Thanks for the comments. To respond (again, because I can’t help it) to your two points:

You wrote: “doesn’t that describe the profession of anthropology itself? Aren’t we profiting (that is, if we’re lucky enought to have jobs and grants) from writing about other cultures? Who’s more guilty here, the polyamorists or the anthropologist?”

Two things:
1- I don’t really blame the polyamorists or members of other counter cultures who’ve used cross-cultural “facts” to their own ends; I mostly blame those who disseminate cross-cultural info in a haphazard (sp?) form without putting things into context (eg. documentaries that go for shock value rather than quality).

2- The writings of anthropologists, in principle, should lead to an understanding of human behaviour. Yes, some have profited, or continue to do so, in the sense that they advance their careers and so on and so forth. I have to say that I’m a strong advocate of anthropological work that somehow serves the community in which one works, or at least that leads to greater public awareness of certain issues.

You also wrote: “Some scholars have argued that “cultural relativity,” if taken to its logical conclusion, is an expression of or promotes the worst kind of neoliberal capitalism.”

In extreme cases, of course we can’t justify practices like genocide with cultural relativity. However, we can still use relativity to *understand* how a practice works, how it becomes embedded in the social fabric, how it is established and maintained and so forth without falling into the trap of saying “Well, it’s OK because of cultural relativity”. To change something, one needs to understand it’s function, and to understand something’s function, relativity is needed.

Thanks again for your thoughts . . . discussions like these are great!

Thanks for repying to my comments. I wanted to make two points.

1. I do understand your concerns about people who may exoticize cultural difference that ends up serving their own needs.

But ultimately, doesn’t that describe the profession of anthropology itself? Aren’t we profiting (that is, if we’re lucky enought to have jobs and grants) from writing about other cultures? Who’s more guilty here, the polyamorists or the anthropologist?

2. The politics of cultural relativity

Here is what you wrote:

As for your question: “is the political valence of “cultural relativity” neutral?” If I understand correctly, you are pondering whether the act of being culturally relative in the understanding of cross-cultural practices is neutral in the sense that it can be used for negative as well as positive ends. If that is what you are asking . . . I’m not sure.

I guess I was thinking of the ethics of “cultural relativity.” Some scholars have argued that “cultural relativity,” if taken to its logical conclusion, is an expression of or promotes the worst kind of neoliberal capitalism. I am simplifying the argument to be provocative, but basically this argument is akin to the philosophical criticism against ethical relativism.

Also there have been times when cultural relativity has been questioned by anthropologists themselves. One famous instance occurred when students of Boas repudiated cultural relativity in favor of fighting against Fascism during World War II. Ruth Benedict, to take an example from my own field of Japan Anthropology, wrote an essay on why in times of war anthropologists need to rid themselves of cultural relativity…and hence, her Chrysanthemum and the Sword.

Just some thoughts. Great post & comments. Thanks!

Actually, John was my M.Sc. thesis co-advisor with Kevin Tuite. Had several classes with him. In fact, he got me to help out with the CASCA/AES/SCA committee in 2001. Got to see the other side of conferences and we all had a great time with, among others, Michael Silverstein.
Cegep: you know, I kept telling people about this, in the US. I sincerely think that Cegeps are a very good system as it prepares students for university and it’s the ideal place to do all the mistakes we need to do while socialising as young adults, instead of wasting time and money on unnecessary university training.

Sexuality and Haitians. Didn’t want to be too specific not to offend anyone. IIRC, a (female) judge had acquitted two young men from Haïti who had been accused of rape because, she said, sodomy wasn’t considered sexual in Haïti. AFAIK, she used the concept of “cultural relativism” in that case. Which gives a bad name to a very useful concept while giving no support to a very bad decision. Actually, this might be my confusion over two similar cases where cultural differences have been used in court. Interestingly, even that piece confuses cultural relativism with ethnocentrism!! Kid you not!

Now you might understand why it took me so long to start blogging… 😉

You’re right, francophones do it too and it makes it very hard to be a “franglophone” around here – you get it from both sides. (By the way . . . John Leavitt . . . met him at the CASCA conference at McGill back in 2001(?) and heard him talk. Fascinating! Lucky you, having taken a course with him!)

As for your comment on “to understand a concept of culture as more of a dynamic process than a collection of “cultural traits.” I like this a lot. I guess that’s pretty much what I was circling around with my post . . .that people need to see the connections between the traits in which they are interested and the rest of the cultural context and not just stick their hands in a cultural bag and come out with some random trait that just hangs there on its own. It is a challenge for me to get this across to students; mine are younger than the ones you teach probably as I teach in a Cegep (so cool that I can say this and I know that you know what I’m talking about! Anyone who is reading this and doesn’t know, it’s a step between HS and uni that exists only in Quebec).

Now, you got me curious about the case of the concept of sexuality in Haiti . . .would you care to elaborate?

Finally, I know that sometimes, it’s better to let go when faced with those that use “pop anthro” knowledge to ill effect but in some cases, I feel that I have to speak up, especially when there is a risk that these same people are misinforming others.

Thanks for your comments in any case!

I’m just guessing, though . . .

As for your question: “is the political valence of “cultural relativity” neutral?” If I understand correctly, you are pondering whether the act of being culturally relative in the understanding of cross-cultural practices is neutral in the sense that it can be used for negative as well as positive ends. If that *is* what you are asking . . . I’m not sure.

I think that when misguided and uninformed people attempt relativity, they may have the unfortunate tendency to glorify “the other”, as in the case of the occasional poly person that I’ve met who has claimed that polyamory existed in ancient Europe and that it was all wonderful, etc etc etc. I don’t feel that this is actually relativity because the people who do this don’t usually go and get the whole picture.

Lonely Donut Man: this brings to mind the way that Westerners are stereotyped probably to a similar extent than Westerners stereotype non-Westerners (again, I’m very ambivalent about the Western/non-Western distinction but you catch my drift). The Cree of James Bay were always incredulous when I told them I wasn’t wealthy.

Now, to address the issue of the post itself. Yup, it does happen quite a lot. People use pop-anthro to justify practices. What’s worse, some people (including some contemporary anthros) call that “cultural relativism” and then go about blasting it into oblivion. Quite sad, really. In intro classes, one strategy is to get them to understand a concept of culture as more of a dynamic process than a collection of “cultural traits.” It takes a bit but, once it clicks, they really get it… With higher-level classes, it might be easier to go about it through the critique of cases where the concept of “cultural relativism” has been abused, although that’s kind of a risky strategy if you don’t know your class well enough. Used it to good effect this past semester, mentioning a case in Quebec a few years back involving the concept of sexuality in Haïti.
With people in general, the best practice is probably to let go, unless specifically asked for a “professional” opinion. In that case, getting them to reevaluate their perspective isn’t so hard.

Like Gandhi, who was proud to be a British subject and believed in the liberal ideals of the imperium, Wimbrel’s students perhaps also felt a blinding love for the ideals of freedom and democracy — the American Dream — that the U.S. should be practicing.

Here a discussion about self-hate and double consciousness (Dubois and Fanon, for example) are really in order. And I’m sure similar emotional conflicts of identity are at work in the way Nancy’s polyamorists think about themselves.

Also what are, if I may ask, the political consequences of the “doctrine” of cultural relativity? I think Nancy’s original post touches on this issue and begs the crucial question: is the political valence of “cultural relativity” neutral? (That was badly worded, maybe someone else can do better…)

That is and is not surprising at the same time. On one hand, there is that reaction of “How could they?” On the other hand, there may be all kinds of factors such as “We’ve adapted, so why shouldn’t they” or even some internalised hatred of sorts.

About hiding the emotions: I get that a lot when I hear students bash French Canadians (I teach at an anglophone college and have a French name but the students forget that I’m francophone because of my fluency in English). It’s hard to stay objective so I usually just let them talk and rant and then remind them that they know at least one francophone that doesn’t behave the way they describe. Then they blush.

What has your experience been like?

Capt. Spaulding: [to Mrs. Rittenhouse and Mrs. Whitehead] Let’s get married.
Mrs. Whitehead: All of us?
Capt. Spaulding: All of us.
Mrs. Whitehead: Why, that’s bigamy.
Capt. Spaulding: Yes, and it’s big of me too.