USA: +1 508 290 1604 
Sign in
Culture defines the way diverse global communities express their unique beliefs, values, and personal interests. The uniqueness in the said practices creates diversity and a sense of belonging. Therefore, cultural relativism is a modern anthropology, which insists that all cultures are equal and that there exists no moral compass to prove whether a certain cultural practice is right or wrong. Some global examples of cultural relativism include but not limited to female genital mutilation, honor killing, arranged marriage, and strict Asian parenting (Pérez & Barreno, 2017). Cultural relativism debate generates diverse academic perspectives, and if not properly nurtured, its limitations hold potential harm in the organizational and global context (Pérez & Barreno, 2017). Cultural relativism plays an integral role in the global spectrum, and imposing universal standards to evaluate the said practices will not only expedite the crucial component of diversity but also induce ethics and morality.
There exist multifaceted academic arguments and perspectives on matters concerning cultural relativism. A healthy cross-cultural relationship is achieved when people from different backgrounds acknowledge and respect the diverse lives of others without judgment (Sue et al., 2019). Modern society views cultural relativism as a moral compass without which individuals and societies would not flourish. Academic thoughts on relativism indicate that philosophy is a type of abdication that represents a form of defeatism, responsibility, and negotiation (Sue et al., 2019). The importance of the said anthropology is to escape limitations that fall within ethnocentrism. The said view focuses on the intellectual effort to formulate behavioral and coherent beliefs aligned with morality.
However, academic perspective on relativism is often faced with limitations due to the human moral dilemma of judging the course of action as either ethical or unethical. Such counter arguments insist that some concepts are common in all human beings and that the science of morality can be challenged but not contradicted. According to Eriksen (2017), cultural relativism does not inherently represent moral relativism. Another limitation associated with relativism is that it is impossible to eliminate biased perceptions and reactions to an unfamiliar culture. Overall, the difference in thoughts and perspective on cultural relativism should be guided by respect and understanding to achieve societal morality.
As stated above, cultural relativism claims that each distinct culture has an equally valid mode of perceptions and choice. It is important to formulate universal standards that evaluate different cultural practices concerning the globally accepted human rights. These guidelines would also evaluate cultural competency in social work. With this in mind, it is impossible to consider that everything is relative since the said philosophy contends that absolute right and wrong do not exist. The lack of objective moral truth that drives the global society has cultivated the development of the mistaken idea of cultural relativism that transverse through the race, gender, age, and the political aspect of the societal organization (McPherson, 2018). If there existed international standards, past cases that affect human rights, such as Mayan infant sacrifice and female genital mutilation in Africa, could have been avoided (McPherson, 2018). In essence, cultural relativism should be standardized in a manner that ensures that societal diversity falls within the human rights parameters.
The United States has experienced numerous negative implications arising from cultural relativism. Anthropologically, the idea of cultural relativism seems like a noble standard to uphold. However, practicing this phenomenon in the U.S. has proven to be problematic due to societal stereotyping, a plethora of universal truths, and drastically differing economic status (Wolfson et al., 2016). In America, racism has proven to be the greatest vice that inhibits cultural integration. Firstly, the dilemma induced by stereotyping has made whites to commit hate crimes and murder against blacks simply because their cultural practices differ. Secondly, the justice system is often split on the correct penalty for matters that affect human rights. For instance, African natives are raised with the culture that caning a child is an acceptable form of disciplinary measure. In contrast, whipping a child using a belt attracts a judicial penalty that could lead to imprisonment. There is a negative implication of cultural relativism in the U.S. in regard to the fight against civilian gun restriction (Wolfson et al., 2016). America has a culture of allowing citizens to hold licensed guns. Most people are opposed to this idea since historical prove across the global scale demonstrate that guns often result in violence and high-end crimes such as murder (Wolfson et al., 2016). Cultural relativism restricts people from judging such cultures despite the negative implication they impose. The philosophy in question has numerous advantages, but the noticeable negative implication should not be overlooked as it strains the constituted human rights.
In an organizational context, cultural relativism blurs moral intuitions, especially when transacting businesses across national boundaries. As stated above, moral clarity is often elusive whenever the global society lacks defined standards of minimal conduct and approximate moral census. In the U.S., organizational managers face the dilemma of whether it is permissible to invest in a nation that has zero regards to human rights (McPherson, 2018). Precisely, Nayak (2013) argues that organizations in Saudi Arabia have cultural practices that restrict the involvement of female workers in managerial positions. In such cases, Cultural relativism requires businesses to respect these practices even though they transcend national human rights (Demuijnck, 2015). However, business moral rationality forces multinational organizations to circumvent restrictive occupational laws. It is, therefore, crucial for managers to determine whether the parameters set by the philosophy under scrutiny are culturally different and ethical. Overall, understanding the impact of cross-cultural situations involving ethical dilemma can set flexible parameters within which cultural relativism can be employ in the organizational context.
A positive global perspective can only be developed through formulating international standards that govern the ethical parameters within which cultural relativism should exist. However, it is important to understand and respect other people’s cultural practices and beliefs without imposing judgment. Arguably, global cultural relativism is unattainable since the said philosophy lucks moral relativism. People will often judge others’ cultural practices in comparison to their own in terms of morality. As a result, nations, such as the USA, suffer the implications of relativism due to factors such as societal stereotyping, a plethora of universal truths, and drastically differing economic status. Overall, the success of cultural relativism can only be achieved through standardization and ultimate respect for diversity and morality.
References
Demuijnck, G. (2015). Universal values and virtues in management versus cross-cultural moral relativism: An educational strategy to clear the ground for business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 817-835. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24702906
Eriksen, T. H. (2017). Global citizenship and the challenge from cultural relativism 12(4), 1141-1151. http://dx.doi.org/10.21301/eap.v12i4.7
Johansson Dahre, U. (2017). Searching for a middle ground: Anthropologists and the debate on the universalism and the cultural relativism of human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(5), 611-628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1290930
McPherson, J. (2018). Exceptional and necessary: Practicing Rights-based social work in the USA. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 3(2), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820912310
Nayak, B. S. (2013). Challenges of cultural relativism and the future of feminist universalism. J. Pol. & L., 6, 83.
Pérez, M. A. C., & Barreno, P. C. O. (2017). Cultural relativism, ethnocentric education and society in general.
Sue, D. W., Sue, D., Neville, H. A., & Smith, L. (2019). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons.
Wolfson, J. A., Teret, S. P., Frattaroli, S., Miller, M., & Azrael, D. (2016). The US public’s preference for safer guns. https://doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2015.303041
