|
|
Society The Use and Misuse of Cultural Relativism by William R. Tonso Cultural
relativism is indispensable as an analytical tool — and downright dangerous
as a worldview.
Two years ago, the Los Angeles Times reported a survey
saying, "Even more striking, while 57 percent of respondents say they consider
abortion to be murder, more than half of that group agree that a woman should
have the right to choose an abortion." Huh?! Are there actually lots of people
out there who believe that women have the right to commit murder? Maybe, maybe
not.
| | William R.
Tonso is a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Evansville.
|
|
Having taught sociology at the college level for 29 years, I found long ago
that many, if not most, of my students considered killing, even understandable
and positively sanctioned killing in war or in self-defense, to be synonymous
with murder. So maybe these respondents were using the word "murder" in this way,
as synonymous with killing, and therefore, were simply acknowledging that some
killings, or "murders," abortion being one kind, are acceptable. Maybe, but
nowadays there is another very real possibility.
Earlier in the article, "a senior research associate who studies abortion at
the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University" was quoted
saying: "Americans, in terms of their own code of morality may view abortion as
murder and may be comfortable with it being illegal, but most Americans don't
want to impose that on other people . . . . It's kind of a live-and-let-live
approach . . . . Most Americans are in favor of letting people make their own
individual choices." Apparently missing the black humor of her reference to
"live-and-let-live" in the abortion context, this researcher may not have a way
with words, but she was on to something.
A year or so before I retired, I started asking my students whether they would
remain friends with anyone who they found out was involved in something,
whatever that might be, that they not only disapproved of, like, say,
smoking or nose picking, but that they considered to be immoral. What seemed to
be a straightforward question gave many of my students problems. Their responses
were often in line with the "live-and-let-live" philosophy cited by the Rutgers
"researcher." During one such discussion, a student admitted that, even though he
considered abortion to be immoral, he once had given a female friend a ride to a
clinic for an abortion. He was not responsible for the pregnancy.
|
| Conflict may be
unpleasant, but short of social engineering to the point of a Skinnerian Walden
II, I suspect that it will remain part of the human condition.
|
|
On another occasion, an articulate student whom I always enjoyed having in
class because she could be relied on to keep discussions going, approached me
after a sociology of deviance class to ask on what grounds, if any, one could
personally judge behavior to be moral or immoral. Ironically, this young woman
held strong Christian beliefs, while I'm a third-generation nonbeliever and a
sociological relativist, yet she was confused about this issue and I wasn't. I
pointed out to her, without intending any sarcasm, that if she was the serious
Christian that she often professed to be, her religious beliefs should provide
her with a framework for judging morality.
Yet I could understand her predicament. Somewhere along the way, probably with
help from the social sciences, and even with my help, her religious beliefs had
been relativized. Christianity in its various forms had simply become a system of
beliefs that some people accepted and others did not, so while her faith could
guide her behavior, she was uneasy about imposing her beliefs on those who didn't
share them.
When I started teaching sociology at the Methodist-affiliated University of
Evansville in 1969, it didn't take me long to become uncomfortable with the way
sociology textbooks regularly defined and explained "cultural relativism." The
last introductory text I used, "Sociology: Cultural Diversity in a Changing
World," by George J. Bryjak and Michael P. Soroka (the 3rd edition), stated that
"cultural relativism is the belief that there is no universal standard of
good and bad or right and wrong and that an aspect of any given culture can be
judged only within its own context." Bryjak and Soroka went on to note: "The
problem with cultural relativism is that any behavior can be accepted,
rationalized, and justified." And after mentioning the genocides committed in
Cambodia, Uganda, and Rwanda in recent decades, they state: "Few individuals
would condone this behavior or accept cultural relativism as a justification for
torture and murder. The question, therefore, is how far can we push the cultural
of [sic] relativism perspective?"
| During one such
discussion, a student admitted that, even though he considered abortion to be
immoral, he once had given a female friend a ride to a clinic for an abortion.
|
|
At least Bryjak and Soroka see a dilemma here. But the dilemma they see, which
seems to be responsible for the live-and-let-live reluctance of Americans
nowadays to pass judgment on behaviors that were widely considered abhorrent not
too many years ago, is the creation of "social scientists" who, like them, have
blurred the distinction between their roles as scientists, on the one hand, and
as private citizens on the other.
Social scientists, as I long noted in a handout to my students, are called
upon to analyze, explain, and/or understand social phenomena, not
to judge them. Therefore, a social scientist studying the Nazi movement,
for example, had better take into consideration that exterminating Jews was a
moral act to dedicated Nazis. As private persons, social scientists may, and I
hope do, strongly disapprove of this Nazi position, but unless they keep their
personal views under control while they study Nazis, they'll be doing propaganda
rather than social science.
Cultural relativism, as I always told my students, is an
indispensable analytical tool to the social scientist, not a principle to live
by. If as social scientists we're going to try to analyze, explain,
and/or understand why people behave in ways that we find strange or wrong,
we're going to have to relate to them by getting into their worlds. We can't
afford to ethnocentrically assume that our ways are the only right ways. But to
analyze, explain, and/or understand them social-scientifically
doesn't mean that we must personally condone what they do. As a
sociologist I think that I have some understanding of what Nazis, Ku Klux
Klansmen, and others of their kind believe and why they believe it, but my
understanding of them wouldn't keep the private citizen me from violently
opposing them.
There's no reason for anyone to allow important culturally rooted values to
which he subscribe to be undermined simply to accommodate people perceived to be
culturally different. If standing up for the core of our ways results in
conflict, so be it. Conflict may be unpleasant, but short of social engineering
to the point of a Skinnerian Walden II, I suspect that it will remain part of the
human condition. Personally, I have no faith in social engineering and I'm leery
of those who have a cultural vested interest in encouraging it. We think we're
right, they think they're right, and understanding the basis of our disagreement
isn't necessarily going to bring us together. One or both sides have to change,
and both sides might consider the costs of change too great. Politically, a
recognition of the relativity of culture need not encourage tolerance, unless as
the multiculturalists inconsistently assume, our culture is inferior to others
and we're expected to give in to those others.
|
| | |
|
