Cultural relativism

​Still the world is wondrous large, — seven seas from marge to marge — ⁠And it holds a vast of various kinds of man; And the wildest dreams of Kew are the facts of Khatmandhu, ⁠And the crimes of Clapham chaste in Martaban. Here's my wisdom for your use, as I learned it when the moose ⁠And the reindeer roared where Paris roars to-night:— There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, ⁠And—every—single—one—of—them—is—right! Cultural relativism is the idea that all peoples' views and beliefs are biased by their cultural background, and should be understood based on their culture. This bias may extend to sensory perception as well as worldview.

The basic observation — that we're all the bearers of certain biases as a result of our culture and upbringing — is largely uncontroversial, and indeed serves the critical thinker well. Racialists disagree, as cultural relativism correctly disconnects the pseudoscientific concept of race from that of culture.

The utility of the epistemological and methodological claims of cultural relativism is another question, and whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate.

There is widespread popular conflation of cultural relativism with moral relativism.

As a fallacy
I am a Norman. It is the immemorial custom of my people to conquer our neighbors, seize their land, suppress their culture, and impose our rule as aristocrats. By the principle of cultural relativity this way of life is no worse than any other. Sometimes cultural relativism is used as a non-sequitur to make excuses for actions that harm people of different cultural and social backgrounds. This is a variant of the relativist fallacy; if some cultures practice Female genital mutilation (FGM) and we don't, therefore we cannot judge that action as immoral just because it mutilates female genitals for the sake of misogynistic misconceptions of human sexuality, as this would be considered ethnocentrism to do so.

"Working" use
A loose form of cultural relativism is effectively required in the field of anthropology, in order to avoid "contaminating" the culture with one's own while studying it. Many cultural anthropologists claim to be cultural relativists. However, it is usually possible to isolate some bias in any given ethnography.

The tradition of cultural relativism arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a reaction to forms of biological determinism such as eugenics and scientific racism. It was instituted as a form of methodology in anthropology by Franz Boas.

Ethical considerations
Cultural relativism raises ethical issues for anthropologists on field work projects who come from cultures strongly opposed to practices such as female genital mutilation.

The concept also raises questions (or should) for many differing groups of professionals in the world. Should businesses work with, and therefore give money to, governments that engage in practices which are considered reprehensible by the West but which are widely practiced in the countries in question? Should foreign aid be given by nations that oppose genital mutilation to nations that practice it?

Relation to moral relativism
Moral relativism is the position that the truth or falsity of ethical judgments is relative to some group of persons. Typically, relativism takes the form of individual relativism, where the truth of judgments is relative to each individual person, or cultural moral relativism, where the truth of judgments is relative to a culture. This is in contrast to descriptive moral relativism, which is the position that there is substantial moral disagreement across different societies.

Because cultural relativism is often conflated with moral relativism, a number of distinctions have been made, such as methodological vs. philosophical relativism and cultural vs. ethical relativism.

In reaction to this common conflation, Clifford Geertz coined the term "anti-anti-relativism."

Relation to human rights
There has been some protest that the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was more a declaration of Western style of rights. It is asserted that the document didn't properly include people of all backgrounds, cultures, and societies, so that it is not really "universal" (we didn't consult aliens either). Some anthropologists hold the idea that the Western style of democracy and freedom is not compatible with what some cultures have practiced for hundreds or thousands of years, so that our measuring them with our (Western) measuring stick isn't really fair.

Human rights groups have been accused by some pundits of practicing cultural relativism for condemning actions by America or other western governments, but not condemning other countries with less than stellar governments for the same thing.