Thursday 2 February 2017

Truth is Variable - Cultural Relativism Part 2

Going the way that suits our circumstance. Copyright Janet Cameron

Cultural relativism is just a small step away from cultural ethics. (To see the Intro to this article, pleae go to Why Can't We Agree:  Cultural Relativism Part 1
The cultural relativists believe that truth is variable and cannot be absolute. This belief discredits ethical issues of right or wrong. Everything is - quite simply - as it is! Cultural norms are a matter of opinion, and one culture cannot be less worthy than another - not even if that culture practises human or animal sacrifice.
"Cultural Relativism" in All About Philosophy mentions an event in January 2002. President Bush described terrorist nations, collectively, as "an axis of evil." This incensed the cultural relativists. The West, they felt, had no right to cast a judgement on Islam. Even suicide bombings could not be described as evil. They were, simply, a result of a human culture.
Steven Pinker, in "Culture Vultures" in The Blank Slate, says that sometimes we view the development of culture in the wrong way. "The best explanation today... depends on seeing a culture as a product of human desires rather than as a shaper of them."
There is a good reason for this.
The geography of the land can influence culture, as people seek what is most useful to them. 

Maps have to Simplify - and All Maps Distort

It may be useful to look at our Model as a sort of map. The main point is that the model that we choose to live our lives by, should be the one that is most useful to us. On the other hand, we must accept that sometimes things don't work out as we have planned.
As Howard Damrstadter points out, "People in different situations with different needs may opt for different, and conflicting, models. We must each settle for those simplifications that suit our particular circumstances, accepting that occasionally the roast will burn, the investment sour, the article be rejected... No one map or model can get it all right."
We must be aware that, apart from differences in perception, we also have psychological limits in the way our personal models operate. From time to time, our own models will prove defective. Although these models may prove effective for us in most situation, occasional defective experiences do not affect our overall perspective. But, imagine how much more defective our models might be for a different person in a different situation operating under a different model.
In a small group or tribe, slight differences may not cause major problems. The disagreement is exacerbated when dealing with models in a global society where others needs conflict strongly with our own.

An Analysis of Cultural Differences

It might be helpful to remind ourselves of the background against which philosophy measures the challenging implications of cultural relativism.
In "Culture Vultures" Pinker includes a quotation from the economist, Thomas Sowell, that informed Sowell's trilogy of works, Race and Culture, Migrations and Cultures and Conquests and Cultures.
"A culture is not a symbolic pattern, preserved like a butterfly in amber. Its place is not in a museum but in the practical activities of daily life, where it evolves under the stress of competing goals and other competing cultures. Cultures do not exist as simply static 'differences' to be celebrated but compete with one another as better and worse ways of getting things done - better and worse, not from the standpoint of some observer, but from the standpoint of the people themselves, as they cope and aspire amid the gritty realities of life."
It is easy to see where difficulties arise, as cultures compete among themselves. Some may do better than others. We may applaud diversity but at the same time, we must acknowledge our discontent if another culture works better than ours by achieving more material success.

No Llamas or Alpacas in Mexico!

Sometimes, success is partly due to excellence in science, art or technology, but it can also be assisted by geographical elements. An example cited by Pinker is the huge landmass of Eurasia which stretches in an east-west direction, making it much easier for crops and animals to survive and for trade to prosper because it enjoys a steadier climate along a similar line of latitude.

Landmasses such as Africa and the Americas, however, run north to south. is the huge landmass of Eurasia which stretches in an east-west direction making it much easier for crops and animals to survive and for trade to prosper because it enjoys a steadier Landmasses such as Africa and the Americas, however, run north to south.
Pinker says, "...llamas and alpacas domesticated in the Andes never made it northward to Mexico, so the Mayan and Aztec civilizations were left without pack animals."
This is why Eurasian countries invaded and conquered so much of the world, not because Eurasians are cleverer or cannier, "but because they could best take advantage of the principle that many heads are better than one," says Pinker.

The Big Problem for Philosophy

The big problem is that we cannot always convert other people to our own way of thinking. We cannot persuade them to adopt our model when their wants and needs are so different from our own. "A multi-model understanding tells us that such differences may make conversion unlikely."
Howard Darmstadter concludes his article "Why We Can't Agree" on a note of hope. He claims that we must not give up on conversation, that we must keep on trying.
We can still look for "...mutally beneficial accommodations that are possible even when models differ." Steven Pinker says - almost - the same thing from his own viewpoint, or "model."

"...our understanding of ourselves and our cultures can only be enriched by the discovery that our minds are composed of intricate neural circuits for thinking, feeling, and learning rather than blank slates, amorphous blobs, or inscrutable ghosts."

No comments:

Post a Comment