|
Post by SimSim on Jan 1, 2012 14:43:54 GMT -5
People in this thread are making a common mistake about anthropology and cultural relativism.
YLA is correct when he says anthropology isn't about judging. It's about understanding other cultures. The aim is to be objective, and to understand how that culture views the world. That requires not being judgmental. An anthropologist, like all people have feelings on issues, they don't have to like what they see. They can find it reprehensible, but they do need to understand it from that culture's point of view.
Another important thing to understand is that cultural relativism isn't moral relativism. Especially meta-ethical moral relativism, which is the idea that morality is subjective. Cultural relativism is the idea that cultural practices should be understood from that culture's view. As previously stated, you don't need to agree with that view, but understand it.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on Jan 1, 2012 15:16:09 GMT -5
fuck this shit, why do I bother getting out of bed? this site is one of the few reasons left to do it
|
|
|
Post by rageaholic on Jan 1, 2012 16:36:44 GMT -5
People in this thread are making a common mistake about anthropology and cultural relativism. YLA is correct when he says anthropology isn't about judging. It's about understanding other cultures. The aim is to be objective, and to understand how that culture views the world. That requires not being judgmental. An anthropologist, like all people have feelings on issues, they don't have to like what they see. They can find it reprehensible, but they do need to understand it from that culture's point of view. Another important thing to understand is that cultural relativism isn't moral relativism. Especially meta-ethical moral relativism, which is the idea that morality is subjective. Cultural relativism is the idea that cultural practices should be understood from that culture's view. As previously stated, you don't need to agree with that view, but understand it. That makes more sense. I can understand the reasons they might do it, but I still know it's wrong. And yes random guy, I would like a cup of rage. I crave it.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jan 1, 2012 17:02:09 GMT -5
Even as someone who places great important on culture and keeping it intact (mostly because historical Christians and, before that, Romans did a lot of invading and destroying other people's cultures, and that makes me mad.) there are just some things that are unacceptable.
To me, there are universal human rights that should never be violated. And often are.
1. The right to life. The exception to this is if you have to kill to defend yourself. And it's not a case of "Oh, you could have done this", because life threatening situations do not give you time to consider your options, so act and do what you need to do.
2. The right to equality. The most universally violated human right. I don't need to go into why.
3. The right to choice. Let's say a woman WANTS to be barefoot, in the kitchen, pregnant. She should have that right, as long as it's her choice and she wasn't coerced into it. (Also, her partner has the same right to not be her partner anymore because she chooses to do this. Right to choice does not mean freedom from the consequences of choices.) By that right, if a man wants to be barefoot, in the kitchen, and knitting, he should also have that right. Society should be genderblind. Of course, THAT is an impossible dream, and this is coming from an idealiast. A cynical idealist, but an idealist nontheless.
Those are what I consider the three universal human rights. Some cultures would disagree with me. Those cultures can go to hell.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 1, 2012 19:15:27 GMT -5
People in this thread are making a common mistake about anthropology and cultural relativism. YLA is correct when he says anthropology isn't about judging. It's about understanding other cultures. The aim is to be objective, and to understand how that culture views the world. That requires not being judgmental. An anthropologist, like all people have feelings on issues, they don't have to like what they see. They can find it reprehensible, but they do need to understand it from that culture's point of view. Another important thing to understand is that cultural relativism isn't moral relativism. Especially meta-ethical moral relativism, which is the idea that morality is subjective. Cultural relativism is the idea that cultural practices should be understood from that culture's view. As previously stated, you don't need to agree with that view, but understand it. Exactly. an Anthropologist's role is not to judge but to flesh out the culture and what all happened.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Jan 1, 2012 19:33:58 GMT -5
Because I am a terrible person, all I could think of was the Kalima scene fron Indiana Jones.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jan 1, 2012 20:31:19 GMT -5
There are not enough angry domes in the WORLD.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jan 1, 2012 22:17:39 GMT -5
That's the problem with the "all views are equal" mantra. You can have sound and logical arguements on why human sacrifice is wrong, but the PC anthropologists will say "but that's your own bias!!". Instead of the strict black and white morality the fundies have, these guys look at it all grey. There's a Marc Stiegler quote that goes: The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else." The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..." Also, a question re: anthropology and not judging: Is the assertion "anthropology isn't about judging" a statement about anthropology's area of study (in the same way one might say "biology is not about supernovas") or something further?
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 2, 2012 0:00:30 GMT -5
To me Anthropology is just there to get down the culture properly and figure out the reasons for things. An Anthropologist should not be in the business of calling a culture evil, but rather in the business of stating what the culture does.
I can look at a culture that participates in human sacrifice and think 'that is wrong...' but I cannot necessarily say 'that culture is an evil culture'. At least not professionally. Nor do I think it's right to judge the entire culture for one facet.
I think Sim might do a better job of explaining.
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Jan 2, 2012 0:53:06 GMT -5
There is an anthropologist who basically said this about headhunting : Just because you are trying to understand the ritual objectively doesn't mean you endorse or like what's happening.
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jan 2, 2012 0:55:08 GMT -5
Well, yeah. There's a difference between saying "They commit human sacrifice, and that's wrong," and saying "They commit human sacrifice, therefore everything about them is wrong."
The problem is just when people focus entirely on things like that, and it becomes too easy for them to start saying "This is wrong because it's different from how we do things," instead of "This is wrong because holy shit, they straight-up murdered a seven-year-old."
And let's be entirely fair. The police arrested them. While this is clearly a problem in that part of India, it's obviously not something that's become systematic. It's not as ingrained as, say, the misogyny in Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Jan 2, 2012 4:01:12 GMT -5
I guess the thinking is that gods like gifts, too, but how anyone decided that gods would prefer a dead goat or the mangled body of a small child over, I dunno, some flowers or a nice urn of wine...? *smiles happily as he envisions Cait as a priestess of Dionysus, aka Bacchus*
|
|
|
Post by brendanrizzo on Jan 2, 2012 11:04:03 GMT -5
There. Are. No. Words.
Here is the punishment I think is appropriate for these child-murderers: Think of the absolute worst torture imaginable. Now multiply it by a googolplex. Now multiply that by a googolplex. Repeat another time. Then inflict that on them. However, make sure that they are still alive during all of this.
Really, if anyone deserves to be called "savages", it's people who kill children for religious and superstitious purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jan 2, 2012 13:37:52 GMT -5
Well, yeah. There's a difference between saying "They commit human sacrifice, and that's wrong," and saying "They commit human sacrifice, therefore everything about them is wrong." The problem is just when people focus entirely on things like that, and it becomes too easy for them to start saying "This is wrong because it's different from how we do things," instead of "This is wrong because holy shit, they straight-up murdered a seven-year-old." And let's be entirely fair. The police arrested them. While this is clearly a problem in that part of India, it's obviously not something that's become systematic. It's not as ingrained as, say, the misogyny in Saudi Arabia. You are exactly right. And don't misunderstand, this instance is terrible and I'm glad they were arrested and I hope to see a fitting punishment laid down upon them.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on Jan 2, 2012 15:33:21 GMT -5
Also, a question re: anthropology and not judging: Is the assertion "anthropology isn't about judging" a statement about anthropology's area of study (in the same way one might say "biology is not about supernovas") or something further? In the same way one might say about biology is not about supernovas. I was just trying to hammer in the objectiveness of anthropology. But I'm not the most eloquent person around.
|
|