|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you describe yourself as a cultural relativist? |
| Yes |
|
20% |
[ 6 ] |
| No |
|
70% |
[ 21 ] |
| �That�s where I saw the Leprechaun. He tells me to burn things.� |
|
10% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 30 |
|
| Author |
Message |
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: Why I Am Not A Cultural Relativist |
 |
|
I may be wrong about this, but I seem to see a fair number of people who are cultural relativists on this board with regard to people reacting to criticisms of Korea and Korean culture. Cultural relativism was something I had hoped I would escape when I left university, but apparently I have not. So I'm writing this to tell you why you're wrong.
First a definition:
| Quote: |
| Moral relativists hold that there are no universal standards of moral value, but only the cultural norms of particular societies. |
I should also say that I will not be arguing things like what side of the road people should drive on, whether people take their hats on or off to show respect, etcetera. Basically, none of the small, arbitrary things. What I'm referring to are issues like government, justice systems, treatment of minorites, treatment of foreign persons, etcetera.
The first major obstacle to cultural relativism being a viable moral theory is the problem of determining objectively when something is a cultural traditon, and must therefore be tolerated, or not.
Cultural relativism points to things like the treatment of women in Red China, of gay people in Saudi Arabia, or of foreign English teachers living and working in Korea as traditions immune to foreign criticism.
But at what point does one have a distinct culture in which you can make your own rules? If I were raised by my parents to believe that, say, men should beat their wives, then got married and beat my wife, would that be okay? Cultural relativism says no, because I am in a Western society with Western values. But why can't I say that a man beating his wife is my culture, just as Communist Chinese said it was theirs, and that others in the West have no right to judge? Why can't I claim to be a culture of one? How many does it take?
Another problem is that the violent and oppressive cultural practices are created and enforced not by consensus or any sense of agreement, but at the point of a gun. It would be one thing if gay people in Saudi Arabia agreed that homosexuality was a crime and that they deserve strict punishment, or if women in Red China believed that an abortion should be forced upon them against their will to prevent overpopulation. But they don't, and this means that the cultural practices are being determined by whichever group or faction in the public is strongest. What gives that group the right to tailor a 'cultural traditions' to their whims, and to demand others respect it? Does this then mean that might makes right?
Finally there is the problem of foreign policy. If every culture has the responsibility to respect other cultures and not interfere or judge, what of cultures with a history of expansionism and colonialism? Cultural relativism will argue that, for example, the late Japanese Emperor Hirohito had a right to rule, as that dynasty had existed for hundreds of years and was an ingrained part of Japanese culture. However, another part of that culture at the time (from the beginning of the Meiji era to WWII) was the belief that Japanese have a right to rule Asia by force as the superior race.
Since emperor and military worship was a part of the culture, does this mean that China and Korea should have laid down and allowed Japan to invade without a fight, since they have no right to cast judgement on Japanese culture? Wouldn't trying to deny Japan's attempts to colonialise be an infringement on their right to continue their cultural traditions?
Of course not: cultural relativism argues that Japan has no right to invade, since doing so infringes on Chinese and Korean culture. But here, in respecting and not interfering in Chinese and Korean culture, they are betraying their own culture. Cultures conflict, and that when they do, it leads to contradictions: Pre-war Japanese culture cannot exist at the same time on the same planet as pre-war Korean and Chinese culture: one of them has to give. Which one is right? Cultural relativism can provide no answers.
And that's my argument. Some may, based on my example about foreign teachers in Korea, conclude that I feel bitter about being in Korea. I want to say, before anyone makes that charge, that I'm happy here and like being in Korea. The examples are a reflection of a few things I find very annoying and wrong about Korea, but that doesn't mean I don't find my time here rewarding overall.
PS Ignore my third poll question- I just threw it in there for my own amusement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not quite on topic, but...
People should try to change what they think is wrong anywhere if they see injustice. Culture is not a valid excuse. We are all human, and I wish we would be invaded a la Independence Day to wake people up to this. THe major problem, is which morals are right??? China has more high ranking women in the military than any Western Government and because of the one child policy, women have actually seen a change in society's biases against them in China so quickly the West didn't even come close when it changed to accept women as equals.
Some morals just seem right, like being against wife beating. Actually, any "moral" that infringes upon others in a harmful way (not an annoying way) is usually not very moral. But because of subjectiveness, this is a delicate thing. Look at the boshintand thread. Or an abortion thread. Or even look at the thread where the 25 year old teacher molested (I use that word, but many there don't think it was molestation) a 14 year old student. I just don't think people should be trying to right other cultures when their own is still in debate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Cultural relativism" is a strawman. Pretty much nobody holds the position you're describing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
happeningthang
Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I probably number among one of those you seem to be describing as a cultural relativist. However, I wouldn't say I'm a moral relativist and for CDinK to talk about culture, then use a definition of morality, before skipping gaily back to culture - is to ensure the spread of his own confusion.
I agree with CDinK's point in saying the moral rights and wrongs of the world are universal and culture doesn't provide exemptions. I don't think that anyone here is saying otherwise. Cultural relativism is more about understanding that;
1) You view the world and behaviour based on your culture.
2) So do people from other cultures.
Any difference that results because of this can be understood by the fact that you have different ideas. It's not exactly rocket science. Relativism doesn't alter a persons morality, it just explains why other people have different morals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with gang ah jee. I don't think cultural relativism is what you are saying it is.
I'd like to address this paragraph more specifically:
| Quote: |
Another problem is that the violent and oppressive cultural practices are created and enforced not by consensus or any sense of agreement, but at the point of a gun. It would be one thing if gay people in Saudi Arabia agreed that homosexuality was a crime and that they deserve strict punishment, or if women in Red China believed that an abortion should be forced upon them against their will to prevent overpopulation. But they don't, and this means that the cultural practices are being determined by whichever group or faction in the public is strongest. What gives that group the right to tailor a 'cultural traditions' to their whims, and to demand others respect it? Does this then mean that might makes right?
|
Change the examples. Do you think a burglar in any country agrees that burglary is wrong? Truly wrong? I doubt it. I think it's more likely they have very weak consciences and feel free to disregard any law that is inconvenient to them. In that sense, they are not really members of society. They do not share the cultural norms of their society, which I think is part of the definition of culture--that it is shared, which goes to your question of how many it takes to make a culture.
I'm curious which moral values you regard as universal. Could you specify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we live in a complicated world where ethics can sometimes contradict or conflict. We recognize that we should try to respect different cultures' standards, and that some actions are hurtful or sinful or inappropriate, and life is a tricky business of weighing one of our tenets against another. I don't think anyone on this board would be purely relative or purely absolutist, and the arguments here are mostly on where the balance should be struck.
Culture itself is also a subjective decision. To a culture of criminals, break and enter is something to be proud of. We also do our best to define what a culture is and isn't, and that doesn't always conform to national borders.
I wouldn't call myself a relativist, but I'm not an absolutist either, because I allow that I'm a human being and in the fog of things I need to sometimes say no one knows.
P.S. Jessica Alba is hot.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| "Cultural relativism" is a strawman. Pretty much nobody holds the position you're describing. |
Mr. Gang, I esteem you more each day.
There is nothing worse about modern academia than the tendency to construct contrived dichotomies, usually comprised of strawmen, and then watch(or frolic about in--[fallout snowmen and fallout fights]) the fallout over the next two decades until someone with a modicum of common sense suggests:
| a smart guy wrote: |
| This is a false dichotomy. What we need is an organic, integrative approach to the subject, involving a more nuanced analysis focusing on much more specific cases, rather than gross generalizations, considered on a case by case basis that fully respects the integrity of each individual involved in the study and is more than prepared for deviations from preconceptive theory. Not that hypotheses doom one to analytical prejudice--but they must be regarded as no more than a starting point, a chosen place to park the car, before you get out and start wandering the mazes of that vast metropolis which is the human experience. |
Paraphrasing myself, of course.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There must be at least some absolutes, some things are just wrong... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Morality is metaphysical bunkum.
Not are morals said to exist - not only do they be - they also prescribe what should and shouldn't occur.
Other than the psychological, where and how do such properties exist, and how are human psychological states objective features of reality? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Morality is metaphysical bunkum.
Not are morals said to exist - not only do they be - they also prescribe what should and shouldn't occur.
Other than the psychological, where and how do such properties exist, and how are human psychological states objective features of reality? |
Neither of your following statements supports the first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, the 3rd statement asks a moral absolutist how things or actions contain an objective property of rightness or wrongness. My guess is that their answer - if any - will be an appeal to metaphysics.
The second statement suggests that morals are strange entities. Right and wrong are ideal (of the mind) states of affairs. Given that morals concern themselves solely with human behaviour and their source essentially human psychological states, how can right and wrong be said to be objective features of reality? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Well, the 3rd statement asks a moral absolutist how things or actions contain an objective property of rightness or wrongness. My guess is that their answer - if any - will be an appeal to metaphysics.
The second statement suggests that morals are strange entities. Right and wrong are ideal (of the mind) states of affairs. Given that morals concern themselves solely with human behaviour and their source essentially human psychological states, how can right and wrong be said to be objective features of reality? |
You are, however, assuming a division between mind and...else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OP, dude you have a philosophy degree, get back here and argue this! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| OP, dude you have a philosophy degree, get back here and argue this! |
Patience my friend! It takes time for me to sum up my powers of Pretentious Pontificating (but I will soon) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cdninkorea wrote: |
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| OP, dude you have a philosophy degree, get back here and argue this! |
Patience my friend! It takes time for me to sum up my powers of Pretentious Pontificating (but I will soon) |
Loseur. I can do this on call. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
