Patterns of Culture

 

 

1934

Our next ethical theory requires us to jump forward all the way to 1934. We will be walking through the halls of Columbia University in New York City. In particular, we will be visiting the anthropology department, where one of the characters in this story—Franz Boas—taught for 40 years. The reason for studying the ideas of Boas, as well as those of his students, will become apparent below. For now, let's prime our moral intuitions with an example.

In their popular (but controversial) book Sex at Dawn, Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá (2010: 90-91) report on the sexual practices of some Amazonian tribes. In some of these tribes, pregnancy is thought to be a condition that comes in degrees, as opposed to either being pregnant or not. In other words, the members of these tribes believe you can be "a little" pregnant. In fact, all sexually active women are a little pregnant. This is because they believe that babies are formed through the accumulation of semen. In order to produce a baby, a woman needs a constant supply of sperm over the course of about nine months. Moreover, the woman is free to acquire the semen from any available men that she finds suitable. It may even be encouraged to do so in order for the baby to acquire the positive traits of each of the men that contributes sperm. As such, perhaps the woman will seek out a man who is brave, a man who is attractive, a man who is intelligent, etc. All told, up to twenty men might contribute their seed to this pregnancy, and all twenty are considered the father.

This practice is called partible paternity, and it is not at all the way that paternity is viewed most everywhere else, especially for us in the West. We are privy to the way pregnancy actually works, and we readily distinguish between, say, the biological father and an adoptive father. But notice something interesting here. In my experience teaching, it is very rare that people judge the behavior of some of these Amazonian tribes to be immoral. Typically, students claim that it is ok for them to practice that "over there", but "over here" we do things differently. If you feel this way, then you might be a cultural relativist.

 

 

Boas and his students

The reason for this shift into the 20^th century is that the seeds of classical cultural relativism, the version of cultural relativism that we'll be studying, are found in the work of anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942). Boas was a groundbreaking anthropologist who is often referred to as the "Father of American Anthropology." In chapter 2 of The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker explains how Boas’ research led Boas to realize that the people of more primitive cultures were not in any way deficient. Their languages were as complicated as ours, allowing for complex morphology and neologisms (new words). Their languages were also rich in meaning and could be updated rapidly, as when new numerical concepts were adopted as soon as a society needed them. Although Boas still thought Western civilizations were superior, he believed that all the peoples of the world could rise to this level.

Boas was himself likely not a cultural relativist. He never expressed the particular views (which we will make explicit below) which are now known as classical cultural relativism. What he did express was a reluctance to definitively rank societies as either "more evolved" or "less evolved". Instead, he saw the members of different cultures as fundamentally the same kind of being, just ones with a different system of beliefs and ways of living. His students, however, took these ideas and morphed them. It was above all else Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), who like many other intellectuals were thrown into a moral panic after World War I, that developed what we now know as cultural relativism.

Comments on historical recurrences

Like many of the other moral discourses we've seen before, classical cultural relativism has its antecedents far back in history, as you'll see in the Storytime! below. Perhaps this is a good time to take note of these recurrences. Some form of social contract theory, also known as contractarianism, can be found, for example, in Glaucon's speech in Plato's Republic (4^th century BCE), in Hobbes' views on ethics and politics (17^th century), and in Rawls' works in the 20^th century.¹ Ethical egoism also pops up in various guises. It's in the work of Bernard Mandeville (early 18^th century) and the writings of Ayn Rand (20^th century). Divine command theory can be found in the character of Euthyphro in Plato's dialogue of the same name (4^th century BCE), in the work of theologians and philosophers of the medieval period such as Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham (13^th and 14^th century), and in recent work by Robert Adams. The virtue tradition also has been construed in various ways, beginning with Aristotle in the 4^th century BCE and recently in the work of Virginia Held and her ethics of care.

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of moral discourses. In fact, there are two very important theories that we've yet to cover. Also, it would be a mistake to assume that all theorists who can be lumped together into, say, social contract theory, all have identical views. Rather the point I want to make here echoes the point made by MacIntyre (2013, chapter 11): the moral discourses covered thus far can be distinguished by the sort of justification given for moral rules and by the type of moral logic that they use. For Plato and Aristotle, for example, the virtuous life is tied to the pursuit of certain goods (arete), which lead to a good life (eudaimonia). The key concept is good and the key judgments are about how well-fitted people are for certain roles. For divine command theorists, the sort of backing that is given to moral rules is that a divine being will reward you for following said rules and punish you for not. The key concept is thou shalt, and the key judgments express the consequences of reward and punishment. For contractarians, the backing for moral rules is that they are the best way to get most of what society needs—a view not only endorsed by Hobbes, but by ancient skeptics and sophists. The key concepts, as well as the judgments, have to do with means-end reasoning; i.e., moral behavior is simply a means to an end (that end being social order).

And so, by now it should be no surprise that the cultural relativism of the early 20^th century that we'll be studying has hints of it far back in history, for example in the works of Herodotus, Protagoras, and Zhuangzi. Moreover, cultural relativism has its own views on moral justification (i.e., culture) and a very unique take on moral logic (i.e., the relativistic notion of truth). Stay tuned.

 

Storytime!

 

Important Concepts

 

 

 

Decoding Relativism

 

Some comments

Perhaps the most important thing to clarify here is that classical cultural relativism assumes the relativistic notion of truth. It's not just the claim that different cultures do things differently. In other words, it's not merely the descriptive claim that different cultures have different moral codes. Rather, it is the claim that different actions might be truly morally permissible or impermissible in relation to the moral codes of different cultures. This implies that the sentence "Eating guinea pig is morally permissible", which contains the moral predicate morally permissible, is true for some cultures, e.g., in Peruvian gastronomy.

Relatedly, this is why accusing relativists of self-contradiction is a strawman argument. Relativists aren't saying that eating guinea pig is both ok and not ok. They're saying that eating guinea pig is ok for some cultures and not ok for others. Perhaps we can say that they are pluralists about truth, i.e., they believe that not all sentences are true in the same way. Although I don't want to get into pluralistic notions of truth here, the main point is this: if one is opposed to the relativistic notion of truth, then it's not obvious that the accusation of self-contradiction will work. There are some problems with relativistic truth, however. We won't cover them just yet. Stay tuned.

 

 

 

Cultural Practices from Around the World

Welcome to the intermission. In this section, we'll look at different cultural practices from around the world. The point of this activity is to challenge the cultural relativists, to make them see how difficult it really is to say that each culture can develop their own moral code. Warning: Some of the things you'll see here are graphic. However, this is the only way to show you the counterintuitive nature of CR. If you are sensitive, you may skip this section.

---

The Bathroom Ban of the Tidong (Indonesia)

An ancient custom of the Tidong tribe is to ban newlyweds from using the bathroom for three days after being married. Relatives go as far as staying with the newlyweds during this period of time to make sure that they don't eat or drink, or else they'll have to use the restroom. To break this taboo is considered bad luck on the marriage as well as the families of the newlyweds. I might add that holding in your urine causes bacteria build-up which is associated with urinary tract infections—and worse.

Is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

 

 

Living with the dead (Indonesia)

Is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

 

 

Dani Amputations (Papua New Guinea)

Is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

 

Baby Swinging (Russians in Egypt)

One of my mentors, a Russian physicist/philosopher, alerted me to this practice, which is thought to be a form of therapy in Russian alternative medicine circles. We can, it seems, refer to these alternative medicine practitioners as a sub-culture. I found a video of some Russians living in Egypt—part of a ploy to establish greater Russian influence in the region, according to some—engaging in this practice. See the video below:

Is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

 

 

Cannibalism (various)

There are various reports of cannibalism throughout history and even isolated tribes that still practice the eating of humans.

If cannibalism is performed as a way of honoring the dead, is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

 

 

Baby Throwing (India)

Both Muslim and Hindu parents engage in a baby throwing ritual in some parts of India. The baby drops about 30 feet, and is caught in a sheet by a group below. It is said to bring good luck. You can read more in this article or watch the video below.

Is this morally permissible for them?

 

---

Americans

If we are extending cultural relativism to include sub-cultures, this might include fringe groups. What would a relativist say about:

• anti-vaxxers?
• the Followers of Christ (Idaho), who reject modern medicine and rely solely on faith healing?
• Evangelical homeschoolers, who teach their children only creationism?

 

 

 

One problem....

Ultimately, though, CR does not address all of our concerns. In particular, it does not meet all of our desiderata of an ethical theory. Here is how. Joshua Greene gives what he calls the meta-morality argument: Cultural relativism answers the question of how morality works within a “tribe”, but it does not and cannot guide us on how morality should work between “tribes.” What Greene is pointing out is that CR does not resolve our moral debates. This is, in addition to being the most pressing problem in the 21st century, a failure to meet one of our desiderata from our checklist. It should be stressed that our desire that an ethical theory should resolve moral debates isn't merely a trivial nicety. We need to resolve the moral conflicts of our age. From the crisis of liberal democracies to globalization and the resurgence of fundamentalist religious factions, it is evident that we need a resolution on moral matters. CR fails to guide our actions on this front, and, hence, fails as a moral theory.

 

---

FYI

Suggested Reading: Gilbert Harman, Moral Relativism Explained

TL;DR: Crash Course, Metaethics

Supplementary Material—

• Reading: Theodore Gracyk, Relativism Overview

• Reading: James Rachels, The Challenge of Cultural Relativism

Related Material—

• Video: Steven Pinker: Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain

  • Note: A common analogy used by relativists is the language analogy: Moral systems vary as widely as language systems. This video introduces the viewer to some core concepts in linguistics.

• Video: Dr. Christopher Ryan discusses Partible Paternity

Advanced Material—

• Video: Noam Chomsky on Moral Relativism and Michel Foucault

  • Related Video: The School of Life, Michel Foucault

• Reading: Kenneth Taylor, How to be a Relativist

  • Note: This is a novel, psycho-functional approach to relativism. It is also a very challenging read. It's mainly here to demonstrate that there are various approaches to cultural relativism.

• Video: Common Sense Society, Roger Scruton on Moral Relativism

 

Footnotes

1. It's interesting to note that Hobbes also had a defense of relativism embedded in his views. Recall that Hobbes makes the case that we all decide what's right for ourselves when in the state of nature. In other words, we're all the arbiters of our own moral code. This is typically referred to as moral subjectivism. The view that we're covering today differs in that it is not individuals but cultures that determine the moral code we ought to follow.