Definition of Cultural Relativism

This stream of anthropological thought was founded by Franz Boas at the beginning of the 20th century after the publication of his book "The mind of primitive man”, Where he establishes that there are no hierarchies between human populations and that the differences between a society and another is not given by what has been called "race", but by the variety in the manifestations cultural.

Boas's proposal is particularly interesting because at the time it was revolutionary, it arose at a time when Unilinear evolutionism reigned among scientific studies and permeated the political decisions that were made in the world; So when Boas develops these ideas he not only turns the nascent anthropology institutionalized, it was also challenging heads of state and economic powers.

To give strength to explanations of cultural relativism, context is considered to be the key, that is, each culture should be described in its own terms. terms and from its own history, for that it is necessary to know the language and the particular historical processes of the interest group, with this we could understand the way in which human beings of this or that group act without falling into the judgments given by our own worldview, by our own interpretation of reality. With this

methodology A critique of ethnocentrism is also made in mind, understanding this term as the idea that one's own culture develops in a more effective than others or that possesses better qualities and, therefore, a "true" reading of human reality or what man "should" be as species.

In summary, this proposal could be enunciated in a powerful phrase: all cultures are valuable and there are no levels or hierarchies between them. There is no better culture than another, nor are there some more evolved than others.

Principles, debates and examples

The arguments of cultural relativism are of great importance today, seeing that waves of intolerance continue to rise around the world. Taking this perspective would allow us to realize that other forms of life are valid, for example: there are human groups that do not need to live established in the style of towns or cities, however, state governments continue to propose reforms or programs to congregate them, this is the case of the Yuman groups of northern Mexico, who have a very old tradition of great mobility and scattered settlements.

For the Yumans, the idea of ​​living in a defined and permanent town does not agree with the way in which they relate to their environment, the desert, where the resources they are better used depending on the season and the place, therefore, staying in a single point would represent a constant scarcity, in addition the way in which they are socially organized, which is defined by lineages, does not allow them to a coexistence peaceful in the long run. However, there are still efforts by the federal authorities for the Yumans to establish themselves in towns, practice agriculture or beekeeping and in this way inserted into a national economic dynamic, that is, there is still no recognition by the State that the worldview of the Yumans is competent in the context current.

It is important not to take these ideas to the extreme and justify practices of abuse of Human Rights under the argument that the autonomy of the populations is being respected. When a custom or tradition is repudiated or challenged by the very members of the culture in which it is carried out, So it is time to reflect on our role as external agents. Should we remain neutral or respond to the calls of help? This question is not easy to answer and does not have the same answer for different contexts, but something that can guide our resolutions is to recognize that traditions change and at least the duty of the anthropologist is to trace the development of this.

To illustrate a couple of such situations we have the cases of female genital mutilation that is carried out in Africa and the use of the hijab in Iran; In the first case there is a division between a part of the population who wants to preserve the tradition and another who seeks to save her daughters from it, to resolve the issue there have even been meetings with the population involved but an agreement is not reached, this has not been a limitation for there to be international efforts that seek to eliminate these mutilations.

In the second case, there is a majority of women who rebel against the forced and strict use of certain clothing, their expressions of rejection have been ignored, which has led to an increase in the violence for them, it has even spread to other sectors of the population, for example with the interruption of the signals of Wifi in Iran to prevent the resonance of their displeasure from reaching international levels.

In both cases there are various factors at stake, but the one that is immediately identified has to do with religion and moral that each group considers the correct one, but how are these principles established? Where do they come from if an important part of the human group they affect is so discontent? What to do with cultural values ​​that transgress human dignity? Where would we put the line between respect for cultural diversity and indifference to suffering?