement that aims to strike a balance between a dedication to universal human rights and respect for cultural variety. It recognises that cultures are dynamic systems that are subject to change and adaptation rather than immobile entities. Anthropologists think that more considerate and long-lasting solutions may be reached via encouraging communication and understanding amongst people. Furthermore, cultural relativism promotes introspection by getting people to consider their own cultural prejudices and presumptions. In a globalised society where cross-cultural exchanges are becoming more frequent, this reflexivity is essential. It forces people to acknowledge that the cultural standards within their own communities are products of particular historical, social, and environmental settings rather than being absolute truths. Increased empathy and openness as a result of this understanding can promote more positive and courteous cross-cultural interactions. In conclusion, anthropologists see relativism as a crucial analytical tool that fosters a greater knowledge of cultural variety, despite detractors who believe it leads to moral nihilism. Anthropologists who practise cultural relativism suspend judgement in order to investigate and examine cultural practices in their particular contexts. This method highlights the potential damage of ethnocentric treatments and shows the nuanced motivations underlying behaviours that may at first seem illogical or unreasonable. Cultural relativism eventually leads to more polite and successful cross-cultural interactions by encouraging a more complex and sympathetic understanding of cultural differences. It argues for a deliberate and educated attitude to cultural variety, striking a balance between respect for various lifestyles and a commitment to human rights and ethical values, as opposed to advocating a position of "anything goes."