In Patterns of Culture, the anthropologist Ruth Benedict puts the matter this way:
The vast proportion of all individuals who are born into any society always and whatever the idiosyncrasies of its institutions, assume, as we have seen, the behaviour dictated by that society [emphasis added]. This fact is always interpreted by the carriers of that culture as being due to the fact that their particular institutions reflect an ultimate and universal sanity. The actual reason is quite different. Most people are shaped to the form of their culture because of the enormous malleability of their original endowment. They are plastic to the molding force of the society into which they are born. It does not matter whether, with the Northwest Coast [that is, the Kwakiutl Indians of the Pacific Northwest], it requires delusions of self-reference, or with our own civilization the amassing of possessions. In any case the great mass of individuals take quite readily the form that is presented to them.1
The fact that interpreters of a culture regard its institutional values to be objectively true, that is, to “reflect an ultimate and universal sanity,” only shows their ignorance of cultural relativity. Study of cultural differences always reveals values quite different from those of one's own culture—for example, the Dobuans place a high value upon successful thievery, the Japanese look upon suicide as an honorable way to end one's life, the ancient Greeks approved of infanticide, the Arapesh do not value aggressiveness, the Yanamamo definitely do value it, and the Tschambuli believe that women should provide the food so that men can carve, paint, and dance. Examples of such value differences can be multiplied endlessly.
Recognition of cultural relativity does not do away with values altogether, since every culture necessarily inculcates values in its members; but it does deny the existence of a final, objectively true answer to the question, What is the Good Life? There is, of course, nothing wrong with adhering to the moral customs of our own culture. Yet we also should be tolerant of the moral customs in other cultures as well—given “the coexisting and equally valid patterns of life which mankind has created for itself from the raw materials of existence.”2
Controversies: Some Objections and Possible Replies
(Note About Objections and Possible Replies: You should look upon the objections and possible replies as opportunities for further thought rather than as definitive statements. Holders of the original position are not likely to be overwhelmed by the objections; and critics of the original position are not likely to be convinced by the possible replies. These objections and possible replies accomplish a proper goal if they push you to think more deeply about an issue, leading you to seek more clarity and justification in drawing your own conclusions.)
(1) Reason and Experience as Ways of Transcending Cultural Influences
The fact that different cultures have different values does not of itself preclude the possibility that one value is superior to another. To preclude the possibility definitely, you would have to show that any value is held solely because of cultural influences. It happens however that we can sometimes justify values on the basis of reasons or experience without being simply bound by the dictates of our culture. For example, recognition of the value of food as a means to survival is not just a quirk of our own culture. Sometimes we even may assert values on the basis of reason and experience that are contrary to the basic values of our culture. Ruth Benedict, for example, asserts that “amassing of possessions” is a fundamental value of U. S. society; yet we may reject this value on the basis of reason and experience—as indeed some critics do, in calling for possession of fewer material goods and less consumption of resources .
A Possible Reply: Reasoning does not occur in a vacuum; experience is not simply raw, uninterpreted data. In actuality, we reason about our experience; and our experience is always culturally influenced. Suppose, for example, that we send two nineteen-year-olds to see an X-rated movie—the one a typical United States teenager and the other someone raised entirely in an Amish community. We then ask them to describe their experience while viewing the movie. What likelihood is there that they would report the same experience? Very little, precisely because their experience is culturally influenced. So reason and experience are not really ways of transcending one's culture.
(2) Commonly Shared Values
Beneath any observed cultural differences lie many commonly shared values simply because of the need for survival in all cultures. For example, food, procreation, education of the young, work, and some amusement will have value; whereas acts of murder will have disvalue. (Even if a society does not punish persons for some acts of murder, it cannot allow indiscriminate acts of murder to occur continually without restriction.) Any social group that rejects these commonly shared values is not simply exhibiting the peculiar characteristics of its culture; rather it must be exhibiting a reaction to desperate conditions of life, such as mass starvation perhaps, that seem to make the commonly shared values irrelevant to their situation. In such circumstances, the facts of experience rather than cultural influence are primary in altering values.
A Possible Reply: Although we can establish commonly shared values by making our terms vague and general, such an approach is not very instructive in understanding values. It is not helpful to talk about work as a value. We need to know more about the kinds of work that are preferred and the division of labor among sexes and age groups. Once we look into these details, we start to understand the significance of cultural influences in establishing values.
(3) Decreasing Cultural Relativity
Cultural relativity is a matter of degree; and greater awareness of cultural differences leads to less relative value judgments and, hence, to sounder values. For example, study of many cultures leads to acceptance of values such as tolerance, human dignity, and the right to life; and to rejection of values such as murder, cruelty, and cannibalism. These acceptances and rejections, in so far as they are based upon study of many cultures, are not as relative as the values of an isolated society that does not take cultural differences into account. In other words, as we increase the range of experience we bring to bear in making value judgments, we are more likely to increase the soundness of our judgments.
A Possible Reply: We can formulate values on the basis of study of different cultures. Yet we have no assurance that these values can be imported into a society lacking them in such a way that they are morally correct for that culture. Plenty of evidence exists to show the disastrous consequences of introducing supposedly “superior” western values (based presumably on study of different cultures) into “primitive” societies.
4.0 According to cultural relativists, values vary with the culture. Can you give some examples of values important to you because of your cultural upbringing that you would not have, had you been reared in another culture? Can you give examples of some values important to you that you would still have, even if you were reared in a different culture?
4.1 Anthropologist Ruth Benedict asserts that “the vast proportion” of individuals take on the values of their society. Yet she does not say that all of them do. Is the fact that some individuals, so-called “deviants,” do not take on the values of their culture sufficient in itself to disprove cultural relativity?
4.11 The possible reply to objection (1) makes use of the example of two nineteen-year-olds from very different cultural backgrounds viewing an X-rated movie and describing the experience. Now suppose that the objector responds by asserting that this example does not really prove anything because the initial objection does not entail the claim that experience is never culturally influenced. The fact that some experiences are culturally influenced does not establish that all are or that all are, to the same degree. Hence there can be values based on experience where the significance of cultural influences is minimal. How would you evaluate this response to the reply?
4.12 Evaluate the various objections to cultural relativity mentioned here. Be sure to consider the possible replies cultural relativists may make. Which is the strongest objection? The weakest? Would you offer other objections besides those mentioned in the text? If so, what are they? What is your general evaluation of the position of cultural relativity?
1. Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (New York. Mentor Books, 1959, pp. 220-221.
2. Ibid., p. 240.
Return to Start Page
Return to Philosophical Issues Page