Talk:Cultural relativism

message: If you will stick to the following formula, you will not find yourself sidetracked into defending your contributions so much:
* Prominent authority in their field X said Y about Z.
* Pioneering researcher A said B about it.
* Traditional spokesman C (representing D) said E about it.
The value of this form of writing is that everyone who reads it, whether they disagree or agree with Y, B, or E, will at least accept that X, A, or C advocate their respective points of view.
----
I agree that most human rights discourse rejects cultural relativism, and have no objection to the claim made concerning the UDHR.
Nevertheless, the relationship between universal human rights, and cultural rights, is more complex.  It is flat out false to claim that "Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child explicitly rejects cultural relativism". It states:
: States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
This implicitly rejects cultural relativism (as most human rights documents do) but it does not explicitly reject cultural relativism.  To "explicitly" reject cultural relativism the document would have to use the words "cultural relativism."
:Or a synonym. And what is "traditional practices" if not a synonym for cultural relativism?
::Ark, do you carry a vaccuum cleaner around, or what?  I seem to keep getting sucked into debates with you.  *grin*  
::To review the definition of synonym: "one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, online, available here.  Traditional practices is a phrase that means, roughly, cultural practices recognized by a particular community as being long-established within that community.  Cultural relativism means, roughly speaking, the belief that all cultural practices must be evaluated within the context of the practicing culture.
::How are these synonyms?  One refers to actions, the other to evaluation; arguing that they're synonyms is like arguing that "symptom" and "diagnosis" are synonyms because the former is used by the latter to evaluate the former. Pgdudda
:All human rights document reject cultural relativism by their very natures. The mere assertion of the supremacy and universality of a human rights document (eg, Universal Declaration of Human Rights) logically entails the rejection of cultural relativism. The human rights become absolute morality which rules over every human being, irrespective of cultural and societal boundaries.
:Does the CRC do this? Yes, it does. It does this the moment it mentions inalienable rights. That is, rights which cannot ever be bargained, sold, granted, given or taken away from a person, but may only be secured or violated. Taken with the fact that the CRC takes its authority from the UDHR, and reasserts the universality of human rights found in the UDHR. It really couldn't be any more cut and dried.
:That's what "implicit" means. Explicit means that some article rejects cultural relativism. Article 24.3 does this.
::If you understand the difference between "traditional practices" and "cultural relativism", you'll see that the CRC rejects the latter implicitly only.  See below for (general, but more constrained) agreement with slrubenstein's argument. Pgdudda
::The definition you provide is good for an anthropologist but there's a more useful and popular definition around; it's that all cultures have equal value. This definition preserves almost all of the meaning of the other definition. I can see reading what you wrote below that you may not agree on this last point, but the transformation from one to the other is quite simple. "you can only judge a practice with respect to its culture" merely leaves implicit how you're supposed to judge the culture itself with respect to another. The answer is they're supposed to have equal value with our own; whether or not it's meaningful to say that a culture has value. In the reverse direction, if all cultures have the same value respective to each other, and if the given practice can have only one value, then it follows that each practice must be evaluated only with respect to its culture.
::And it's pretty clear that Article 24.3 rejects "colloquial CR" completely. I would say it rejects it explicitly, with Article 24.3 explicitly giving negative value to many cultural practices, irregardless of their value in the cultures to which they belong.
:::But anyways, this is not very useful because I already took out 'explicit' from the article. And then adequately punished SR for forcing me to do it. :) The article reads more anti-relativism than ever and it's perfectly NPOV. -- Ark (I take my victories where I can get them, there're few enough of them)
:::*chuckle* Fair enough.  :-)  On the whole, though, we seem to me more in agreement than disagreement here - but I would have said "Article 24.3 rejects cultural relativism implicitly, by explicitly giving negative value to many cultural practices, regardless of their value in the cultures to which they belong." (emphases omissible in citation) Pgdudda 
----
In fact, the document hedges a bit.  
:A mistake. The UDHR contains a non-contradiction clause (Article 30) which says that you can't interpret any article to undermine rights given by other articles. The CRC lacks such a clause but that's just a mistake.''
Article 29 
(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; 
:You'd have to be pretty twisted to interpret this as culturally relativistic.
::Actually, this shows ignorance of the roots of cultural relativism.  The concept itself was a reaction against those who attempted to build racist and ethnocentric models of cultural evolution.  The original point of cultural relativism was that so-called "primitive" practices, such as lip-piercing, had to be evaluated in the context of the practicioners' culture, not in the context of "traditional"/Christian "morality".  Article 29(c) merely reinforces this concept, while simultaneously using Article 24 to reject the extreme form of cultural relativism that doesn't bat an eylash at people endangering the lives of others (on the basis of "but there's no such thing as ‘absolute morality’").
::Further, Article 30 (below) takes Article 29(c) a step further, and mandates that merely allowing a child to have appreciation for his or her parents' culture is insufficient; the child must be allowed to freely practice and participate in any and all practices that do not directly harm him or her.  This is without regard to whether the child belongs to a "dominant" or "minority" culture, and without regard to the "dominant" culture's evaluation of the (non-harmful) practices in question.  Thus, the three articles together can be taken to advocate cultural relativism in its original sense, while clearly rejecting the extreme form often expounded in present-day literature.  Pgdudda
::You're stretching it. Article 29(c) does a lot of things. It seeks to promote respect for traditional cultures and identities but it places this on the same level as respect for national cultures and foreign civilizations. Yes, Article 29(c) protects some form of culture (ie, stupid ritual practices and delusional group fantasies, which I am totally against btw since on my list of human rights, culture is either absent or at the very bottom, below even the right to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth), but anyways. So, yes Article 29(c) protects some culture, but it doesn't protect the particular culture a child belongs to any more than any other culture.
::: Heh, just now realized that the above paragraph conflicts with what I wrote later (plus, it doesn't seem to have much of a point). But it's still significant that the CRC tries to promote respect for so many different cultures simultaneously. Why? Because the best way to teach atheism to students is to have a class on comparative religions. Nothing demonstrates how false religion is than a demonstration of just how petty and arbitrary religious rituals are. The same applies for culture.
::Article 30 is harder for me to explain away, though I got a brilliant insight when I examined its exact wording.
::One of the things you have to understand about child abuse and child-parent relationships is the use of the possessive. When people say that a girl is her mother's child, that subtly says that the girl is the property of the mother. When you say that a woman is a girl's parent, that reverses the flow of responsibility. Instead of the child being responsible for being "good", it's the parent's responsibility to be good.
::Now, if you'll examine Article 30, it says that a child has a right to enjoy his or her own culture, his or her own religion and his or her own language. Neat trick, huh? It means that there may be a difference between the child's culture and the parent's culture! And a child raised among foreigners since infancy most certainly has a different culture from one raised among the natives. What you have here isn't protection of culture in any meaningful sense, but rather protection of children from a very particular form of oppression. Exactly what you'd expect from the CRC.
:::I like this last paragraph above. It's sensible, and clearly derivative from the language of the Article. Especially the portion about "protection of children from a very particular form of oppression" - such as Christian Scientists refusing to immunize or provide other preventive and curative health care for their children. It certainly does help to resolve one particular type of ethical dilemma. Pgdudda
::So what does this mean? It means that Article 30 protects adolescents who want to wear punk clothes, get their noses pierced, and talk in street slang. But it does not protect parents who want to teach children to have oral sex with them on the excuse that this is their (the parent's) culture. This probably wasn't the intent of the authors of Article 30, but it's impossible to protect culture in any meaningful way within the framework of children's rights. And the authors of the CRC were too focused on children's rights to abrogate them in favour of culture.
:: So we have that Article 24.3 calls for the abolition of many cultural practices, Article 30(c) undermines culture in favour of an abstract "respect for all cultures" deal, and Article 30 turns culture completely inside out. -- Ark
Article 30: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language. 
I am NOT claiming that the document promotes cultural relativism.  I am pointing out that the document is more complex than Ark thihnks, or represents it to be.  Accordingly, it is false to claim that it explicitly rejects "cultural relativism." slrubenstein
:So the CRC doesn't reject all culture. So f-ing what? Rejecting cultural relativism and rejecting culture are two very different things. Apparently, you wouldn't accept rejecting of cultural relativism without simultaneous rejection of all culture. Which of course is BS.
:Article 24.3 explicitly rejects cultural relativism. A couple of other articles try to preserve some culture. Given how extremely vague articles #29 and #30 are, the only natural way to resolve any contradictions between them and the very specific article 24, is to let 24 win. Why? Because that way you can interpret the situation as preserving some culture and still preserving article 24. In fact, it's worse (for SR) than that since nothing in articles 29 or 30 actually protects culture in any substantial way. Consider this:
:Article 30 says that a child has the right to enjoy his or her own culture. That's a pretty important word there since it means the CRC doesn't defend the infliction of culture upon the child.
:Aritcle 29 says that a child should have "respect for their cultural values". Guess what? That means nothing. "respect" can mean practically anything, including as little as knowing about tradition and having some warm fuzzy feelings about it. This is supposed to be hedging article 24 subsection 3?
:SR, don't ever give up your day job because you would suck as a lawyer.
----
I have removed this portion from the article -- not because it is wrong, but because it belongs in a different article:
:Closely associated with this is the belief that objective moral standards and codes of conduct do not exist. Here, 'objective' means independence from social mores, no matter how widespread. So for example, infanticide would remain wrong in an objective moral system even if nobody on the planet believed it to be wrong.
:Few people believe in extreme cultural relativism. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not recognize any cultural boundaries to its universal applicability. Article 24.3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child rejects cultural relativism. It states:
:: States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
:And while the Convention does protect some limited aspects of culture (eg, Articles 29 and 30), it can't be said to substantially protect it. Article 29 enjoins the parties to develop respect for a child's cultural identity and values. (emphasis added) Similarly, Article 30 states that children have a right to enjoy their culture. (emphasis added)
:It is fair to say that human rights documents accept only those cultural practices they deem compatible with human rights, abrogating those which contradict them. In doing so, they assert their own supremacy over mere cultural beliefs.
As the first two words suggest, this section is really about moral relativism, not cultural relativism.  I suggest that parts of it be placed in that article, and parts placed in an article on Human Rights. Slrubenstein
----
In the aftermath of the Ark/Slr war, I just redirected to moral relativism -- so Allan Bloom's book has someplace to link to. If someone wants to dig into the history and figure out how _cultural_ and _moral_ relativism is different, please do so. --Ed Poor
----
We shouldn't have to dig into the history of this page to make the distinction; the world Wikipedia is trying to describe is much bigger than Wikipedia!  :-)  In fact, there are indeed two kinds of relativism, and this article should not have been redirected.  Not all cultural relativisms need be kinds of ethical relativism (or moral relativism: you can believe the truth of something that doesn't include ethical creeds depends on the culture), and you certainly don't have to be a cultural relativist to be an ethical relativist (you can simply say that ethics depend upon our own individual attitudes, not those of our cultures).
Can somebody please change it back and do enough Google research to write a stub?
--Larry Sanger 21:42 Oct 13, 2002 (UTC)
:I did something better than google research -- I did real library research!  I hope people approve Slrubenstein 17:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-sidetracking formula

message: I feel it's a little unfair to critcize entries when you haven't the time to fix them yourself (and in this case I really don't). However since I've been asked.... I like the depth of the page now. However, I feel that it's focus on Boasian anthropology is a little singleminded and doesn't capture the full range of thought on relativism. Ourside of anthropology this concept has roots in liberal traditions of tolerance and minority rights which aren't really mentioned. The philosophical literature on relativism isn't discussed -- and a lot of it does focus on things that could be properly considered under 'cultural relativism' rather than the more stricly philosophical page on 'relativism'. Neither are the ties between issues of relativism and social studies of science and technology and issues of the social construction of knowledge etc. discussed, despite the fact that they address how one's 'culture' affect how one sees the world. Kant is correctly mentioned as the origin of the concept of mediated knowledge, but Francophone inheritors of Kant such as Durkheim and Mauss (I think here of their essay on 'primitive classification') or Levy-Bruhl (primitive mentality) are not mentioned. Within anthropology itself I think it is a terrible shame that the classic 'Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azande' is not mentioned since this is /the/ classic anthropological monograph on relativism and rationality. That being said I like the page and probably won't be able to make any of these changes -- so who am I to criticize :!) Rex 19:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you will reconsider -- and make changes to the article!  I agree with many if not most of your comments.  I think it is very important to continue to distinguish between "cultural relativism" as used by anthropologists and "moral relativism" or other relativisms used by philosophy.  That said, I agree it is too narrowly Boasian; I agree 100% that it should include Evans Pritchard and perhaps some of the literature on rationality his work encouraged (I think this itself could be an entire section)  It is just that it has been a long time since I read that stuff; also, I don't feel as confident about my grasp of Durkheim, Mauss, and Levi-Bruhl -- but you are right this too could be another section (dividing into "American," "British" and "French" origins or strands is a little contrived and of course ultimately simplistic, but as a way to start developing this maybe it would make sense).  Anyway, couldn't you may any, some of these changes?  Please consider it, Slrubenstein 20:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on SLR's expansions 

message: This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view.  In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcing new policy proposal 

message: I reverted SV's recent change.  His new lead was "Cultural relativism is the result of the application of ethics, beliefs and values from one culture toward the understanding or judgement of other cultures" but this is simply wrong.  In fact, this is the very opposite of cultural relativism.  Also, I think "the result of the application" is unnecessarily clumsy wording.  CR is a belief.  One word is better than five. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I reverted a recent edit to the Kluckholn paragraph, to remove "political correctness" which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Even when Kluckhohn was writing many anthropologists were arguing that "savage" and "tribe" were not scientifically correct.  K was using language popular at the time that most anthrologists at that time considered inappropriate. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kluckholn 

message: At a quick read, much of this reads more like a polemic than a Wikipedia article. I'm incredibly busy right now, so it is a while till I am liable to get to it, but someone might want to take a real look at it: a lot of it is polemical and, while it cites primary sources, its interpretations of the implications of those sources strike me as amounting to either original research or editorializing. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a Wikipedia article? 

message: hey, does this article contain anything about the relativist fallacy? I remember it from my sociology class, it supposedly means that although we need to respect other cultures, we have to draw a line when accepting other people's cultures means that we will be violating human rights. My professor gave an example of societies that perform clitoridectomies, and whether we should stop them on account of a violation of human rights or let them continue because we need to be cultural relativists. I just also noticed that relativist fallacy is itself a Wikipedia article, and astonishingly, it mentions cultural relativism. Therefore, I think this article should at least give some reference to the Fallacy.
:The arrticle addresses this debate.  I think most people would say that there is nothing about cultural relativism that requires one to stand by and do nothing when human rights are being abused.  But I think your sociology professor threw you a red herring.  The real question (not for this article, but in the case to which you refer) is, how do we know that  right x is a universal human right?  How, exactly do you know that cliterodectimies are violations of human rights? This question has nothing to do with cultural relativism, but it is this question that needs to be answered (in the case you bring up) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativist Fallacy 

message: I added categories to this article that I belive are right, however I am sure they could use some peer review -Ravedave 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: Hello,
I am not sure if the first line in the article is exactly accurate as written: "Cultural Relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture."
I believe a more appropriate version should be "Cultural Relativism is not judging a culture, but trying to understand it on its own terms."
This is the definition that I have seen in many sociology books.  This description is somewhat different then what is suggested by the current sentence.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks --Ndstate 03:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a verifiable source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Definition" of Cultural Relativism 

message: I'm sorry to make such large changes to the section headers of this article, but they were very long and redundant (many of them containing the article title), and also didn't follow the custom of using the same "sentence style" of capitalization as article titles (i.e., not capitalized like the title of a book). I've fixed one section-specific link from the Sex tourism article that was noted in this article's wikitext and am willing to find and fix others as long as my changes will not be immediately reverted by another editor (discuss here if desired and I will be back in a couple of days to check on the status of my changes). Again, just to make this very clear: if you object to my changes, please do not use the excuse that links to specific sections will no longer work, because I am willing to fix such problems myself. Granted, section-specific links in the page history will no longer work, but I don't believe that's a sufficient reason to keep the previous section headers. (IMHO.) - dcljr (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete change of section headers 

message: I tried to suggest a cleanup template for the citations (and lack thereof) in this article, but there were so many that might be relevant, I decided to list them here on the talk page instead...
In particular, I would prefer to see 'ref' style citations instead of Harvard style; the latter style just doesn't stand out enough, IMO.
Not a complete lack, just needs more.
As noted in a previous comment, above. - dcljr (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Adoniscik(t, c) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Why was the Early infanticidal childrearing link of the "See also" section removed? Isn't this relevant enough? —Cesar Tort 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removed 

message: A big part of cultural relativism seems to involve some kind of social determinism, in that social factors tend to pre-determine individual actions. In terms of philosophy, this view is controversial because it is dismissive of the notion of free will, the idea the people can freely make decisions in a fully conscientious way, without being secretly manipulated by secret cultural forces. ADM (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deterministm suggests a kind of predictability that no anthropologist claims.  I know that there was once a God's will vs. free will debate, and then certain kinds of positivist materialist/social determinist arguments made during the Enlightenment, opposing free will.  But I am not convinced that the alternative to free will is determinism.  Are there only two choices?  Can there not be several alternatives to free will besides determinism?  I see anthropology as being like psychoanalysis in presenting a clear critique of the romantic notion of absolute free will.  But that does not make psychoanalys or cultural anthropology determinists.  Psychoanalysis says that through therapy a person can learn of their unconscious conflicts and address them.  Anthropologists from Boas and Benedict on have argued that by better understanding culture, people can act more responsibly.  Is this not a view that seeks to support human agency?  Cultural anthropology is in the tradition of Kantian enlightenment, to emancipate one's self from self-imposed tutelage.  People indeed often act unaware of the causes propelling one to act.  But isn't the role of philosophy and science then to help educate the individual so that she may indeed act as a responsible and free individual?  I certainly do not see this as opposed to free will! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Social determinism

message: I have noticed that critics of cultural relativism often make the charge that it can lead to a kind of cultural supremacism because it tends to disregard the valuable cultural traits that other tribes, nations and peoples may have. For instance, it has been said that the Nazis practiced a kind of cultural relativism by refusing to recognize the value of other races, ethnic groups and societies. Similar arguments have been made with regards to moral relativism , which are sometimes perceived as a forms of moral supremacism. ADM (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing cultural relativism for ethnocentrism.  There was nothing at all about the Nazis that made them "cultural relativists."  They were in fact explicitly critical of cultural relativism as "Jew science."  If you know of any critics of cultural relativism who have argued that the nazis were cultural relativists, and they are found in notable and reliable sources, please provide us with the citations.  I have never heard this view before and it sounds like it is either a fringe view, or you were just misinformed. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural supremacism

message: I restored an earlier version for two reasons.  First, cultural relativism is not the cultural aspect of relativism; it is a phrase with a specific meaning. There are other phrases with the word "relativism" in it, used by people in other disciplines, but this does not mean that there is some gneral thing called "relativism" which has different aspects (like, color and shape are two aspects of an object).  Cultural and moral relativism, for example, have distinct genealogies; they do not spring from the same well - or at least, I know of no mainstream source that claims they do.  Second, cultural relativism is not a science.  It is a concept developed and mostly used by a science, anthropology, but it is not a science. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural relativism is a scientific tool.  Anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. (Emphasis mine.) Heuristics are a scientific tool: Philosophers of science have emphasized the importance of heuristics in creative thought and constructing scientific theories. Cultural relativism employs a philosophy of science anthropological relativism on the one hand, and heuristics on the other hand to provide the mysterious objectivity that is necessary to counter ethnocentric fallacies. — CpiralCpiral 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Cultural relativism is an applied, or practical philosophy. Methodological relativism and philosophical relativism can exist independently from one another, but most anthropologists base their methodological relativism on that of the philosophical variety. — CpiralCpiral 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The best proof that relativism is a word applicable to inter-cultural concepts is the similar descriptions between the first paragraph of v:Historical_Introduction_to_Philosophy/Truth,_Objectivity,_and_Relativism#Relativism and the last paragraph of Cultural_relativism#Epistemological_origins. — CpiralCpiral 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Geneologically, since morality is an aspect of ethics which is a branch of philosophy, we can stretch and say moral and cultural relativity are related: by a branch of philosophy called epistemology (how we know).  The epistemology of science is empricism, and cultural relativism, seeking to avoid metaphysical judgments, and use empirical judgments instead, uses heuristics, very much an empirical device.  So in a way science and heuristics are related by an empirical epistemology, just as philosophy and anthropology are, in a way, related by the philosophy of relativism and pluralism.  (Pluralism is also employs relativism, just as cultural relativism does.) How we gauge the morality of other cultures is by using the philosophical aspect of relativism, and how we know is by making measurements and analysis heuristically in such a way that just works for everyone. (See the next section of this talk page.)— CpiralCpiral 23:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: I see that my earlier proposed lead was judged by editors to be largely incorrect.  OK.  Now
I would like some feedback on the inclusion of the previous and following points with which we might build a new lead section.  Thanks. 
Cultural relativism is a relativistic methodology developed by anthropologist Franz Boaz to provide both universal and unique cultural traits for the purposes of a worldview that seeks an objective fairness in judgments based on geography, language, and biological traits. Ethnocentricity is thus not a factor in judgment, as it would be without the worldview provided by the work of anthropologists.
:Who says it is objective and fair?  Also, isn't this a tautology? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 12 March 2011 
(UTC)
::That is the purpose: objective truth V.S. ethnocentric absolutes concerning judgments.  If cultural relativism is a valid method, and apparently it is, they the anthropologists seem the purpose is served.
::A tautology?  No.  Perhaps there is some confusion between the practitioners, and the uses of their work, i.e. who applies the relativism.  It is not the person doing the behaving and believing that excuses themselves by claiming C.R., as the article seems to imply.  The circularity of a tautology is a deductive error in a statement, not an orientation issue.  I hope that helps. — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your source saying it is an algorithm?  What does CR have to do with gathering data?  "Doing whateve it is that they do ... described that empirical way" - what kind of hrasing is this?  Empiricism is an epistemology and for some a kind of data, not a way of describing. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They are synonyms: algorithm and heuristic.  CR is a data gathering methodology. The heuristic is how to gather and process the data. The paragraph in question is:Cultural relativism as used by anthropologists also include a heuristic, or algorithm, for processing the cultural data — how to gather it by living within the culture, and how to analysis it by categorizing it in a way that seems most objective. Specifically individuals are observed doing whatever it is they do, and the culture is described that empirical way.  I agree the phrase "doing whatever", could  be improved, or the phrase "described that empirical way" could be improved.  But phrasing is not in question here, truth is, WP:NOR is. What about this paragraph violates WP:NOR? — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Source?  Every anthropology textbook I own says CR is not an applied science.  What is your source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My source was WP, where you can look at the science template, see Health sciences, and then social worker.  But I believe you. — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: No, I have never seen it formulated this way.  You are writing a personal essay.  What sources do you have to support this?  Are they significant, mainstream sources? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never is a long time. It's just a quote from our very article. — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my case, never is long enough for me to remember.  You are referrering to another article which I never read until today. It is poorly sourced and poorly written and does not hold up well against our own policies.  But I do not have time to fix it.  Also, it appeares to be addressing a topic in philosophy on which I have no epertise, and have no time to go to a library and spend the few weeks it would take me to have enough expertise to write an encyclopedia article on it, so therefore, I will not edit it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Novice Editor (citing you), until a page is an A class article, we well-read, folk editors have fun building articles from talk pages like this one. Please begin to have fun by considering the possibility that your experts are scum.— CpiralCpiral 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Who says this is necessary for judges?  Source?  "Fortunately" is editorializing.  "we are free to choose where we stand" - source?  "The end result of a purely realized cultural relativism is "anything goes" behavior for everyone," - source?  In short, this is rubbish.  Go to a chat room.  None of this improves the article, it only degrades it.  What sources are you using? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fortunate that you and I are free to choose how we stand, you as a strong-minded person.  Me, I say "more power" to you, absolutely, if you will.  I cannot try to improve the article unless there is some empathy and consideration of alternate points of view.  I was hoping for a turn, on your part, toward reasonableness.  To say that it is editorializing is simply the wrong application of exactly what is being described as fortunate.  It is not an opinion about CR, it is a true statement that others are helpful when they provide objectively compiled information.  — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your ability to improve the article has nothing to do with me.  You can improve the article only if you have expertise in anthropology and our policies; you appear to have neither. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Novice Editor (citing you), until a page is an A class article, we well-read, folk editors have fun building articles from talk pages like this one. Please begin to have fun by considering the possibility that your experts are scum.— CpiralCpiral 16:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Nothing you have written here shows any clue about cultural relaivism, so I really do not see how it is a worthwhile use of my time to give you any more feedback.  Try writing articles on topics you are prepared do to serious research on. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, in terms of transactional analysis, you are a "parent" writing your unspecified, (truth) statements to me: "nothing you have" and "[completely] worthless". — CpiralCpiral 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Projection. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Two

message: Relativism#Descriptive_versus_normative_relativism relates anthropological relativity and moral relativism by normative relativism.
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions
Claims about actual differences between groups play a central role in some arguments for normative relativism (for example, arguments for normative ethical relativism often begin with claims that different groups in fact have different moral codes or ideals). Finally, the anthropologist's descriptive account of relativism helps to separate the fixed aspects of human nature from those that can vary, and so a descriptive claim that some important aspect of experience or thought does (or does not) vary across groups of human beings tells us something important about human nature and the human condition.
Moral and cultural relativism go together.
:Not a reliable source.  Typical blogosphere claptrap. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a good discussion of how moral and cultural relativism has been kept apart in anthropology in "The cultural Analysis of Kinship" by Feinberg and Ottenheimer page 15-17.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural relativity is related to moral relativity

message: The phrase "This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students." is extremely misleading.  Boas believed that cultural relativism should be axiomatic in anthropological research, but this is not a universally held belief among professional anthropologists.  This article needs cleanup to remove bias.  85.94.125.140 (talk) 03:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Remove Bias 

message: How is the example of the inability to distinguish phonemes relevant to this topic? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One's perception of the phoneme reflects one's culture.People from different cultures (inc. speaking different languages) will perceive the sound spoken by the speaker differently.  Thus, cultural relativism. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unsure about this one. It is of course the original observation that lead to the formulation of the idea of cultural relativism, but it is really an example of linguistic relativity not cultural relativism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case that passage is not a very good explanation of the phenomenon, I think. I believe it can be clarified and I also think it should be cited to specific Boasian publications.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I am sure that the passage can be clarified and yes, it should cite Boas's article on alternating sounds.  But for cultural anthropologists linguistic relativity is just one example of cultural relativism - culture includes language, even if cultural anthropologists acknowledge the specialized training and expertise of linguists.  Boas's point, which remains central to cultural relativism, is that it is about how one's socialization can determine how one perceives the phenomenal world.  In other words, it is not just about the French like snails and the Germans like sausage, or some people consider insects tasy and others consider them ghastly.  There were people (Herder, the theologians of the School of Salamanca) who recognized that people in different lands have different customs, looong before cultural anthropology.  That one's perceptions of sounds and colors are culturally relative is essential to the anthropological meaning of "cultural relativism."  I do not know whether linguists consider berlin and Kay to be an example of linguistic relativism also (since different words signifying non-isomorphic categories are assigned to the same wavelength of light in different languages) but even if this too is about language (I understand I am now refering to morphemes and not phonemes, but isn't the point the same?) it is also an example of what cultural anthropologists mean by cultural relativism.  The example of sounds is important if general readers are to understand that this is not just "different folks, different strokes." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replies; the remaining passage after Maunus' edit seems much better here. And yes, if a different specific example is to be included, I'd want to see inline-citations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I have no objections to Maunus's elaboration, but I think it is important to provide one or two examples most readers will likely be personally familiar with.  I realize no one example will cover most readers, but a couple should.  I think without a familiar example or two, most readiers will miss the point. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rice/lice 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cultural relativism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utpa.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/cultural_relativism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It logically follows that if "Cultural Relativism" exists, that "Cultural Objectivism" must also exist. But it does not, at least on Wikipedia, or any other place I've looked.  It seems to get lost in the mish-mash of "Objectivism" and does not exist as a standalone contradiction to the idea of Cultural Relativism. Years ago, as a student at University, I remember a group had brought a speaker onto campus to discuss Cultural Objectism, so that I know that it does exist, in the minds of some people, somewhere.  In these heavily censored and politicized times, it seems that there is a dearth of "reliable sources" on the topic, but it was thought that at least some mention to Cultural Relativism's counterpart, Cultural Objectivism, should be mentioned in this article, if possible.2605:6000:6947:AB00:8C34:C68F:6DED:25F5 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the opposite of relativcism is universalism and the opposite of cultural relativism is ethnocentrism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Objectivism? 

message: The article says he diffentiates between vertical and horizontal relativism. Unfortunately, this gentleman seems to be unknown to the internet. Wrong spelling? Information, please!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5004:7F50:3D3D:2B6A:399B:8D0C (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is James Lawrence Wray-Miller? 

message: which among the following is not an attribute of cultural relativism 158.62.66.222 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSP 

message: The redirect Develop cultural relativism methodologies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Develop cultural relativism methodologies]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]