Reading Response 1

A dilemma facing many anthropologists is the moral obligation to work for, rather than against, the people they study. The tenets of cultural relativism demand empathy with one's informants and a respect for their culture. Often this presents no dilemma, but there are occasions when one might question particular societal customs. For example, among the Yanomamo of Venezuela, the Siona of Ecuador, the Kayapo of central Brazil, and the Dani of New Guinea, up to one-third of men's deaths is the result of almost constant local warfare. Should an anthropologist simply accept this aspect of these people’s cultures? While most anthropologists have little problem critiquing their own culture, they are decidedly uncomfortable with the idea of criticizing the cultural practices of others. Clifford Geertz has dismissed the very notion that we can reasonably evaluate other cultures. According to his view, each culture has its own internal and consistent logic, which cannot be analyzed or judged from an outside perspective.

This relativistic position, however, can become a problem. For example, does cultural relativism prohibit judgments about Nazi Germany and its attempts to build an Aryan culture through the domination of Europe and the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the infirmed? Or the Gusii of Kenya who have one of the highest incidence rates of rape in the world and believe that sexual intercourse is "an act in which a man overcomes the resistance of a woman and causes her pain"? Or the Sambia of highland New Guinea whose initiation rites force young boys to submit to being beaten, having sharp pieces of bamboo thrust up their noses to induce bleeding, and taking part in ritualized homosexuality with the unmarried young men of the society?

Anthropologists do not generally speak out against these types of cultural practices, because of anthropology's strong belief in cultural relativism, but also because of the widely held assumption that culture is generally adaptive. This assumption induces anthropologists to make "sense" of cultural practices that from the outsider's perspective are harmful, counterproductive, immoral, or simply bizarre. For example, Marvin Harris wrote a popular book devoted entirely to explaining why cultures have such seemingly odd beliefs and practices as the Hindus' love of cows, the Semitic taboos against eating pork, and the constant warfare of many non-industrial societies. In each of these instances Harris argues for their adaptiveness.

This kind of analysis has its critics. Robert Edgerton, for example, recently argued that the evidence for the general adaptiveness of culture is questionable. In a survey of the ethnographic literature, he found, instead, widespread testimony of the maladaptive nature of human cultural systems: particular cultural beliefs and practices often put people at risk for physical or mental illness, can lead to societal discontent or rebellion, or may result in the disappearance of entire cultures and their languages.

One thing that is important to realize, however, is that while Edgerton argues against the view that culture is always "adaptive," he maintains a strongly relativistic attitude and attempts to understand what role "maladaptive" traits might play in various cultures. Indeed, he suggests that maladaptation must exist in all cultures because of such factors as inequality, conflicts of interest, and environmental change.