Theory of Cultural Relativism

Theory of Cultural Relativism

Einstein would be proud of a theory that incorporates a relative stance toward an idea.  Would the father of special relativity conclude that E=mc² (where E is exceptions to the “norm”, m is morality, and c is culture), however?  The answer, he probably wouldn’t have enough time to think about anything outside of his field to answer this question, but this idea is applicable to the challenge of cultural relativism.  The issue presented in the article “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” is the question of whether cultural differences are a result of different beliefs, failing morality, or both.  An answer to this question could be explained by the idea of cultural relativism, but isn’t a full answer, as James Rachels explains.

Cultural relativism is an idea that there is no true right or wrong because different societies have different beliefs in what is right and wrong.  Due to the fact that society defines and shapes one’s perspectives of what "right" and "wrong" are, is there really any way that any group of people, who does something another group of people considers wrong, could do wrong?  Cultural relativism would have that cultures could do right by their standards, and that they should be viewed subjectively against their own culture, and no one else’s.  This could be very problematic, as the article says that wars waged over the right to allow more slavery could be technically right to the one culture, so it must be allowed and legal due to this idea.  The article then states that cultural relativism could be incorporated into an overall stance towards other cultures, but not the only idea in the back of one’s head, as each culture does have morals which are virtually the same across all cultures. 

Many times cultures are discriminated against due to their deviation from what another culture calls normal.  An example is in Things Fall Apart, where the Christian missionaries have a problem with the clan’s religious belief system.  The clan is then subjugated to the new, invasive culture’s ways of life and law.  In this case, cultural relativism was not observed, and an extreme opposite was used.  In every sense, society, which teaches what is right and wrong, are to be held accountable and responsible for one’s beliefs, morals, and motives for doing something.  Novels focusing on the very distant past, future, or an alternative world such as Beowulf and The Fountainhead all have different cultures due to their different societies.  Society, in effect, controls and changes culture, as it once started each culture. 

In my own opinion, cultural relativism should be observed only when a culture affects something in its own culture.  When a culture interacts with other cultures, a universal set of morals and objectivism should be respected.  While someone should not discriminate against someone else’s culture, if that culture impedes, influences, intervenes in, or overall affects another group of people, cultural relativism does not really apply and an objective view should be taken, viewed from outside either of the involved cultures to decide what is right, just, and fair.  No matter what, however, there are always different definitions of right and wrong, and conflict always arises.  This holds true unless there would only be one universal culture to which everyone belongs, which is nearly impossible.  The theory of relativity is more readily perfected than a theory of cultural relativism, a statement which Einstein would most likely agree with.

The Prince Hamlet

The Prince Hamlet

To be good or not to be good, that is the question that pervades Hamlet’s life in the play.  Machiavelli, author of The Prince, held the belief that the end must justify the means, and that a leader may not do good to benefit his kingdom all the time, but rather do evil or bad in order to comply with his subjects and allow an end result to be beneficial.   Hamlet exemplifies this idea in the play, as he attempts to right prior wrongs committed to him and his family, while performing a malignant task in order to achieve this end; murder of his uncle and current king of Denmark.  The play Hamlet regales the audience with a tale of loss and revenge, while asking the question of whether Prince Hamlet lives up to Machiavelli’s model of a prince or not, and to what extent. 

The Prince by Machiavelli was a work on political philosophy and, in sorts, guidelines for a ruler.  The work expressed Machiavelli’s idea that a ruler would occasionally need to “come to grief among so many who are not good” in order to be a better leader.  In essence, Machiavelli said that a leader cannot be completely good to be effective.  In reality, most, if not every, leader of any nation has, in some way, followed Machiavelli’s instructions, even without realizing.  Leaders need to attend to their people, and constantly do partially-immoral, and often corrupt, actions (albeit this is generally without a thought of the public).  Thus, Hamlet does comply with The Prince’s idea of an unholy and partially-bad-natured leader by default.  Hamlet, however, realizes the evil that he wishes to do, but continues on, possibly going farther than the Machiavellian “prince” idea.

Hamlet does many wicked acts in the tragedy Hamlet, however, when the play begins, he is very different.  At the beginning, Hamlet does not want to believe that his uncle killed his father, and he was just mulling in grief for several months after his father’s death.  Only once his father’s ghost told him that Claudius killed him did Hamlet seek revenge (after much careful thinking, though).  Hamlet, in the course of the play, killed Polonius, father of Laertes and Ophelia, seemingly without remorse, as a result of his own madness that he claimed to be fake.  This is the point where Hamlet’s qualities akin to the leader in The Prince start to differ; Hamlet not only “came to grief” but influenced that “grief” by adding in his own personal indifference, making it less of a quality for a ruler, but more of a quality of a madman.  Hamlet goes even further with this “madness” by letting his two friends be killed, possibly leading to Ophelia’s death, and killing Laertes and the king.  If Hamlet just killed the king, then he could be considered to be living up to the prince’s ideals in Machiavelli’s work, because he seldom did evil, and when he did it was to create a beneficial end, but he killed too many people and without remorse that should have been there, so The Prince cannot be completely applicable to Hamlet.

Machiavelli was a man who believed that any end must justify the means.  This ties in to Hamlet because Hamlet sought out revenge for most of the play, thinking it was the way to right the wrong of his father’s murder.  The same idea applies to this as with the idea that Hamlet simply became immoral to become a better ruler; Hamlet seems to have gone too far.  Hamlet, if he simply killed his uncle, the one responsible for his father’s death, would have had an end that justified his means (murder).  As a result of Hamlet killing or leading to the deaths of several people, the end that arose (Hamlet’s own death) was called for.  In this regard, the end of Hamlet justified Hamlet’s means, but the end of Polonius, Ophelia, and many others was not justified by Hamlet’s vengeful acts.

When Hamlet was written, Machiavelli’s The Prince was probably not used as a model for Hamlet, however, Hamlet does model some of the qualities of a leader that The Prince expresses are necessary.  Hamlet lowers himself to Claudius’ level by seeking to kill him, and he does become immoral, as The Prince believes is needed in a leader, but he takes it several steps further by leading to the deaths of several more people, and does so without remorse.  Hamlet even, in a way, shows that the end does justify the means, even if the end is now what was intended.  Hamlet, even if not intentional, was created in such a way that Machiavelli’s beliefs hold true and prominent.

Holding Out for a Hero

Holding Out for a Hero 

Beowulf is no doubt the hero in the epic Beowulf.  But is he a hero in today’s society?  The word hero means multiple things.  It could be as simple as the main protagonist in a literary work, or a grand, immortal being that saves the day.  Having just watched Shrek 2, so many relevant comparisons came to mind.  In this movie’s climax, the song “I Need a Hero” by Bonnie Tyler was sung by the antagonist, Fairy Godmother.  The song made me question Beowulf as a hero.  According to this song, a hero needs to be “strong”, “fast”, “fresh from the fight”, “sure”, “soon”, and “larger than life”.  Beowulf is all of those, so Bonnie Tyler might think that he is a true hero.  She brings up Superman and says that the hero is in her “wildest fantasy”.  She basically describes a superhero in her song, because only a superhero would be capable of saving her, but it is relevant because Beowulf, for all that it is told that he did, is a superhero.

The meaning of the word “hero” is purely subjective.  A hero could be a role model or could be someone who has done great things for others.  A hero is commonly thought to be someone who can save people; a hero is a good person.  Beowulf saves people, and can be a role model, but is he a good person?  In the time that Beowulf’s story was originally told, and especially when it was set, Beowulf was a perfect hero.  The oldest definition of a hero is someone who defies all odds, and uses physical ability to save people.  Modern usage of the word, however, has changed its meaning.  In today’s society, a hero doesn’t have to use physical prowess to save; he/she could use intellect, compassion, or any number of qualities deemed by society as being positive.  A possible reason for this change is that there is a lack of need for the Beowulfs and the Hulks in society, because the types of conflict and problems have changed.  Many people’s problems in life are based off of feelings, and those types of heroes don’t appeal to emotions as much as a man who helped an old woman cross the street would.  Beowulf is a physical hero, but he is so one-dimensional that he can’t be a hero based on his character.  In our day and age, Beowulf might even not be categorized as a hero, because of this lacking characterization.

I see both sides of the argument.  In its simplest meaning, Beowulf is a hero.  I personally wouldn’t want Beowulf to “sweep me off my feet”, though, and I don’t think he is “a white knight upon a fiery steed”.  He is not a hero in the newest sense of the word, but a firefighter, a police officer, and even my seven-year-old brother are heroes.  Could my brother physically defeat Beowulf?  No, but he is a smart, strong-willed person and is much more of hero than the nearly-invincible Beowulf, at least to me.  This is the major distinction: today’s heroes are family and the common man.  Once people’s innate appreciable qualities started to make headway into stories as the major focus, people could start seeing brains over brawn and that motivation is might.  Granted, people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and Mahatma Gandhi might be seen as larger than life figures due to their accomplishments, but they aren’t invincible mythical heroes. 

I wouldn’t be “holding out for a hero” if Beowulf is the model of a hero.  Figures like Beowulf aren’t as prevalent as heroes anymore, and aren’t the types of heroes I would appreciate in my life.  Beowulf might be the “streetwise Hercules” but he isn’t the force “to fight the rising odds” that I want or I need.  Though powerful, Beowulf is not my hero, nor is he today’s society’s hero.  The days of Beowulf are gone, and the time of rationality and relatability are reigning.

Blind? Invisible? Indecipherable?

Blind?  Invisible?  Indecipherable?

Is society blind, are individuals invisible, or are both true?  Are there individuals to be invisible anymore, or is it just one big indecipherable society?  These questions came to mind when I was reading Invisible Man.  Two major viewpoints are conspicuous and permeate through the story: society is blind or individuals are invisible.  While the novel doesn't say that individuals are invisible, it states that African-Americans, or minorities overall, are.  This idea, however, can be applied to the common man.  Honestly, is the "common man" remembered by society?  The answer is no, only the "Greats" and famous are remembered by society as a whole (even though the "common man" is remembered by those he/she interacts with), and as such, the invisibility motif can be applied to everyone in the world who isn't one of those aforementioned memory-hogs.  So stand my previous questions: is society blind or are people truly invisible?

The title of the novel would have you believe that the individual is invisible, while the tone and mood of the novel would have you believe that society is a deaf and blind (though not dumb, as society has proven to speak its mind, no matter how irrelevant and repugnant its opinion is).  The narrator labels himself "invisible" yet despises society because, even though he didn't come out and explicitly state it, it is blind to him and his plight; the search for his identity.  Critics and readers all have their own opinions about which is what Ellison was truly going for, but it can be assumed that Ellison wanted the reader to understand what happened to African-Americans in the mid-1900s at the very least.  Ellison may have intended his narrator to be a representation of African-Americans, but he is also a symbol of the individual.  He searches for himself the entire novel, and he breaks away from society in order to do so, making himself even more individualistic.  Individuals have a goal of separating themselves from society, but this is at the cost of becoming invisible.  Actors and other famous people aspire to entertain society, so they work for others, not for themselves, and aren't individuals and aren't invisible.  On the flip-side, the common man works for him/herself and possibly a family, but is invisible because society doesn't acknowledge this person, and is blind to this person.  Following this train of thought, as I have, both seem true, and there is no way to disprove either, as Invisible Man even can't differentiate the two; if one is present, so is the other.

Here's the kicker though: what if neither are true?  The way society is, it is one giant block, and people can't just single out others from this society.  True, I could name famous people or groups in society, but they don't really show individuality, but a form of societal vision and just bend to societal pressure.  What if individuality is gone and there is just one lump of indecipherable garbage left?  If that is true, then there is no invisibility or blindness, because what is there to be blind or invisible about?  The way media is, it "inspires" people or makes them act a certain way.  This conformation is taking away individuality and replacing it with a general, singular pool of collectivism.  Society could get so indecipherable that it, in itself, could become an individual, instead of the people themselves.  Fads are especially a form of this collectivism.  Even though they aren't harmful, per se, they do make people conform and group together. 

I, for one, am not a fan of overbearing collectivism, though I don't think there should be all individual, selfish people, either.  There is a happy medium, where you help out people in a collective fashion, yet still remain yourself and retain an individual identity.  I find it to be a scary thing to be solely together and not be the person someone could be, or rather the individual someone could be.  One thing I found interesting was the difference between "persons" and "people".  Technically, "persons" is the plural of "people", though modernly it is also "people".  I did some research and found this: "the plural of person is persons when a specific, countable number of individuals is meant, but that people should be used when the number is large or indefinite." (http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/people.htm).  The fact that in modern times, "people" is used and "persons" isn't shows how collective this society has become.  According to this diction, any amount and instance (except in official documentation) of persons is people, and I believe that this is due to the fact that society has grown to accept a collective view on humankind.