The Relative Nature of A Culture - Book Report/Review Example

The Relative Nature of A Culture In many ways, cultural study and through that observation is a key ingredient that, in the grand scheme of things, can leads towards broader and more complete understanding of a civilization and the key components to it. On the one hand, finding a relation between cultural practices can indeed be a way to come to the realization that there are in fact differing ways of doing things and as such judgment can and ultimately should be held until the investigating party is able to fully understand what it is that they are looking at. Just as is the case with many things, cultural relativism can have downsides to it as well as any positives it may have. Relating such details learned to the extent that the observers theoretical view is blurred by the inability to differentiate by that which is good as it comes to cultural practice, or those practices that to the larger extent are in fact not good to begin with. Understanding a cultural environment outside of the realm of what a person were to have grown up with would be quite a daunting task to accomplish. Quite often, the interpretations that are made by outside individuals in regards to the cultural practices and tendencies of another group can, to a varying degree, have elements of moral judgment as well as the rational nature of thinking to the line of thinking. The nature of moral based thinking in line with rational thinking can pose as an obstacle to the research and conclusion to be made. In assessing the nature of cultural relativism, William C. Shepherd, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Montana, in his work titled "Cultural Relativism, Physical Anthropology, and Religion", seeks to offer insight into this, as well as a broader look at cultural study and understanding. The most powerful way to move beyond the intellectual bankruptcy contributed to the social scientific study of religion by cultural relativism is to defend a version of innate ideas embedded in a biogenetic account of how religion and culture evolved in tandem with physical changes in the hominid genotype going back at least to australopithecine adjustments during the late Pleistocene. Modern man's phylogenetic inheritance provides one key to explaining the persistence of religious behaviors in circumstances radically different from those to which they were originally a response. The other indispensible key for understanding our perduring religious predisposition concerns the unique ontogenetic lot of Homo sapiens. Welding these two angles of vision together allows us to take cultural diversity with full seriousness without having to mince on the importance of panculturally applicable scientific principles. (Shepherd, p.159) Professor Shepherd's quote provides the underlying step towards the broader discussion of not only cultural advancement, but in this case how religion can involve at the same rate within the fibers of the overall growth and advancement as the collective culture as a whole. The sentiment that Shepherd wishes to show here is that he does in fact recognize an inherent nature, albeit of the biological variety, that leads to the formation of what humans collectively do, how they view certain things, even taking into consideration the guaranteed diversification of views that are expected to be the case within any cultural structure, no matter where they are located. Shepherd elaborates that; Without wishing to deny the connection between world-openness and the culturally relative construction of specific "worlds," I submit that indeed there is a biologically fixed substratum which does shape human activities panculturally, despite flamboyant diversities of thoughts, behaviors, perceptions, superstitions, and all the rest. Furthermore, by looking evolutionary backward at how we got to be what we are, we can know the outlines not only of what that biological substratum is but also how it has changed over time. (Shepherd, p.160). On the other hand, relativism as discussed prior, can be taken in a direction which leads to a mixed assessment of what is being researched and what is hoped to be understood. A mixed assessment that can ultimately suspend the practice of differentiation between that which is seen to be a positive practice(s) of the cultural being studied or what, in the eyes of the observer, would in fact be a negative practice being done even if the practice itself is not intended to or meant to be that way at all. Taking stock, one realizes that what is involved in the rejection of conceptual relativism is also a rejection of a tabula rasa epistemology. Extreme relativism is only possible if were are talking about human minds whose thought content is exhaustively explained by cultural imprinting. If we are to suggest a positive replacement for relativism, while still respecting cultural diversity, we had better be able to defend some version of innate ideas. As Robert Paul bluntly puts it, these two are the only options (1978:66). At stake is the very possibility of a fully articulated conception of human nature in the singular. (Shepherd, p.162). In light of the changing environment that has come after the September 11, 2001, cultural imprinting has come from the fear of those few who elected to wage at attack on American soil. An act that would instigate a conflict of ideas that had never been seen by many before. A conflict of maintaining a common thread between all humankind, but on that same token, putting in place a perception that all of those who are culturally aligned to the attackers of 9/11 would have to be of the same mindset, even if in whatever way possible, there are in fact differing and multi-layered levels to which the culture's mindset is. In the end, cultural imprinting is something that is not bound by a singular culture itself. In fact, cultural imprinting is something that each and every culture itself is faced with. The only differing factor is the level of imprinting that is in place. With the changing environment that has come since 2001, the culture most bogged down with pre-conceived notions and misnomers would be the Muslim culture. A culture that so many are aware of primarily based on the dastardly acts of a select few that caused so much pain and heartache for so many people. A culture that is richly entrenched in thousands of years of tradition that, to a larger extent, has been obscured by the larger picture of war and vindication for the wrongs committed with the hope that waging war on a culture of people as a whole can somehow wipe away or stave off another attack from occurring in the first place. A notable issue to mention comes from the September 2002 issue of the American Anthropologist. The text asserts that; In other words, the question is why knowing about the "culture" of the region, and particularly its religious beliefs and treatment of women, was more urgent than exploring the history of the development of repressive regimes in the region and the U.S. Role in this history. Such cultural framing, it seemed to me, prevented the serious exploration of the roots and nature of human suffering in this part of the world. Instead of political and historical explanations, experts were being asked to give religio- cultural ones. Instead of questions that might lead to the exploration of global interconnections, we were offered ones that worked to artificially divide the world into separate spheres- recreating an imaginative geography of West versus East, us versus Muslims, cultures in which First Ladies give speeches versus others where women shuffle around silently in burqas. (Using American Anthropologist, p.784). Cultural understanding is very important when looking at the people. The quote goes into the notion that framing a culture, or placing it within a collective box of similarity, does in fact take away the observable fact that within a cultural boundary, however similar they may be, do in fact have root variation and suffering that is quite unique to their individual situation and station in life. In trying to take a part and consider each culture, it is in fact an unfortunate fact that a level of artificiality which occurs in the breaking away of mankind and placing into boxes of stereotyping. A way in which differences advance in discussion rather than the consideration, as well as the appreciation, for the common things which all humans share, no matter the cultures which they may have allegiance to. Ultimately, the significant political-ethical problem the burqa raises is how to deal with the cultural "others." How are we to deal with difference without accepting the passivity implied by the cultural relativism for which anthropologists are justly famous-- a relativism that says it's their culture and its not my business to judge or interfere, only to try to understand. Cultural relativism is certainly an improvement on ethnocentrism and the racism, cultural imperialism, and imperiousness that underlie it; the problem is that it is too late not to interfere. The forms of lives we find around the world are already products of long histories of interactions. (Using American Anthropologist, p.786-87). That is a key question indeed. The question of how to step away from the ability to generalize and to take into consideration the broader picture of human connection, as well as the individual practices. How it can be quite easy to step aside and make judgments about a culture and its practices, rather than to ask questions and inquire within. Not unlike the Muslim culture, the Balinese people also have distinct culture practices. Clifford Geertz, as printed from The Interpretation of Cultures, writes in regards to their involvement in cock fighting practices; The madness has some less visible dimensions, however, because although it is true that cocks are symbolic expressions or magnifications of their owners self, the narci- ssistic male ego writ out in Aesopian terms, they are also expressions and rather more immediate ones-of what the Balinese regard as the direct inversion, aesthetically, morally, and metaphysically, of human status: animality. (Geertz, p.3). Geertz writes more on this subject as he details the following; In the cockfight, man and beast, good and evil, ego and id, the creative power of aroused masculinity and the destructive power of loosened animality fuse in a bloody drama of hatred, cruelty, violence, and death. It is little wonder that when, as is the invariable rule, the owner of the wining cock takes the carcass of the loser- often torn limb from limb by its enraged owner- home to eat, he does so with a mixture of social embarrassment, moral satisfaction aesthetic disgust, and cannibal joy. (Geertz, p.4). The example of cock fighting is a strong example in the consideration of cultural relativism and the question of what practices are good, along with what cultural practices are found to be not as good. Some who look to a culture, in trying to assess and come to a logical judgment about the civilization itself, may find it quite difficult as a result to come to a clean and concise conclusion about what is right or wrong. When, as it is simply put, the question of whether something is right or wrong, has an answer that is as unique as the culture which it came from to begin with. Laura Bohannon, in her work published in Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, begins with the following; "I protested that human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over; at least the general plot and motivation of the greater tragedies would always be clear--everywhere--although some details of custom might have to be explained and difficulties of translation might produce other slight changes. To end an argument we could not conclude, my friend gave me a copy of Hamlet to study in the African bush; it would, he hoped, lift my mind above its primitive surroundings, and possibly I might, by prolonged meditation, achieve the grace of correct interpretation," (Bohannon, p.1). Further the source tells that, ""Sometime," concluded the old man, gathering his ragged toga about him, "you must tell us some more stories of your country. We, who are elders, will instruct you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see that you have not been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who have taught you wisdom," (Bohannon, p.1). Bohannon, in her first text example, does state that which is common knowledge for many. Or what some believe to be true. The notion that, at the heart of things, human nature is indeed the same to a certain degree throughout the world. The final example which she gives is quite telling in the meaning which it wishes to give off. That is, as the old man is saying, it is the desire to teach the youth and have them be taught by the elders who have a far greater awareness of that which is trying to be learned. The chance to learn from those who know more so that, in the greatest of hopes, those who are wishing to learn may do so with the ability to learn as much as possible. To learn the broader picture of knowledge without sitting in obstruction, or as he puts it, sitting in a "bush" cutting the view. To cut away from the view of the broader picture at large would be to take away from true understanding and knowledge realized. Rather, without such clarity of mind would come great confusion and an obstructed sense of the area in which the person(s) hopes to know more about. Works Cited American Anthropologist (Vol. 104, No. 3). (September, 2002). Bohannon, Laura. (1971). Shakespeare in the Bush. Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Culturally Anthropology, eds. McCurdy, David. W. and Spradley, James. P. Boston, MA. USA. Publisher: Little Brown and Company. Geertz, Clifford. "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight." Reprinted from The Interpretation of Cultures. Shepherd, William C. "Cultural Relativism, Physical Anthropology, and Religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 19, No. 2). (Jun., 1980), pp.159-160, 162. Published: Blackwell Publishing. Behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1386250. Date accessed: 11/10/2008. Read More