Cultural values and relativism

Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando Lanzer

An intriguing quote is attributed to the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski: “All cultures are equal. But the culture that is formulating that is of a higher level.”  

It is a provocative statement that challenges the notion of cultural relativism. 

Cultural relativism suggests that all cultures should be seen as equal and valid in their own right. Critics like Kolakowski argue, however, against the idea that all cultural values are equally valid. They express skepticism, arguing that such a view could lead to moral nihilism. 

Cultural Relativism and Its Limits

Cultural relativism emerged as a response to ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one’s own culture as superior to others. Anthropologists like Franz Boas argued that cultures should be understood and respected within their own contexts without imposing external judgments. This perspective promotes tolerance and understanding, encouraging societies to appreciate cultural diversity without placing one culture above another.

However, Kołakowski’s quote challenges the notion that cultural relativism can be applied universally without any hierarchy. When a culture asserts that “all cultures are equal,” it is engaging in a self-reflective act that requires a certain level of intellectual and ethical development. This act of self-awareness and the ability to transcend one’s own cultural biases suggest that the culture making this claim possesses a degree of sophistication or maturity. In other words, the very ability to formulate the concept of cultural equality might indicate a higher level of cultural development.

At first glance, the quote seems paradoxical. How can all cultures be equal if one culture is deemed “higher” because it has the capacity to assert this equality? The answer lies in understanding the implications of such a statement. Kołakowski is not merely contradicting himself; he highlights a fundamental irony in the discourse on cultural equality.

The Hierarchy of Values

Kołakowski’s quote implies that cultures are not simply collections of practices and beliefs that exist on an equal plane. Different cultures possess an underlying hierarchy of values; some cultures may prioritize values such as freedom, equality, and human rights more than others.

In this view, cultures that embrace pluralism and the equality of cultures have reached a higher level of self-awareness and moral maturity. This stance doesn’t diminish other cultures but rather acknowledges that some cultural frameworks allow for a broader, more inclusive understanding of human values.

Power Dynamics in Cultural Discourse

The second part of Kołakowski’s quote addresses the power dynamics inherent in cultural discourse. The culture with the privilege to declare all cultures equal often has the intellectual and material resources to engage in such a debate. This power dynamic can be seen as a form of cultural dominance, where one culture, by virtue of its advancements or influence, can dictate the terms of equality for all cultures.

Western liberal democracies often champion the idea of equality. However, these societies are also the ones with the power to disseminate their values globally through education, media, and political influence. This creates a paradox where the culture that promotes equality is also in a position of power, potentially imposing its values on others under the guise of promoting equality.

Hofstede and equality

With Geert Hofstede’s profound research findings, we can “unpackage” the values that define culture.

Before Hofstede, culture was approached as a single compact object that could not be analyzed meaningfully. Hofstede proposed breaking it down, or “unpackaging it,” into components.  

We call them “value-dimensions of culture”. 

Two of the four confirmed value dimensions are involved in defining equality.

The first one is Power Distance. This is about “the acceptance of unequal distribution of power in a society”. Inequality is seen as an existential fact of life.

The second one, Individualism versus Collectivism, is about rights. In Collectivist cultures, we find particularism. There are different rights for insiders and outsiders. In individualistic cultures, thinking is universalistic. The rights are valid for everybody.

Western countries share only one of the Hofstede dimensions: Individualism. As a consequence, they consider human rights a universalistic value system. This is sometimes uncomfortable in non-Western countries and is rejected as “new colonialism”.

About 200 countries signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means that countries can be held accountable for trespassing. However, more than 80% of the world’s population lives in countries with collectivistic cultures that score high on Power Distance. This could mean that these cultures might feel sympathy for the general message but will be hesitant to enforce it if people of their own in-group are involved.

Another important issue is that the Universal Declaration is promoted as a new ideology.

Our blog on Utopian ideas described the danger. Idealism tends to turn against those who do not follow it. Many ideologies result in imprisonment or worse for adversaries.

Slowly, awareness is developing that a much broader interpretation of human rights is needed to avoid “identity wars” and polarization. The latest messages about the problems with DEI programs at American universities are warning signs.

Another alarming sign is that human rights are called “Eurocentric,” mainly with reference to the ideas of the European Enlightenment. Adversaries combine that with European Colonialism and propose to reject all ideas from the colonialists. This is now and then taking the shape of rejection of critical thinking and cause-and-effect thinking.

The authors of this blog adhere to the UDHR’s statements but see an urgent need for another approach, one that prioritizes solving the accumulation of global crises.

Climate change, energy transition, poverty: we cannot wait to solve the problems. In spite of our value diversity, “We are in it together.” 

The framework of the Seven Worldviews can help bridge differences. Indeed, “if you want to build bridges, you need to know where the shorelines are.”

Hierarchy and criteria 

Globalization and Geert Hofstede’s work have enabled us to examine these issues more deeply and examine the implications of value dimensions, including how Kolakowski’s basic assumptions can be interpreted. For this, we also need to “take off our glasses” and remove our own cultural filters to look impartially at the notion of “cultural superiority.” 

Considering the damage that so-called “Western Civilization” has done to our planet, the wisdom of ancient indigenous civilizations, more synchronous with Nature, has surfaced. Could this promote a rethinking of Western values?

Hofstede has described values as “a preference of one state of affairs over another” without addressing a “hierarchy of moral maturity”; should everyone accept such a hierarchy, or would this become a regression to Aristotelian concepts of Ethics, Reason, and Emotions being placed conceptually in descending order? Since Sigmund Freud uncovered the fact that unconscious impulses drive people’s behaviors, does that topple Aristotle’s moral temple or shake its foundations?

When discussing “moral hierarchy,” what values should be placed at the top, based on what criteria? Again, the question is: why would we need a hierarchy of cultures? Would this be a kind of geopolitical power game scarcely disguised as a philosophical discussion?