>Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual person's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture.
>It was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students.
>Cultural relativism
>axiomatic
>X relativism necessitates non-X relativism
Let me get this straight, if you believe that taste in music is relative, then you must also be a moral relativist, right?
Why is it always the fucking jews
>an individual person's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture
What's wrong with this?
Oh wait you posted a le white culture statue, you must be one of those people
>dude a mud hit and the statue of David are the same there's no difference opinions don't reflect anything nothing is anything quality doesn't exist my inner life is a cultural, artistic, and aesthetic void guess everyone else's is too LOL :^)
I dropped out of studying anthropology because 90% of textbooks was shit like Boas, aka mental gymnastics about how Papuan cannibals are equal to European people, it literally went from a promising new science to institutional academic cuckoldry.
i don't know why people equates "understand" with "condone". must be a liberal thing
if you understand properly how a person behaves based on his cultural context and motivations you can for example torture him better at interrogation room, or avoid diplomatic gaffes. what's wrong with that
There is nothing wrong with that
This is why conservatives consistently fail. They operate on the assumption that everyone shares their values and beliefs.
Kill yourself
Some tried to smack down cultural relativism by claiming that eating at McDonald's is morally superior to eating your fallen enemies in an objective sense, then people pointed out that eating at McDonald's causes more destruction and suffering than snacking on dead soldiers ever could.
This is why you need cultural relativism.
Oh there we go:
alternet.org
It's 10 years old but it's as relevant today as it was back then.
Would you rather enjoy some revisionistic nationalist cock strocking to deal with your insecurities?
great argument
cultural relativism is right
it's just not always practical
I think the problem is that people equate understanding how a certain culture developed that way with, considering all cultures equal. Cultures are not equal at all. Some are clearly more advanced. However I think it can be helpful in understanding s culture to divorce yourself momentarily from your own culture in order to understand how something as crazy as cannibalism or human sacrifice could even begin to make sense. It also helps you figure out how your own culture developed the way it did.
>abbo culture is just as worthy and valid as ancient Greek culture
How is that implied at all?
The whole point of is CONTEXT.
It's not about creating a yardstick where everything is measured on equal terms but within their OWN CONTEXT.
Unless you subscribe to some backward whiggish view of history as being linear...
I think the problem is that many people find it hard to detach themselves from their own beliefs and see through someone else's eyes.
An example would be the people who throw a hissy fit when they hear the word "degenerate". They are completely unable, or unwilling, to see the world through the eyes of the non-degenerate. It's not even about the individual belief in question, it's that the hissy fit thrower feels that by having his beliefs criticized he personally is attacked. The Buddha talks about something similar, with people falsely believing their beliefs and culture are an inherent part of and defining trait of them.
>get told my culture is shit exclusively by people of my culture
>get told that they cant be wrong and I cant be right when judging a culture because I am a part of culture
>some retard online thinks I want cultural supremacy when I really just to explore other cultures
Clearly it's not linear apart from the fact that culture has been going steadily downhill since antiquity
>yfw Socrates was right from the start
because some ideas can't be translated in that way or else they lose a lot, or all of their meaning.
this is already apparent within different European groups where some ideas simply don't translate well at all.
its even harder when societies have absolutely no basis for understanding an idea and any attempts to explain it in their cultural context leads to something completely different.
culture is an abstract concept. that much is pretty obvious. it isn't real and it's not an actual thing. you should have used their own preference for relativism against them
some conservatives are like that. i'm certainly not. though i'm not considered a conservative by most modern conservatives but i certainly share some of their beliefs.
i have my personal preferences and in my opinion, plenty of cultures are garbage.
And progressivism does not fail? Lel
It has only failed when conservatives use violence to get what they want instead of controlling academia and the culture of a society
You are completely misinterpreting this.
How could one even begin to understand a culture by assuming the values of a different culture upon it?
If you see an African boy walking down the street with an assault rifle, would you assume he was just going out for a nice day at the range like he would be if he was an American?
How would you even begin to understand practices that are foreign to your culture? How would you study something like human sacrifices if you are from a western country?
What I think you are talking about is, can we make a value judgement of the actions influenced by cultures of other people?
I would say we can, and regularly do.
Cultural relativism is fine, it's just obvious.
Moral relativism is the problem. Either morals are not relative, or there's nothing worth calling "morals".
Cultural relativism means there is no order of rank among cultures, which is patently false. Some cultures are empirically and creatively superior to others. That's why they endure, and that's why mankind experiences a golden age whenever they are revived
>Some cultures are empirically and creatively superior to others. That's why they endure, and that's why mankind experiences a golden age whenever they are revived
Well sure, if you precisely define "superior" and "golden age", you are almost certainly right. But why should anyone care about those definitions? In the end, it's about morals.
Cultural relativism doesn't talk about translating cultural ideas into a different culture, only that ideas and actions are better understood within the cultural context it takes place under.
Why do academics always try to be objective? Everything should be understood in terms of your own culture, because that's who you are. You aren't a robot, you're allowed to have opinions and act upon them.
It's not as simple as that. Nobody can actually exist while thinking that their beliefs are unimportant and it would be fine if they were different.
Subjectivity necessarily leads to the projection of objectivity. It's a strange phenomenon that is either just a quirk of language, or a clue that there really is something objective we are vaguely accessing.
Go ahead and order them and everyone will tell you why you're wrong
Right, that's what I'm advocating. You should state your opinions confidently as if they were fact, otherwise what's the point of having them? Trying to be objective just results in constructing an artificial subjective opinion which is usually bland and ineffectual.
Because when one is not objective, they tend to make a lot of assumptions that might not match up with reality.
No one said you aren't allowed opinions, but they are best reserved for when a clear understanding has been reached.
Explain to me how the act of speaking confidently makes an opinion any closer to a fact in anything but the mind of a person ignorant on the subject.
Literally
1. Ancient Rome
2. Ancient Greece
3. Ancient Egypt
4. Renaissance Italy
And way down below is everything else
George Orwell wrote a little about this in an essay on anti-semitism
>I defy any modern intellectual to look closely and honestly into his own mind without coming upon nationalistic loyalties and hatreds of one kind or another. It is the fact that he can feel the emotional tug of such things, and yet see them dispassionately for what they are, that gives him his status as an intellectual.
orwell.ru
Moral relativism is the same thing as cultural relativism
By ignoring your own instinctive beliefs you castrate yourself and accomplish nothing.
>eternal anglo apologizing for the eternal yid
Wew
The vast majority of the time, arguments aren't won by facts.
What if the things my instincts tell me to do are objectively wrong for my life goals?
What if my instincts tell me to do heroin and eat chocolate until I'm 600 lbs?
Should I do it?
Not under those circumstances, no.
You say that like there is no truth in this universe.
If I argue that steel makes an effective axe head, and you argue that it doesn't, even if you win that argument and convince others of it, are you right?
What happens when I start making the best axe heads and you are still smacking trees with rocks?
Well, I guess they can't always be trusted then.
Most arguments aren't over things that can be readily demonstrated. Why would you argue about something you can see?
They can sometimes, though.
>Why would you argue about something you can see?
Because your life experiences might make you see it differently from me.
What is your system for determining whether or not a specific instinct is in your best interest or not?
If you need a "system", you're probably autistic. You're a human, act like one.
>If you see an African boy walking down the street with an assault rifle, would you assume he was just going out for a nice day at the range like he would be if he was an American?
Guns are regarded as simple tools in many part of the world so often teen are given the responsibility to owning weapons to defend the livestock/house area.
Going gunless in that scenarios is 100x stupider then letting yourself be vulnerable to theives or wildlife attacking your herd.
You obviously have some method to determine that 'heroin=bad' but 'cultural tribalism=good'. I chose to call that method a system, but you can use any other word you would like.
Exactly. That's the type of observation that can only be made through the eyes of the culture of that society.
I don't think cultural relativism is arguing that mud huts and the statue of David are the same, user. It's merely the acknowledgement that people will grow up with different views on what is moral/aesthetic/etc and that should be accounted for. It doesn't literally mean "absolutely everything is all equal 100%".
>You're a human, act like one.
Are you serious nigga? Humans fucking LOVE systems. We're all about categorizing shit. Even stuff that doesn't fit into systems and categories, we do it anyway. We look for patterns, and when there isn't one we invent one.
Have to agree with this. Its like a biological imperative
>Antifa
>BLM
>reconquista project
> implying the left does not have a monopoly on violence too.
Left wing death squads are more historically true or at least there's been more of them as far as I know.
Monopoly means only one entity has it you mongoloid
quality of music is objective
Quality sure. How "good" it is is not
monopoly means > 50% dipshit
left wing death squads have been more common and destructive throughout history. just look at the french and bolshevik revolutions
No you are wrong
Beethoven > Nicki Minaj objectively
>2016
>not being a cultural darwinist
>not seeing culture as a survival technique for macro societies that it is
>not taking a utilitarian perspective on what cultural standards we should implement in our society
It's like you're all retarded.
Objective would imply that this can be proven in a meaningful, empirical sense. It cannot. The best you can hope for is to change the culture's ideas on aesthetics, making the framework support Beethoven over mediocre pop music.
Monopoly means one entity is totally dominant. The "mono" part is a dead giveaway. And even if you were right, 2 entities cant both have >50% share of the same thing at the same time
I agree but it is not objecitve
Yes you should because that would simply mean your natural instincts is to be a failure of a human being.
The truth is you should act on Instinct, Experience and Knowledge.
Instinct is you base. your support structure.
Experience is an ever growing pillar and indeed time erodes this as you forget.
Knowlede is the jewel placed atop. Though precious It is small and also fleeting.
Ergo, instinct will only remain should you go mad/ become primitive/old/destitute.
Enjoy my flowery words fuckface.
>in anthropological research
You're an idiot. It's treated as axiomatic for such research because you wont get useful information if you're reflecting the mores of another culture through your own.
>How would you study something like human sacrifices if you are from a western country?
Well vast majority of westerners are Christians so there shouldn't be any problems.
what part of 'understood in terms of own culture' means 'every product of culture is equally the greatest achievement on earth'?
i think you may have misunderstood the textbook
>culture
what did he mean by this?
Most people prefer pop music to classical music.
Many will deny it, because of peer pressure and our culture of "guilty pleasure", as if you liking something should in any way make you feel inferior.
Nicki Minaj is a superior artist and musician, and has inspired more people than Beethoven. More people like her work. More people remember it and can reproduce it adequately. It sells more products. Its easier to recognize. Its more uplifting. People would rather listen to it than any classical track.
Your forgetting the simple fact Nicki minaj has international exposure the likes of which the world before has never seen Beethoven became popular because of his raw talent and the luck of knowing aristocrats. How many Chinese people would know his name in the time period? zero.
How about now? he died in 1827. His work is still remembered. What about Chesney Hawk, think he'll be remembered in 200 years time? thought not.
Nicki Manaj will be remembered 100 years tops, and even then only by her living fanbase.
Screen-cap this post for 3016, Beethoven will still be relevant and considered a classic along with the space jam song, twisted sister, run DMC and Frank sinatra.
Nicki Minaj will be one that fades and dies out of memory along with you, you hedonistic, narcissistic twat.
>empirically superior
What the fuck is that even supposed to mean.
You're making the fallacy of equating evolutionary progress with moral superiority. Which is exactly what cultural relativism was arguing against, which you would know if you actually had any shit clue about the topic at hand.
Because science is per definition objective. If you don't believe in objectivity then you're not doing science. Further if you reject objectivity as postmodern anthropologists do, then any sort of epistemology becomes pointless.
There are plenty of academic fields who don't try to be objective at all.
It's waste of time tho, be a cultural relativist, but the majority of people simply won't.
Until very recently, the European was right was explicitly Christian if not outwardly anti-Jewish.
For this reason, Jews traditionally supported progressive causes or non-traditionalist right-wing movements like libertarianism.
That isn't what cultural relativism means at all
Who said anything about evolution you idiot? Empirically superior means the people who belong to that culture are materially, mentally and creatively superior. They are happier, stronger, longer lived and more prosperous. Get over yourself. Most human culture isn't worth shit. High culture is for the few.
What a fucking idiot
cultural relativism in itself isnt necessarely bad.
But when used as an excuse for the dindu behaviour of niggers and mudslimes it's cancer
>Not having Minoan Crete in you top 4
kys
him and 95% of everyone over 50
That not it though.
That's a lot of speculative, non-evidence there. Are you sure you're not actually an idiot?
His work is remembered...that doesn't make it more relevant. You're argument ends when you acknowledge that Nikki Minaj is in fact more popular than Beethoven.
you're missing the point.. the idea is that TO ABORIGINES, boomerangs and fire are great accomplishments. to europeans, statues and legacies are great accomplishments. it doesn't mean they are equal in any sense, intellectual or physical requirement to create them. but one must understand that abos see achievement in a different way
To say that nothing transcendental sets one culture higher than another is not the same thing as the oft-added liberal addendum that "thus all cultures must be respected".
You could theoretically declare Holy War against all who disagree with you and not contradict relativism.
Once again, Veeky Forums is really butthurt over something that it knows nothing about.