Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism: Truth Is Relative

Cultural relativism is the view that no culture is superior to any other culture when comparing
systems of morality, law, politics, etc. It's the philosophical notion that all cultural beliefs are
equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the cultural environment. Those who
hold to cultural relativism hold that all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are
completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity. Relativism often includes moral
relativism (ethics depend on a social construct), situational relativism (right or wrong is based on
the particular situation), and cognitive relativism (truth itself has no objective standard).

Cultural Relativism: A Misguided Movement Towards Pluralism & Tolerance

Cultural relativism, like moral relativism, pervades today's world. As long as we don't "hurt"
anyone, anything goes. Absolute truth has been discarded along with God. We live in a society of
pluralism and tolerance. We reject the idea of universal right and wrong. With a diminishing list of
objective standards, our legislative system is having a harder time defining the laws, and our court
system is having a harder time interpreting them. In just a few decades, our entertainment industry
has pushed the "acceptance" of lewdness and indecency to levels we never imagined. Our
children are losing their moral compass and lashing out in violence like never before. Our schools
teach that we are an accident of evolution. Our institutions teach that we must accept all types of
lifestyles or be deemed "intolerant," or worse, "hate mongers." Relativism encourages us to accept
pornography in the media and fornication in our colleges and universities. Many things that were
deemed a "sin" only a few years ago are now either accepted or promoted in our culture.
According to the relativists, all points of view are true except for those that teach absolutes --
absolute truth, absolute right or wrong, or an absolute God.

Of course, cultural relativism is appropriate in some respects. For example, food, clothing,
language, and driving rules are different within cultures, and it's important that these relative
differences remain. However, these are not issues of universal "right" and "wrong." These are not
matters of mathematical certainty. These are not issues of "truth." In a relativistic society, we have
no right to judge or punish anyone. Right and wrong are now defined by socialization. Society
changes and morality becomes a moving target. In truth, if the standard of right and wrong is
based on relativism, then society has no standards at all.

Cultural Relativism: Illogical Conclusion

Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultural views are equally valid. However, if
you test this position under general rules of logic, you soon discover that relativism is illogical and
self-defeating. If relativism is true and all points of view are true, then the assertion that relativism
is false, is true. Is this contradictory? Yes. Is truth contradictory? No.

Relativists believe that all truth is relative. Therefore, the statement, "All truth is relative," would be
absolutely true. If this statement is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the
statement is false.

Relativists declare that "there are no absolute truths." However, this is an absolute statement,
which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and the statement is false.

According to the relativist position, I can have my own version of truth. Therefore, a truth for me is
that relativism is false. Based on the relativistic rules, I have just established that relativism is
false. Of course, the relativist will say "no" to my logic, but then what is true for me is not really
true, and, again, I have proven the philosophy of relativism false

"What is Cultural Relativism?"

Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual
within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is
considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal
standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.

Cultural relativism is widely accepted in modern anthropology. Cultural relativists believe that all
cultures are worthy in their own right and are of equal value. Diversity of cultures, even those
with conflicting moral beliefs, is not to be considered in terms of right and wrong or good and
bad. Today’s anthropologist considers all cultures to be equally legitimate expressions of human
existence, to be studied from a purely neutral perspective.

Cultural relativism is closely related to ethical relativism, which views truth as variable and not
absolute. What constitutes right and wrong is determined solely by the individual or by society.
Since truth is not objective, there can be no objective standard which applies to all cultures. No
one can say if someone else is right or wrong; it is a matter of personal opinion, and no society
can pass judgment on another society.

Cultural relativism sees nothing inherently wrong (and nothing inherently good) with any cultural
expression. So, the ancient Mayan practices of self-mutilation and human sacrifice are neither
good nor bad; they are simply cultural distinctives, akin to the American custom of shooting
fireworks on the Fourth of July. Human sacrifice and fireworks—both are simply different
products of separate socialization.

In January 2002, when President Bush referred to terrorist nations as an “axis of evil,” the
 cultural relativists were mortified. That any society would call another society “evil” is anathema
to the relativist. The current movement to “understand” radical Islam—rather than to fight it—is a
sign that relativism is making gains. The cultural relativist believes Westerners should not
impose their ideas on terrorists, including the idea that the suicide bombing of civilians is evil.
Islamic belief in the necessity of jihad is just as valid as any belief in Western civilization, the
relativists assert, and America is as much to blame for the attacks of 9/11 as are the terrorists.

Cultural relativists are generally opposed to missionary work. When the Gospel penetrates
hearts and changes lives, some cultural change always follows. For example, when Don and
Carol Richardson evangelized the Sawi tribe of the Netherlands New Guinea in 1962, the Sawi
changed: specifically, they gave up their long-held customs of cannibalism and immolating
widows on their husbands’ funeral pyres. The cultural relativists may accuse the Richardsons of
cultural imperialism, but most of the world would agree that ending cannibalism is a good thing.
(For the complete story of the Sawis’ conversion as well as an exposition of cultural reform as it
relates to missions, see Don Richardson’s book Peace Child.)

As Christians, we value all people, regardless of culture, because we recognize that all people
are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). We also recognize that diversity of culture is a
beautiful thing and differences in food, clothing, language, etc., should be preserved and
appreciated. At the same time, we know that because of sin, not all beliefs and practices within
a culture are godly or culturally beneficial. Truth is not subjective (John 17:17); truth is absolute,
and there does exist a moral standard to which all people of every culture will be held
accountable (Revelation 20:11-12).

Our goal as missionaries is not to westernize the world. Rather, it is to bring the good news of
salvation in Christ to the world. The Gospel message will kindle social reform to the extent that
any society whose practices are out of step with God’s moral standard will change—idolatry,
polygamy, and slavery, for example, will come to an end as the Word of God prevails (see Acts
19). In amoral issues, missionaries seek to preserve and honor the culture of the people they
serve.
Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is the act of judging another culture based on
preconceptions that are found in the values and standards of one's own
culture – especially regarding language, behavior, customs, and
religion. These aspects or categories are distinctions that define
each ethnicity's unique cultural identity

Ethnocentrism and cultural Relativism – is there a biblical

alternative to these two extremes?
Ethnocentrism is the view that one particular ethnic group is somehow superior to all
others. The word ethnocentrism derives from the Greek word ethnos, meaning “nation”
or “people,” and the English word center. A common idiom for ethnocentrism is “tunnel
vision.” In this context, ethnocentrism is the view that a particular ethnic group’s system
of beliefs and values is morally superior to all others.

Cultural relativism is the view that individual beliefs and values systems are culturally
relative. That is, no one ethnic group has the right to say that their particular system of
beliefs and values, their worldview, is in any way superior to anyone else’s system of
beliefs and values. What’s right for one culture might be wrong for another and that’s
alright. There is no absolute standard of right and wrong by which to compare and
contrast morally contradictory cultural values.

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are mutually exclusive. They are two extremes on
the opposite sides of a philosophical spectrum. Is there a biblical alternative to these
two extremes? There is. There is a third extreme. Theocentrism is the view that God is
 superior to everyone else. The word theocentrism derives from the Greek
word theos, meaning “God” or “gods,” and the English word center. In this context,
theocentrism refers to the view that God’s system of beliefs and values is morally
superior to all others. It is perfect. It’s the absolute standard by which we are to judge
everyone else’s system of beliefs and values.

Theocentrism is similar to ethnocentrism in that it posits the existence of an absolute

value system. In this way, theocentrism contradicts cultural relativism in that cultural
relativism denies an absolute standard. Theocentrism is not however entirely compatible
with ethnocentrism in that theocentrism is God centered rather than man centered.

How does this translate practically? The implications are that whenever it can be
determined convincingly that God has spoken on matters of faith and values (how He
feels about murder or stealing, for example) His view is to be accepted and adopted
regardless of any controversy surrounding the subject matter. (In this case, murder and
stealing are wrong). Wherever God has remained silent a matter or has given man
freedom to decide for himself (which is the case for most cultural preferences), we are to
decide for ourselves what we prefer. We cannot however justly prejudice ourselves
against those who disagree with us because God has not given us a standard by which
we are to judge who’s right or wrong. In these instances, we are to be tolerant towards
those who hold contradictory views. In this way, theocentrism is different from both
ethnocentrism and cultural relativism.