Re: Orientalism and Asymptotes XXIII
I am a pragmatic centrist rather than a cultural relativist. Sorry for the Reductio ad Hitlerum, but cultural relativism ultimately limits criticism of cultures that predominantly believe in racial purity.
Cultural relativism is just a politically correct (yes, it’s ironic that a centrist isn’t politically correct) form of appeasing strange groups and people.
Sorry, but I fail to clearly understand how cultural relativism “goes out of the way to accept everything” and “limits valid criticism of cultures.” I’m curious about where you got this notion from.
According to my introductory Sociology course and its accompanying textbook, Society: The Basics, by John Macionis (Sociology 100 is one of my favourite courses, by the way, definitely take it if you enjoyed Social Studies 11 in high school, which I loved with intense passion), cultural relativism is — correct me if I’m wrong or have been misled — the “practice of evaluating a culture by its own standards” and can sometimes be “a difficult attitude to adopt because it requires an understanding of unfamiliar values and norms and the suspension of lifelong cultural standards.”
I believe valid criticism begins with understanding. Only by taking a cultural relativist approach through evaluating and understanding a culture by its own standards can one begin to criticise a culture in a logical manner. I think cultural relativism is not so much about intentionally accepting everything than about taking a perspective that allows the examination of a culture from within its shoes, despite how awkward or uncomfortable the shoes may fit. Without employing such an approach, how else would one critically examine a culture within a valid context? The lack of such an approach would lead to misunderstandings, stereotypes, and potential prejudice and discrimination.
Having said this, is cultural relativism still a means of “appeasing strange groups and people?” The notion that people of a particular culture are “strange” is, frankly, a display of ethnocentrism, which is the “practice of judging another culture by the standards of one’s own culture.” One might attempt to criticise a culture as being strange when, in fact, one has not taken the time to understand this particularly “strange” culture by its own standards. The merits of such a criticism would be slightly questionable.
And what is a pragmatic centrist, anyway? 
I think I also used to be one in a period of time not long ago, during which intuitive, firmly held, and sometimes emotional opinions formed the basis of my decision-making process.
Questions of the day
Which is more dangerous (causes greater incidence of morbidity and mortality and decreases quality of life in population): aeroplane flights or motor vehicle rides; tobacco and alcohol or heroin and cocaine; street crime or white-collar/corporate crime?
Which of the above answers grab more popular attention?
Related posts:
I stand corrected with my definition of cultural relativism. I only remember covering it briefly in a PHIL 102 lecture, where the professor listed the ethics of taking the cultural relativist approach. She claimed that cultural relativism is a slightly radical form of the cultural mosaic multiculturalism that we have now in contrast to the colonialism and cultural assimilation before World War II. That’s as far as my knowledge goes in this area.
As far as my “pragmatic centrist” political views, it’s a simple way of saying that I don’t necessarily subscribe to one particular ideology. Maybe liberalism, but liberalism is broad. It really depends on the situation.
Just to take a stab at the questions of the day, I’ll go with motor vehicle rides, tobacco and alcohol, and white-collar/corporate crime.
Ah yes. Philosophy may have a slightly different approach.
And… your answers to the questions are correct. It’s interesting to note how the correct answers are more harmful yet the public as a whole (and subsequently people with decision-making power) often answer otherwise.
Oh no! I was thinking about taking SOCI 100, but I hated SS11, so it’s a good time to find out I probably wouldn’t have liked it…
I thought you’ve got all of your courses for the years ahead planned out already
Soci 100 doesn’t have the historical components of SS 11 (e.g., WWI, WWII, Canadian politics, etc.), but I really enjoyed it and found its critical thinking components especially rewarding. Maybe sit in Debra Pentecost’s lecture during the first week and see for yourself?