How do we resolve the problem between cultural relativism and evolutionary biology (genetics, science)?

Question

How do we resolve the problem between cultural relativism and evolutionary biology (genetics, science)?

Answer 1

Many cultural relativists would deny the universality of certain human traits and emotions; one occasionally still reads the claim that romantic love was invented by the troubadours and does not exist in most non-western societies.  By contrast, evolutionary psychology leads us to expect that large numbers of quite significant elements of human behavior are universal in our species, and indeed in closely related primate species.  Margaret Mead's naive portrayal of a Polynesia devoid of sexual jealousy is perhaps the archetypal example of the older paradigm.

Answer 2

You don't.

Cultural relativism is a confused social science concept that would not allow the comment on, say, something as appalling as female genital mutilation, because we are not to comment from the outside perspective of another culture. We do not have cultural beliefs that transcend our evolved human nature.

Evolutionary biology is a science that shows culture is the superficial local response to environment among humans and is engendered by men. That behavior has a genetic basis and we are one species, regardless of populational variance.

Now, many in anthropology do not like this truth, as they are committed to their academically condensed and marginalized " social constructionist " positions.

Answer 3

Anthropological relativism is a method in cultural anthropology of setting aside the beliefs of one's own culture in order to study another culture and understand it as closely as possible to how it's members understand it.

The only way this affects or possibly conflicts with evolutionary biology is if a society denies (or believes in) evolutionary biology, in which case, it is the job of the anthropologist to report that, not to make value judgments on it just like it is the job of a scientist writing a research report to describe his or her results, not make judgments about it's moral usage or ethical implications.  Since belief or disbelief in evolutionary biology doesn't hurt anyone, there is no conflict.

Many anthropologists do make value judgments on human rights issues.  This is where it is easier to see the difference between moral relativism and cultural/anthropological relativism.  Even when making value judgments, all anthropologists use anthropological relativism to understand what the members of a society think about a practice.  Knowing this is vital to any campaign for change.  That is why even though anthropologists may encounter honor killings and write about how horrible it is, they will also explain how the society views honor killings, what function these have in society, and why the practice is still used from the perspective of the members of the society.

Do be careful not to confuse anthropological relativism (aka cultural relativism) with philosophical relativism (aka moral relativism) which is the belief that no universal moral standard exists by which to judge the morality of any particular system and so all actions within a society must be judged based on the moral code of that society and no other.

Answer 4

Why is there a conflict?

Cultural relativism refers to interpretation of findings relative to the culture in which such findings are made. I believe the term applies to the attempt to understand the culture associated with the artifact and, not the artifact.

The particular cultural position,` on a practice in question or tool, in no way affects evolution.

Science is the application of the scientific method toward our understanding of everything. If something appears to refute science, that something is most probably invalid.