John Curran

It is possible to talk about differences in development without entailing value judgments. We can start this discussion, I think, by taking Steward and White off the hook with regard to any charges of obviously racist ethnocentrism – which, of course, we all find morally repugnant.

I approach this question with a definition in mind of a very generic descriptive kind of cultural relativism — more or less, the principle that cultures must be understood and explained in their own terms.

I don’t see a way that Leslie White’s brand of social evolutionism can be construed to comport with this (or any other recognizable) form of cultural relativity.

I also don’t believe you can understand or explain a culture in its own terms if, as Steward does, you ignore or relegate to secondary status any feature of life unrelated to subsistence activities (in his terms, outside the “culture core”): folklore, religion, ritual life, art, psychology, etc. Steward eschews the study of “unique, exotic, and non-recurrent particulars” (1955: 209), aiming instead for mid-level comparative generalizations.

Of course, cultural relativity, for Steward, has its uses. In 1950, he outlined the four aims of cultural area studies; second on the list was “A deepened recognition of cultural relativity.” This, he wrote, “means that one knows enough about foreign cultures to understand that each has a self-consistent and distinctive pattern, that each has developed its own solutions to life out of a unique past, and that none is absolute or inherently superior to the others” (1950:4).

For Steward, cultural relativism’s recognition of discrete cultures with distinctive pasts (which, he believed, unfolded according to a particular developmental logic) provided a justification for identifying a given culture’s traits and adaptive patterns. Perhaps you could say that Steward’s cultural ecology subsists on principles cultural relativism, but they come into conflict with one another when applied.

Lauren Deal

I think that John does an excellent job outlining the problems White's and Steward's theories and Relativism. His last point, however, I find even more interesting. Based on the quote John provides it its obvious that Steward did consider and reflect upon the theory of cultural relativity and in fact does so in, what I consider, a very interesting and thought-provoking way. The goal of anthropology is to uncover and understand the patterns by which cultures operate in their environments and thus survive in the world. In this sense we recognize and embrace the differences between cultures. but I wonder if we truly embrace self-containment. In the very nature of theorizing we look to extend these patterns or perhaps to find patterns behind the patterns so that we may draw larger conclusions. This is where I had trouble with Levi-Strauss. I felt he so longed for these patterns that he sacrificed the uniqueness of the individual culture. However, what is theory without generalization? We disagree with Steward and White because their evolutionary schemas makes us feel uncomfortable and ethnocentric however, Steward's idea of evolution could easily be seen as developmental patterns. Would this make me less uncomfortable? I don't know. Would I agree with him? Probably not. But, does this eliminate a compatbility with relatvism? I don't think so.

Sara Ray-- Response

I agree with John, I don't think that either really is compliant with cultural relativism simply because of the terms that they view culture in. Steward does entertain the notion but ultimately I think he falls short of really embracing the concept, though he does give it careful consideration. White, I think, is totally non-compliant with the idea of cultural relativity.

!

EH--Response

I agree with the posts above. Steward does mention about it but at the end, e disregards cultural relativism approach and focuses on comparing cultures. I think Lauren’s post was interesting. Too much focus on patterns looses uniqueness of culture. But just recording the culture and accepting as it is does not take you anywhere. Generalization, patterns and comparison are necessary to understand cultures. We know that something is unique because we compared it and searched for similarity in other culture s but couldn’t find it. It is hard to determine where anthropologist should stand and what to focus. There are so many ways that one can approach culture.

Tyson Johnson

I think that there is room for cultural relativity in the theories of White and Steward. While I agree with John's comment that the study of non-subsistence culture is relegated to a secondary status in their theories, neither White nor Steward discredit it entirely. In acknowledging that there is some element of culture that is not universal they create room for studies in cultural relativism. They may consider the findings of such studies trivial, but that does not mean they would vanish from the field of anthropology should the theories of White and Steward become the dominant ideologies.