Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 18, 2008 4:33:50 PM
The principle problem with cultural relativism is not that it is wrong so much as it confuses two different concepts.
Cultural relativism starts from an arguably correct premise, that cultures are of equal value. Obviously this is open to debate, and I personally believe that there are cultures which are more or less beneficial to their adherents. But even if we grant cultural relativism's argument, the conclusions they draw are incorrect.
Starting from the value judgment that all cultures are of equal merit, they reach the unwarranted conclusion that there is no value to a common culture. And that is where they go wrong. Even if all cultures are of equal value, that does not mean all should be present in the same society. Whether or not any specific culture is better than another, there are clear benefits to establishing a single culture within a society.
Why do I say that?
Well, let us start with a very simple example. If we establish a single national language, the benefits are obvious, as communication is facilitated. If we allow every member of society to speak whatever language they please, and do not encourage the adoption of a single language, it will result in chaos. If we speak a single language, we can assume safely that anyone to whom we speak will understand us.
And a culture is essentially nothing but a type of language. By having a common culture we have a short hand of kinds. We know how people will respond to various acts or words. If we do not have a common culture, we do not know if asking a woman on a date will result in a smile, a slap, or a stabbing by her brother. Common cultures resolve that, by telling everyone what the accepted range of responses are. It allows us to know what will happen.
So, we do not need to posit that our culture is superior to argue that people immigrating to our nation should adopt it. Yes, at home and in their own enclaves, immigrants are free to act as they wish, anyone is free to act as they wish when on their own. But in public, when interacting with the larger culture, it is important that we all adopt some common cultural assumptions if only to allow us to understand one another. Over time, those assumptions may change, aspects of foreign cultures may prove preferable to our own, and may be incorporated, but, whatever the cultural assumptions of the moment, it is important that society encourage everyone adopt them.
Of course, when we discuss what norms should be adopted, at that point the merits of various cultures may become a relevant point, and that may not please the advocates of cultural relativism. But whether we should a common culture at all is a different matter. The benefits of a common culture, whatever it may be, is not open to debate. It is not an expression of cultural elitism, there simply is too much benefit from a shared culture to adopt the assumptions of the relativists.
NOTE: For those who read the very first posting of this article, I have changed the third paragraph somewhat. I realized that my wording may have been slightly confusing, especially my attempt to distinguish between the judgment of the relative values of cultures from the practical application that we should not have a common culture. I think my new pared down wording works much better.