Cultural relativism is the principle that a person's beliefs, values and practices should be understood in terms of that person's own culture, and not judged by the standards of another. Franz Boas established it in anthropology in the early 20th century as a response to Western ethnocentrism, and his students popularised it. It is first of all a method for understanding cultures, not a claim that every practice is morally right.
This note covers the meaning, origin, uses and criticism of cultural relativism for the UPSC Anthropology Optional. It falls under Paper I, topic 2.1 (ethnocentrism vis-à-vis cultural relativism) of the Anthropology Optional syllabus.
Key points at a glance
- Founder of the principle: Franz Boas, who stated the idea in 1887 but did not coin the term.
- Popularised by: his students, especially Ruth Benedict and Melville Herskovits.
- Opposite of: ethnocentrism.
- Two senses: a method of study (methodological relativism) and a doctrine about values (moral relativism).
- Test case: the American Anthropological Association's Statement on Human Rights, drafted by Herskovits.
- Critics: Julian Steward, Stanley Diamond, Elizabeth Zechenter.
- Defenders: Alfred Kroeber, Clifford Geertz, Alison Dundes Renteln.
Origin: Franz Boas and the response to ethnocentrism
In the 19th century, anthropologists ranked cultures on a single scale with Western society at the top. Franz Boas, trained in physics and geography, challenged this. In 1887 he wrote that "civilization is not something absolute, but is relative". The Boasians insisted that a society's customs and ideas should be described objectively and understood in the context of that society's own problems and opportunities.
Boas argued that culture limits perception in ways people do not notice. He understood culture broadly, as the totality of the mental and physical reactions and activities that characterise the behaviour of the members of a social group. This view sets the anthropologist two problems:
- how to escape the unconscious bonds of one's own culture, which bias perception;
- how to make sense of an unfamiliar culture.
Cultural relativism was the answer to both, and it forced anthropologists to develop new methods.
Cultural relativism as a method
- Ethnography. Boas and his students advocated living with the people of another culture for an extended period, learning the local language, and becoming at least partly enculturated.
- Language. Boas held that language is not only a means of communication but also a means of categorising experience. Different languages suggest different ways of ordering the world. This idea was developed later as the hypothesis of linguistic relativity.
- Context. A belief or custom takes its meaning from its place in the whole culture. As Virginia Heyer put it in 1948, cultural relativity "states the relativity of the part to the whole".
In this sense cultural relativism is an attitude of fundamental methodological importance: suspend judgement, and look for the local meaning first.
Cultural relativism and moral relativism
According to Marcus and Fischer, when the principle was popularised after the Second World War it came to be understood more as a doctrine than as a method. People took it to mean that all cultures are separate and equal and that all value systems are equally valid. That is moral relativism, and the two should not be confused.
| Basis | Cultural relativism (method) | Moral relativism (doctrine) |
|---|---|---|
| Claim | A practice must be understood in its cultural context | There are no universal moral standards; every value system is equally valid |
| Purpose | To understand | To evaluate, or to refuse to evaluate |
| Judgement | Suspended during study | Ruled out in principle |
| Position of anthropology | Accepted as a working rule | Rejected by most anthropologists |
Kluckhohn's clarification (1944)
Clyde Kluckhohn answered the fear that relativity weakens morality. Cultural relativity, he said, does not mean that because one group permits a practice, it is warranted for all groups. It means that a custom must be evaluated by how it fits with the group's other habits. Having several wives, for example, makes economic sense among herders but not among hunters.
He added that anthropology does not deny moral absolutes. The comparative method is a scientific means of discovering them: if all surviving societies impose some of the same restrictions on their members, those restrictions are probably indispensable. His formulation left one question open: can the moral standards of one society be applied to another?
The Statement on Human Rights
That question became urgent when the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was preparing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Melville J. Herskovits drafted a "Statement on Human Rights", which the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association revised and submitted to the Commission.
What the Statement argued
- Respect for the individual must include respect for the individual as a member of a social group whose way of life shapes his behaviour.
- A declaration meant for the whole world cannot be bound by the standards of any single culture. One written mainly from Western values would not convince the peoples of Asia and Africa.
- Standards of freedom and justice must rest on the principle that man is free only when he lives as his own society defines freedom.
Julian Steward's objection
Julian Steward, himself in the Boasian line, pointed to the flaw. Either anthropologists tolerate everything and keep their hands off, or they fight intolerance and conquest in all their forms. He asked whether the Statement meant that anthropologists approved of the caste system in India or racial discrimination in the United States.
Steward and others concluded that applying cultural relativism to moral problems ends in contradiction. A principle of tolerance is either used to excuse intolerance, or becomes intolerant of societies that do not value tolerance. Anthropologists, they said, should keep to science and debate values only as individuals.
Cultural relativism and universal human rights
The dilemma remains. When Western countries criticise practices elsewhere as violations of human rights, other countries reply that the West should not dictate its values. Is the West being ethnocentric? Or would a strong relativism make any universal standard impossible?
What is known is that all cultures have ethical standards but do not emphasise the same things: individual political rights or political order; private property or the sharing of resources.
| Scholar | Position |
|---|---|
| Elizabeth Zechenter | Against relativism. If tolerance is one universal principle, why not others? Relativism is often used to justify traditions that suit the powerful within a society; the victims are as much a part of the culture as those in power. Human rights treaties do not impose uniformity; they set a floor below which no society should fall. |
| Paul Rosenblatt | A middle path. Relativism can be a tool for change, because it is easier to persuade people whose values one understands. |
| Alison Dundes Renteln | Relativism is procedural, not substantive. It rests on enculturation: people unconsciously acquire the standards of their culture. A relativist need not give up his or her values, but must recognise that criticism of another culture comes from one's own cultural standards. |
Some governments have invoked cultural relativism to justify limits on the rights in the Universal Declaration. The World Conference on Human Rights rejected the use of cultural difference as an excuse for human rights violations.
Criticism of cultural relativism
- The logical criticism (Steward). Tolerance cannot be a universal value if there are no universal values.
- The moral criticism (Zechenter). Relativism can shield harmful practices and silence the weaker members of a society.
- The political criticism (Stanley Diamond). In popular use, relativism lost its critical edge. Diamond called it "the bad faith of the conqueror": a purely intellectual attitude that gives the anthropologist no moral centre and does not lead to engagement.
- The post-colonial criticism (George Stocking). A principle that once supported the attack on racism can be seen as a new way of justifying the backward economic status of formerly colonised peoples.
Defence of cultural relativism: Kroeber and Geertz
Alfred Kroeber (1949) accepted that relativism poses problems when we move from understanding the world to acting in it. But he held that only by starting from relativism and its tolerations can a new set of shared values be worked out, if that is attainable at all.
Clifford Geertz (1984), in a distinguished lecture to the American Anthropological Association, argued that critics and defenders were talking past one another. Each side offers a worry:
- relativists warn against provincialism, the narrowing of perception and sympathy by the over-valued assumptions of one's own society;
- anti-relativists warn against an "anything goes" attitude in which everything is as significant, and so as insignificant, as everything else.
Geertz found provincialism the more real danger. For him relativism is not a solution but a concern that should guide inquiry.
Using this topic in a UPSC answer
- Define cultural relativism and name Boas; contrast it with ethnocentrism in one line.
- Separate the method from the doctrine. This distinction earns the marks.
- Use the Statement on Human Rights and Steward's objection as the turning point.
- Give criticism and defence in balance: Diamond and Zechenter against, Kroeber and Geertz for.
- Add an Indian illustration, such as the debate on tribal customs and the policy choice between isolation and development.
- Conclude with the "floor" idea: understand every culture in its context, but hold that no culture may fall below basic human dignity.
Frequently asked questions
What is cultural relativism in anthropology?
Cultural relativism is the principle that the beliefs, values and practices of a people should be understood in the context of their own culture and not judged by the standards of another culture.
Who introduced cultural relativism?
Franz Boas established the principle in anthropology in the early 20th century, having stated the idea in 1887. He did not coin the term. His students, including Ruth Benedict and Melville Herskovits, popularised it.
What is the difference between cultural relativism and ethnocentrism?
Ethnocentrism judges other cultures by the standards of one's own and treats one's own as superior. Cultural relativism understands each culture in its own terms and treats no culture as inherently superior.
Is cultural relativism the same as moral relativism?
No. Cultural relativism is a method for understanding practices in their context. Moral relativism is the doctrine that there are no universal moral standards. Most anthropologists accept the first and reject the second.
Why is cultural relativism criticised?
Critics say it is self-contradictory to demand universal tolerance while denying universal values, that it can be used to excuse harmful practices and protect the powerful, and that it leaves the anthropologist without a moral position.
How does cultural relativism relate to human rights?
Strong relativism questions whether any universal standard of rights is possible. The common resolution is that human rights set a minimum floor for all societies, while cultural relativism remains a tool for understanding cultures and for persuading people in terms of their own values.
What did Clifford Geertz say about cultural relativism?
In his 1984 lecture, Geertz argued that relativists worry about provincialism while anti-relativists worry about an anything-goes attitude. He considered provincialism the more real danger and defended relativism as a guide to inquiry.