The dictionary definition of cultural relativism is the belief that all points of view are equally valid and should be evaluated relative to the observer's culture. In practice, this idea which has been adopted wholesale by western academics, teachers, politicians, and the media, is used to prevent discussion and debate on particular topics. You will only ever hear it used in the context to criticise a “Western” point of view vis a vis particular issues. You will never hear of say, a Saudi responding to a Somali complaint about the cruelty of camel racing, that the he couldn't possibly understand the cultural context and vibrant tradition of kidnapping children and forcing them to race camels for the benefit of the rich.
Example #1: Fundamentalist Christians are as intolerant of gays as Fundamentalist Muslims
Because we live in a society that is founded broadly on Judeo-Christian values, many people attempt liken the mistreatment of gays in our society to the mistreatment of gays in say...Iran. Undeniably, homosexuals have had a hard time throughout the ages in Christian societies (I'm sure it wasn't a party in other cultures either), and the gay rights movement has done much to reverse some of the wrongs, as the women's rights movement before it. Of course there are parts in the West where being gay is still not accepted (like maybe Utah in the US and possibly Bairnsdale in rural Victoria), however as a rule, gays enjoy all the freedoms any other individual enjoys in a free society, as they should.
Recently, I had a discussion with a friend about a mutual gay friend of ours who had claimed in certain parts of Melbourne, he had been made to feel "uncomfortable" because he was gay. Because of the Judeo-Christian link to our society, the view was then put forward that because Christians following the letter of the Bible, cannot tolerate homosexuals, then ipso-facto, cultural-relativo, our society was as bad as Iran's on the treatment of gays.
This is what happens to gay men in Melbourne:
This is what happens to gay men in Tehran. (WARNING GRAPHIC PICTURE)
The difference here, is not so much what is written in people's respective religious texts, it is the current day practice of said religions.
Example #2: FGM or Female Genital Mutilation (aka Female circumcision)
In many backwater third world countries, this 'procedure' is carried out on pre-pubescent girls (if they're 'lucky') or as an adult if they had manage to escape it first time round. It involves removing the clitoris and labia without anesthetic. The victim (sorry that's my western point of view, I meant to say “the girl”) is usually held down by her mother and other female relatives whilst a 'doctor' performs the operation.
This procedure is not 'allegedly' unique to any religious creed and most common in Africa. The idea behind this barbaric custom is that it ensures the woman's chastity until she is married, family honour, blah blah a bunch of other misogynistic platitudes. It also ensures that the woman will probably never enjoy sex.
This is an abominable and barbaric custom that any individual with an ounce of human compassion should actively denounce. It is child abuse at it's most depraved and a grave injustice committed against women.
You would think that our medical establishment would be at the forefront championing women's rights here and in the 3rd world against this custom, wouldn't you? In order to get the official take on this, I went to the website of The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (http://www.ranzcog.edu.au/), and I downloaded the FGM Booklet (available here).
I didn't need to go further than the preface (page 6):
"One of the challenges has been to balance the issues relevant to the transcendence of cultural boundaries. Writing from within our culture about those of others, we are aware of the potential to be ethnocentric in our approach."Be wary of any document bearing the words "transcendence of cultural boundaries".
Imagine the worldwide chaos and negative impact on our GDP if the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists were to make an official statement against "Dr Umbutu" from Sudan and his monstrous practice. Evidently the imagined evil of being "ethnocentric" outweighs the very real evil of child abuse.
The very next sentence is the silver platter:
"However, in avoiding this bias we need also to avoid lending support to the cultural relativist view that allows cultural self-determination even when the violation of human rights is evident to others.""in avoiding this bias"??? Why is this bias to be avoided?!? A bias against FGM is a very healthy thing for individuals and societies. Way to go standing up for the sisterhood there, docs.
Example #3: John Howard is as bad as Robert Mugabe
This year, the chief of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, in the foreword of the Amnesty international 2007 report, she singled out the four of the biggest human rights violators in the last year. In order, John Howard, George W Bush, Omar al-Bashir (Sudan) and Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe).
Below is the paragraph in question (page 2 of the foreword)
“The Howard government portrayed desperate asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to Australia’s national security and raised a false alarm of a refugee invasion. This contributed to its election victory in 2001. After the attacks of 11 September 2001, US President George W Bush invoked the fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power, without Congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan whipped up fear among his supporters and in the Arab world that the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur would be a pretext for an Iraq-style, US-led invasion. Meanwhile, his armed forces and militia allies continued to kill, rape and plunder with impunity. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe played on racial fears to push his own political agenda of grabbing land for his supporters.”
This (and this) is what happens to the political opposition of Robert Mugabe,
This is what happens to the political opposition of John Howard.
This is what is currently happening to protesters in Bangladesh (where the esteemed Irene Khan was born)
Melbourne or Darfur? I can't tell the difference, and neither can Amnesty International
The thing with cultural relativity is that it it is ultimately a contradictory position. Philosophically stated, if cultural relativism is true, and all points of view are equally valid, then the “point of view” that cultural relativism is false, is true. Confused yet? Well that's because reason and logic have very little to do with cultural relativism.
If all cultures are equal, why is western culture uniquely bad?
