Cultural Relativism

The article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” by James Rachels gives insight into the theory of cultural relativism, but also argues against it. Cultural Relativism is the idea that nothing is right or wrong, except relative to the beliefs of the culture one lives in. It argues that we therefore should not be prejudiced against the ideas of another culture because there is no overreaching moral standard by which we can judge whether another’s actions are right or wrong. This idea directly relates to the text we read this month Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. In this novel an African tribe was infiltrated by British missionaries who attempted to convert the Africans into their beliefs. One of the main questions raised by the story was whether or not any culture has the right or the authority to claim their beliefs better than that of another. The British were horrified that the Africans killed all twins that were born and believed in multiple gods. Likewise, the Africans could not understand how one god could cover all the responsibilities. What this book and Cultural Relativism both argue is that not understanding one culture’s practices does not make them wrong, nor does it give anyone the right to attempt to change the practices on this premise.

This does not only happen in stories but in our own society. There are so many examples in our own society of one group of people feeling superior to another based on beliefs. One of the most prominent examples of this is with religion. Instead of respecting the beliefs of someone who practices a different religion than us, we often become prejudiced against them or try to convert them into our own beliefs. We automatically assume that our ideas are right and theirs are wrong, and they often assume the same from the other side. However, as this article so eloquently states, “our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth, they may be nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning.” In the words of the ancient Greek Herodotus, “Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.” If we step back and recognize that this is the case, it might be a lot easier to be accepting, or at least tolerant, of other religions that we encounter.

When reading this article I mostly agreed with the author’s perspective. I did find some insight to be gained from the theory of Cultural Relativism, especially the idea that there is no objective set of rules that could deem one practice right and another wrong. However, I also saw clearly its flaws in the idea that there are some things that, whether or not we can objectively consider them right or wrong, we should not be tolerant of in our world. This includes things like the Holocaust, where we could not possibly step back and allow Germany to annihilate an entire people just because we cannot judge their actions as “wrong”. I also liked Rachels’ idea that there are certain values that span all cultures simply because they are necessary for survival. They include caring for their young, valuing truth, and not allowing murder. Without each of these, the community would die out or fall apart. Reading this article gave me a new perspective on how to view other societies, and was a bit condemning as it is true that I often do automatically assume my own beliefs to be right without taking others into consideration. There is much to be learned about tolerance from the theory of Cultural Relativism, even if it does have flaws.

Is revenge the answer?

This month has been spent covering tragedies in English class. We read Oedipus and Hamlet, both of which were tragic plays. However, despite having the same genre label, the idea of tragedy was presented very differently. In Oedipus, the tragic ending was due to a fate assigned to Oedipus by the gods. Hamlet’s tragic ending, however, is arguably due to his reluctance and hesitance to kill his uncle. When discussing this in class, it was argued that if Hamlet had just chosen to kill his uncle earlier on instead of hesitating, he might have saved his own life, as well as that of Polonius, Ophelia, his mother and Polonius’ son Laertes. This is not my opinion, however. I do not think that revenge is always the right path, even if it is justified. In Hamlet’s case, it is clear that revenge would be seen as “justified” since his uncle killed his father and married his mother to gain the throne. The play makes it seem like the only possible solution to solve this is complete and total revenge, a life for a life. I do not think this is necessary or commendable. All throughout the play God is mentioned and it is clear that Christianity is valued. How then could revenge be acceptable? The Bible clearly states that we are to turn the other cheek when someone wrongs us. While I do not think the play would have been very interesting had Hamlet chosen this route, it does not make any sense for him to attempt to kill the king “in the name of God.” I think that this clearly shows how the values of our society in general have shifted to being less accepting to the idea of revenge. In Shakespearian times, it was glorified, but now it is frowned upon. If the same Christian values and Bible are still being used, how did this happen?

In Shakespeare’s time, the ideal man was courageous and headstrong, he was Christian, but also searched for glory, and demanded his rightful place in the world. Today, we more often glorify the hero who is humble and gentle, who stands up for what is right by doing what is right. In Hamlet’s case, this would mean standing up to his uncle without killing him. Is it not true that Hamlet had other options? He chose the path of complete revenge, but did he not also have the option to expose the king and exile him, or throw him in jail? His narrow-minded approach to the situation shows that killing was far more acceptable in their society than it is in ours. There are moments, however, where Hamlet resembles more of a modern day tragic hero, like when he over thinks his plan to kill the king and puts it off for later. This, to me, shows that he has some doubt that what he’s doing is the right thing, even though many critics call that hesitation his tragic flaw. In my mind, a reluctance to take the life of another human being is never a flaw, it is a strength. It is strength to recognize that no matter how much someone has wronged you, you do not ever have the right to kill in return. Our society has very much leaned toward this point of view, but I envision a day where people react with love when they are persecuted, then the world might just be a better place.

Do you have what it takes to be a hero?

Throughout the whole month of October we have been discussing heroes, and especially focusing on what the defining characteristics of a hero are. In the novel Beowulf, which originated in Europe hundreds of years ago, heroes are characterized as people who have inhuman strength and have no fears, seeking after dragons and monsters to slay. The most prominent motive for a Beowulf-type hero is glory. They seek glory and reputation whenever they go on a quest, and boast about all of their past deeds to everyone they meet. Furthermore, their human characteristics like emotions, love, and weaknesses are virtually nonexistent. To be a hero, one had to be more god-like than human.

In the play Oedipus, however, a different kind of hero was portrayed. Oedipus was the hero of the play, but he was a tragic hero, and consequently had a tragic flaw. Overall, he was depicted as a wise king, strong, and brave, but his tragic flaw was believing that he could change his fate. By running away from his fate, he caused it to happen. A tragic hero is a little bit easier for our society to relate to, but still typically defines a hero with superhuman strength, and only one weakness that causes their downfall. In many cases, as with Oedipus, the character does not even have the ability to control their tragic flaw, reinforcing the near-perfection that these characters portray.

Many of those characteristics are not at all parallel to society’s current definition of a hero! The other day on Yahoo news I saw an article about a little boy being hailed as a hero for finding and returning a small sum of money he found lying under a bush. His generosity was enough to get him into the headlines. The funny thing is, his dad was with him and had to coach him before the boy came up with the decision not to keep the money for himself. These days, it seems we use the word hero very loosely. Even the qualities of a hero have changed drastically, now leaning more towards someone who is selfless and is brave in a sense of sacrifice. A hero by today’s standards acts in order to save others, but never for his own glory. This is such a direct contrast with Beowulf, who made a point to boast about all of his past deeds when travelling to another kingdom. Our society also makes a point of rooting for the underdog, a person with physical weaknesses or character flaws who works hard to overcome them. The idea that anyone can be a hero is a hugely popular theme in movies and books right now. While I certainly feel that many people hailed as heroes do not exemplify the qualities I consider a hero to have, I like the idea that by today’s standards one does not have to have huge muscles or lift a bus off of someone to be a hero to someone else. Often times it is the little things that we do that makes us heroic, and as cliché as it seems, even our parents can be considered heroes, for putting up with us day after day, giving advice and never ending support. It is encouraging to think that even I could be a hero in someone’s life, without ever slaying a single dragon.

The Power of Popular Opinion

I think that question number 80 from The Fountainhead Socratic Seminar is both significant and applicable to American society today. The question asks about the play No Skin Off Your Nose that Wynand and Dominique went to see, which left them both perturbed. The play was portrayed to be hilariously awful, as if written by a child. The disturbing part for both Dominique and Wynand, however, was that the rest of the audience thoroughly enjoyed it. They all laughed at the same parts, were delighted with the script, and praised it highly afterward. The question asks what the danger is in such a play. Knowing, as the reader does, that Ellsworth Toohey is the original advocate of that play, everything falls into place. Toohey has a reputation for manipulation. He delights in controlling public opinion, even to the point of brainwash. In fact, this play had been first presented in a society of writers that Toohey sponsored. When he realized how bad the script was, Ellsworth made it his personal mission to make the play a success, by posting raving reviews about it in his newspaper column. Because the public esteemed his opinion, they all felt obliged to go see this terrific play, but more than that, they felt obliged to like it. One was not seen as intellectual or ‘in the know’ if they had not enjoyed and gleaned some deeper meaning from this play, which in reality was just gibberish.

This idea of opinion manipulation reminded me very much of our society today. We often talk highly of a person, TV show, movie, or book because someone respectable or a large number of people have already done so. A great example of this happened a few weeks ago when I turned on the TV and discovered that the popular reality show Amish Mafia was on. While I do not have a particular personal interest in anything concerning either the Amish or the Mafia, I felt like I had to watch this show, purely because so I would be in the know, since many people had been talking about it. In reality, the show is terrible. The acting is poor and the plot line is transparent. But saying so takes guts, since so many people are avid followers of it. This is my problem with today’s society. Everyone has become so worried about what others think that they are afraid to have their own opinion on anything. There are a multitude of people who are content to adopt someone else’s opinion to avoid the conflict that comes when their ideas do not agree with those of others. And so, just like Toohey was able to convince a whole city full of people to enjoy a terrible play, celebrities, politicians, writers and scholars decide what movies, books, and TV shows the public will talk about today. My thought is this: what if, for once, we dared to have a different opinion from those around us? What if we liked something unpopular? The world might just change for the better.