Cultural Relativism: Pros and Cons

Cultural Relativism: Pros and Cons

Cultural Relativism is an issue that can be traced throughout history and in various cultures.  Ethical values change among cultures and can be considered ethical or unethical depending on the type of person.  It is really something that is determined person to person but the idea of it has pros and cons.  Cultural Relativism allows people to have an open mind about other cultures and gives insight on the minds and actions of other people.  The theory also gives the reminder that we cannot judge other countries on their standards because it is based upon personal beliefs.  Although it can do these things, on the surface the idea of Cultural Relativism forms negative opinions about other cultures.  Our moral code is the “best” one and all others fail in comparison.  This harsh justification presents the idea that our way is and always will be the only way.

Okonkwo and the Igbo society from Things Fall Apart are a good representation of this theory.  Religious views and customs of the tribe formed the ethical code that ruled the clan.  Twins were evil and thrown into the Evil Forest, as well as those who contracted a certain disease.  A personal “chi” was the explanation for anything bad or good that occurred in the lives of their owners.  When the Christians arrived, they had their own set of morals that contrasted with the tribe. They rescued the twins and cared for them and believed in one sovereign God.  Instead of trying to understand the ways of the Igbo culture, they were determined to changing the sinful ways of the clan.  Okonkwo considered the Christians foolish and would not conform to their ways.  Both Okonkwo and the Christians thought that their ways were the best.  Okonkwo could not understand or accept the differences and chose death over change. 

In society today, we too have our own moral code.  What is considered “right” in other countries often is condemned in America.  We don’t believe in an “eye for an eye” or infanticide.  But those countries might not agree with our death penalty.  Different views and traditions play a role in cultural relativism and although there are disagreements, it all boils down to: “to each his own.”

The Question of Morality

The Question of Morality

Morality can often be a touchy subject.  It can have many definitions depending on how people view it.  Having “proper” morals is instilled in various religions and families but it is disconcerting to see that less and less people seem to carry high expectations for good morals.  Often an up-bringing can interfere or serve to shape the development of a person’s morals.  In the novel Wuthering Heights, the character of Heathcliff seems to have no real sense of morality.  He is pretty terrible to others and doesn’t care to treat people with genuine respect.  His childhood might have been influential in developing his lack of morals.  He was a gypsy “a wandering spirit” that was treated poorly by those who came in contact with him.  Later in his life he was rejected by the one person that he loved most which may have contributed to his vengeful actions towards other people.  Have you ever heard the phrase “treat others how you want to be treated?”  Since Heathcliff was not treated well, he took out his anger and inner heartbreak on those around him.  He has a lack of accountability for his life and actions and even ends up despising his own son.  This lack of morals tore down his life and reinforced the bad/evil persona that was carried with his “gypsy” origin. 

            In today’s society morals are needed to keep the world sane.  They present a level of respect among individuals and allow bonds and relationships to be formed.  Without a basic standard of morals people would not know what to expect from others or how to trust.  Many religions depend on the idea of morality.  For example, many branches of Christianity rely on people performing good deeds.  These deeds determine how well a person does in life or how well off they are after death.  Many different cultures have a different understanding of the concept of morals as well.  Some Muslim countries still carry the law of “an eye for an eye.”  In their society this practice is seen as just and fair. They believe that this is an ethical standard to solve problems.  In the end morality is an issue developed from person to person, based on background and up-bringing.  It is an issue that will continue to be questioned for many years to come.   

You Call Yourself a Hero?

“What is a society without a heroic dimension?”- Jean Baudrillard

The concept of a hero is something that is used in literary works as well as everyday life.  It is ingrained in society and will remain so for years to come.  The definition of heroism is established through the media and literature and can be found across a variety of cultures.  In essence, the broad guidelines of a hero remain the same, but the light in which it is viewed can differ greatly across regions.  The normal parameters for a hero include: bravery, a “larger than life” persona, as well as an action that is performed to help other people.  Literature is best at creating the perfect heroic figure.  Beowulf, for example is a quintessential hero down to his appearance and stamina.  He saved a kingdom from the wrath of Grendel and defeated a tireless dragon, all with his incredible strength and a single sword.  Literary figures often prove themselves by performing a grand deed, or saving thousands of lives. 

 In the United States, real-life heroes, such as firefighters and police officers often have the word “hero” associated with their job title.  Their career involves helping others, so they are considered brave and heroic in nature.  In some parts of Afghanistan, suicide bombers are seen as heroes.  They are doing something “for their country” and this sacrifice is a respected and heroic action.  For many people, this would not appear to be heroic on any level but different cultures have different ideas on the topic.  In our world today, heroes can be everyday people, but the media often defines who those heroes are.  We have all heard stories about the man who lifted a car off of a neighbor, but what if that man is an alcoholic who beats his wife at night.  Would he still be considered a hero?  “Heroic actions” are often seen as more important than good personality traits or good deeds done on a daily basis.  Ralph Waldo Emerson once said “A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is brave five minutes longer.”  Brave actions are glorified in our society and serve to keep the theme of heroism alive. I don’t believe that there will ever be a time when heroism is not a part of our society.  

Is Progression an Individual Effort?

Progress can be defined as:  movement, as toward a goal; advancement, development or growth.   Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead places an importance on the mobility of a nation through individuals.  Throughout the novel, Rand explores this idea of progression most with the character of Howard Roark.  Roark’s accomplishments are true acts of an individualist.  His buildings are, in Ayn Rand’s eyes, the only suitable kind of progress in society.  His buildings come from his mind, without the influence of others.  Masses don’t contribute to the growth of society, individuals do.  This theory, in my opinion, does not serve to be true in today’s society. 

A country’s growth has a lot to do with the achievements of a group of people, not just a few individuals. Without the contributions of a number of people, we would be nowhere. Our society is dependent on collaboration and the progress that can be made by it.   Think of an idea as a tree.  If only one person contributes to an idea, the tree stays as a single trunk.  But once the idea is added to or made better by a number of people, the tree grows branches.  Those branches aid in the tree’s survival, much like the progression of a good idea in society. 

In the Fountainhead, Roark achieves his goal of erecting buildings of his pure design.  For Roark, these buildings “change” society, and he believes that they are a step in the right direction for the progress of society.  This does not appear to be true when looked at on a broader scale.  His society sees the buildings as a distraction, as a set-back because they believe that the work of a single individual is selfish.  I think that some of their ideas are true. When ideas cannot be reformed for the time they are useless.  For example, the telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, with the help of his assistant Thomas A. Watson.  And once that idea became known, over many years people came up with new models and versions of the phone because technology was progressing.  Without the collaboration and building off of that idea, the telephone might still be the same as the model in the 1880’s. Although one individual might think up an idea, collaboration and the work of others is needed to make the idea flourish.  So the ultimate question: Is progression an individual effort, would have to be answered as “no”.  It takes a generation of people and ideas to grow, not the work of a single person.