Universalization or cultural relativism, which one is most important for society?

Culture isn’t a static entity. It isn’t a means of understanding, a way of life, or a set of rules

carved in stone. Culture is dynamic. It is complex. Culture is an ongoing process of adaption,

evolution, and historical development. Is there a final destination for all cultures? Perhaps, a

movement towards the unanimity of cultures? Or are cultures bound and supposed to stay

separate and unique to constitute a healthier society? In 1994, Rey Chow published an essay

entitled Where Have All the Natives Gone? In this essay, she comprehensively investigates what

constitutes the identity of an authentic native. Critical of the issue, Rey Chow deductively

examines the imperialist and anti-imperialist outlooks in terms of what each of them prefers:

Universalization and cultural relativism. And how each philosophy affects the composition of a

native and the society. I believe something fundamental such as human rights, should supersede

all local cultures and exist unanimously, but cultural relativism should govern all other

characteristics of any specific society. The essay begins by discussing how imperialists have

taken control over native speech to spread their narratives. It then investigates the case of

progressive cultural natives and the true nature of the West. Subsequently, it talks about the false

portrayal of modernity by the West.

In the context of the arguments that proceed, It’s essential to define the key terms objectively and

agreeably to avoid subjectivity and bias. Cultural Relativism is the view that cultures differ

fundamentally from one another, and so do the moral frameworks that structure relations within
different societies. Universalization, on the other hand, is the view that universal affairs,

including but not limited to moral rights and rules, are unaffected by cultural interference.

Is having a platform and opportunity to speak a matter of privilege? Perhaps, a matter of

dominance or representation? Using a contentious debate between Spivak and Kristeva in the

book entitled About Chinese Women as an example, Rey Chow rightfully infers that imperialist

speech has obtained governance over the natives' discourse (Chow, 1994, Pp. 327-328). The

concern here is the harsh assumption that the imperialists or western scholars represent the

natives as their most authentic selves. By definition, imperialists view everything through a

universal lens and, in the contemporary era, mainly from a privileged standpoint as well, which

is the exact opposite of how natives view everything. Natives are, In the majority, oppressed and

traditional as far as their beliefs and practices are concerned. Therefore, it's absurd to expect the

imperialist speech to voice the natives' concerns. For instance, when the Taliban rose to power in

Afghanistan, they imposed puritanical Islamic order and Sharia law, which contradicts Western

culture and International law on numerous levels. In light of the contradictions, America lent

support to the Afghani natives under 'Operation Enduring Freedom' with an ambition to save

them from the Taliban's jurisdiction. Do Afghanis really need to be saved? If yes, then saved

from what? What if they are satisfied with their country's social, political, and religious culture

even though it contradicts the manufactured Western culture? Who asked America to save them?

In such a case, we see that America, the imperialist, has unjustly filled in the blanks and

answered all the questions on behalf of the Afghani natives because they view the entire issue

through Universalization. However, there is also a flip side to this coin, which does not justify
but reinforces the necessity of Imperialist interference. Universalization stands firm when

fundamental human rights are concerned. After the Taliban's takeover, best put in the words of

Major Sangeeta Tomar, women have been 'Traumatized by the Brutality' (Tomar, 2002, p. 154).

Tomar uses this comment as an umbrella term to call attention to the inhumane nature of how

women were treated in Afghanistan. Under the name of religion, women were being tortured,

raped, disgraced, discriminated, deprived of education, and much more. A religious culture isn't

an excuse to violate the fundamental rights of women. Hence, speaking is a matter of privilege

and representation, and the cultural natives have indeed lost their voice to the imperialists.

However, that doesn't mean imperialists should view the natives' position through their universal

standpoint and dilute their cultural, social, and religious ideologies and practices. Imperialists

can interfere and act as required only when the violation of fundamental human rights is

concerned, including life and liberty. And Rey Chow ensures, using the example of

Bhuvaneswari Bhaduri's suicide (Chow, 1994, p. 331), that even though the cultural natives may

not have a formal voice, they will most definitely communicate their position through symbolic

gestures, which imperialists should closely monitor before going straight towards imposing

western culture.

Natives are finally stepping out of their traditional frames. Not only are they becoming more

educated, but they are also consciously participating in embracing and refining their own

cultures. Is this something to worry about? Perhaps, be disturbed by? Rey Chow points out that

Western anthropologists feel immensely bothered by the Natives' positionality. (Chow, 1994, p.

324) Rightfully, the issue is not on the end of the Native but the western scholar who is feeling
uneasy about embracing or validating this change. Clearly, this is the case because the Western

imperialists don't want to divide their power and influence with the stereotypical traditional

Native. In such a case, the western imperialists have created a biased trap to sustain their

heightened position in the hierarchy by labeling the progressive Native as someone who has been

distorted and now is no longer a native. Imperialists have taken the distorted Native under their

wing on their subjective standards. Although Western anthropologists argue that western culture

and westernization epitomize freedom, justice, peace, prosperity, security, and modern society,

they fail to understand or acknowledge that no matter how accepting or optimal Western culture

portrays itself to be, in reality, it radically undermines people's existing cultures and values.

Additionally, Western culture has several layers to it. The outermost layer interacts with society.

It preaches and sells promising ideas such as progress, individualism, science, and superior

values. Whereas the innermost layer or the core, which is foundational to the functionality of

Westen culture, implements almost none of what it preaches. In a world of cultures, Western

culture is the colonist. Hence, the concept of cultural relativism is progressive, and so is the idea

of Universalization. However, Westerners have associated progress so closely with their culture

that it almost seems like a trait they gave birth to, but that is not true. Therefore, cultural

relativism, accepted by the natives of each culture, is more favorable for society, especially if we

know that cultures are progressive and developing. Universalization is just a force that aims to

bring all cultures together as one, which due to geographical, political, and socioeconomic

reasons, is a far-fetched aim. And if progress is being recorded at a cultural level, it means that

society is already performing well and shouldn't be interfered with.

Universalization and Cultural relativism, both, are sensitive to the idea of modernity. Therefore,

it's impossible to ignore modernity in such a discussion. Modernity in its simplest form means

the quality or condition of being modern. According to Rey Chow, Modernity is associated with

sweeping changes that took place in the fields of art and literature. Rey Chow describes

modernity as something that's irrevocable (Chow, 1994, p. 331), and as Clifford puts it, a force

that "endangers authenticities." (Clifford, 1998, p. 5) What's being suggested here is that

modernity is permanent, and it distorts the composition of natives. Rey Chow fittingly captures

the nature of modernity, but Clifford misses the mark. However, this limited conversation makes

the concept of modernity seem like an inclination towards a western civilization which, quite

frankly, isn't the case. As suggested by Samuel P. Huntington, "Modern societies have much in

common, but they do not necessarily merge into homogeneity" (Huntington, 1996, p.30) This

comment captures the true nature of modernity, which is that a society can be cultural and still be

modern. Western society isn't the same as Modern society. In fact, that is false identification. A

western society developed its recognizable features long before modernity. I believe this

completely negates the preconception that almost all western imperialists have regarding their

culture and the idea of Universalization. Yes, modernity shapes societies for the best, but it isn't

supposed to be a bi-product of western culture. Hence, modernity doesn't have to endanger the

authenticities of anyone. It just elevates their social, cultural, and religious position to a new and

improved plane. Universalization corrupts this idea. Therefore, Cultural relativism should prevail

as far as modernity is concerned to shape a better society. Another argument that arises with

modernity is categorizing first-world and third-world countries and their implications.

First-world countries are characterized as the democratic-industrial countries of the West, and

third-world countries are described as autocratic and underdeveloped countries. Rey Chow
undermines the purpose of these categorizations by pointing out that the transmission of

experiences is lost in translation, which for natives, who initially can't speak, becomes an issue.

(Chow, 1994, p. 333) Natives now have to justify their speech and actions. Although this creates

complexities, one thing is clear, which is that Natives are oppressed through this. Imperialists

become sovereign, while the Native become someone who has to provide evidence and proof to

validate their entire selves. The first and third world, in such a case, exceeds its primary purpose

of just being a metric of classification. It constructs a hierarchy, one that perpetrates

discrimination among its levels. The traditional cultural relativists are classified as the third

world on subjective modernity scales created by the imperialists and are discriminated against,

while the first world western universalists are placed on the better end of the spectrum. And this

creates natural tendencies for the traditional third-world countries and people to attain first-world

status. Essentially, a trap designed by the West to spread its ideology by covering it up in a cloak

of modernity. Hence, modernity can exist culturally and isn't associated with the Western

classifications. Such classifications just advertise a false agenda of universalization which leads

to discrimination and oppression.

Universalization should exist for fundamental human rights, and cultural relativism should not be

used as an excuse to infringe on human rights. This should be one of the highest goals for human

society. The moral system of cultures can be privileged, which objectively isn't fair. However, as

far as the religious, social, political, and economic composition of natives and civilizations are

concerned, cultural relativism should prevail due to its all-accepting nature. And universalization

may portray itself as demolishing the barriers that come with numerous cultures. It not only fails
to do that but substitutes those barriers with some of its own and really doesn't make a difference.

Hence, both, cultural relativism and universalization are beneficial for society but for different

purposes.

References

1. Chow, Rey. “Where Have All the Natives Gone”. Duke Authors. (1994).

2. Tomar, Sangeeta. “HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERN AND CONDITIONS OF WOMEN

IN AFGHANISTAN.” India Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, Sage Publications, Ltd. (2002).

3. Clifford, James. “The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography,

Literature, and Art.” Cambridge: Harvard UP. (1988).

4. Huntington, Samuel P. “The West Unique, Not Universal.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 75, no. 6,

Council on Foreign Relations. (1996).