Cultural relativism was in the news recently with a focus on a financial settlement in some litigation regarding workplace perception and reaction regarding employees who identified with a culture distinct from the one in which they were working. The term "cultural relativism" was familiar, but not one I had visited recently.
The concept is central to much of anthropological study. It has been " long a key concept in anthropology." An interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education notes this history, but some see a diminution in anthropological interest in recent decades. And the author in that contra suggests some relation or association between cultural relativism and moral relativism.
"The view that attitudes, behaviors, values, concepts, and achievements must be understood in the light of their own cultural milieu and not judged according to the standards of a different culture."
"The belief that the morality or immorality of an action is determined by social custom rather than by universal or fixed standards of right and wrong."
The critical distinction is "cultural milieu" versus "social custom." The "relativism" is a constant. There is room there to consider the view of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), "an unjust law is no law at all."
Either relativism is the conclusion that right and wrong are both flexible and self-centered. Whether it is someone's cultural posture or their personal customs, it is the person alone who defines right and wrong. In the St. Augustine spirit, is an undefined or undefinable law fatally flawed?
The recent news report originated with the British Broadcasting Corporation, which has had some credibility issues, and was republished by Yahoo News. The article explains how microwaving food led to friction, perceptions, and a lawsuit.
A staff member complained when an Indian dish was reheated, "because of the way it smelled." The employee heating the dish alleged that the complaint and the employer's response were effectively "discriminating against Indians for their 'Indianness.'" While this was not a major news story in America, it "received significant media coverage in India" and Britain. The BBC referred to this as "what many have described as 'food racism.'"
This is intriguing because Indians complain of such "racism" while in Western nations, but others allege "discrimination over food is rampant in India as well." The BBC contends that this is not country- or region-centric, with complaints of "food habit" "shaming" reported in various corners of the world.
After complaining about the criticism regarding his food, the employee alleged "a series of actions by the" employer, including loss of work status and position, responsibilities, and supervisory relationships. The employee alleged workplace discrimination in a lawsuit, and the employer settled. The BBC suggests such resolutions are not uncommon, in avoidance of expense and risk of litigation.
Interestingly, the employer was a university, and the situation arose in its Anthropology Department. The employee's significant other was also an instructor and invited the food-microwaver to speak to a class, focusing on "Cultural relativism," which the BBC defines as "the view that no culture is superior or inferior to another as cultural practices of all groups exist within their own cultural context."
This was translated into the plaintiff's allegation that despite skills and knowledge, "the system is constantly telling you that because of your skin colour or your nationality, you can be sent back any time." This is perceived by her as being employed in a precarious and uncertain posture.
There are various questions to unpack. First is whether relativism is the appropriate standard, whether cultural or moral. Should the workplace or society be governed by singular standards that apply universally, or should the cultural or moral perspectives of various people lead to various standards (or, in effect, no standards at all)?
Second, in the event there would be singular standards, who would define them, would exceptions be debated, and why? Is there any relevance in the advice of Saint Ambrose of Milan (c339-397): "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" Or is it more logical for the Romans to adjust to accommodate the perceptions of their guests?
In the balancing of rights, do the wishes of a person wanting to create a smell automatically outweigh the wishes of a person who does not wish to experience it? Which person's cultural or moral perspective should control the outcome of whether the smell creation is allowed and/or protected?
Does it matter in this analysis whether either the need or the objection is based on health, safety, or welfare, that is, something beyond preference of comfort? Can one passenger on a plane object to what others eat? Does it matter if the objector is concerned for their own reaction to their fellow passenger's peanuts or is concerned that someone the objector might later contact could have a reaction? How direct or tenuous is appropriate? Based on whose perspective, culture, or morals?
There is always challenges in balancing the rights of various people or groups. See Rights Collide (February 2016); Where do we go from here? (March 2016); What is Right with Comp? (June 2016); Free Speech and Due Process (June 2022). As we provide balance, there will be questions of perspective, society, individuals, and, it appears, relativism. This is intriguing.
The ultimate issue will be no different than other balancing questions. May I be as offended by someone's cannibalism as they are by my politely declining to partake?
