Introduction
Although encouraging awareness for cultural diversity, cultural relativism may sometimes be detrimental. At its most extreme, cultural relativism allows no place to criticize other cultures. Essentially, I will analyze the proposals of Savater demonstrated in chapter 6 of The Question of Life regarding freedom in action via applying cultural relativism. Evaluating proposals as equally valuable and avoiding comparing them to my cultural norms, traditions, and beliefs are critical.
Cultural Relativism as Approach
Cultural relativism refers to the approach of not evaluating a culture according to its criteria for determining what is right or wrong, strange or normal. According to cultural relativism, human cultures are independent systems with different laws unrestrained by biology (Lynch 280). Different cultures, for instance, are identified as the underlying units to which judgments are relative in cultural relativism. Thus, according to the approach, people should endeavor to comprehend other groups’ cultural practices within the chosen cultural frameworks. Lynch states that cultural relativism is a methodological notion meant to assist anthropologists in eliminating ethnocentric prejudice so that cultures may be genuinely analyzed (288). Cultural relativism was opposed to the assumption that human cultures could be classified based on societal stages that monitored progress in a shared practical purpose that involved nature in instrumental terms (Lynch 288). As a result, cultural relativism, at its foundation, aims to explain cultures internally, via comparison to its frames of meaning, rather than through contrast with other cultures or values.
Savater’s Proposals
The chapter starts with the concept of ‘to inhabit the world.’ According to Savater, to ‘inhabit the world’ means more than just being in the environment, moving around in it, and reacting to its stimuli. For instance, like every other animal, a bat responds to its environment in line with its genetic program, which corresponds to its species’ evolutionary demands (Savater 89). I think the author explains the basis of cultural realism in this statement. Like every animal reacts to its surroundings under its genetic program, we should understand that people act according to their cultural standards and beliefs. Savater emphasizes that the actions of Australian aborigines, the Aztecs, and the Vikings are different (89). Thus, the behaviors should be assessed not by comparing cultures but by investigating each culture separately and understanding its framework.
Consequently, the author analyzes the distinction between action and voluntary act. Closing one’s eyes, raising one’s arm, or looking for something are all acts (Savater 90). The author uses multiple viewpoints, such as Aristotle and Wittgenstein, to clarify the notions. Aristotle’s idea is that individuals occasionally behave freely despite their will. The author’s approach is not simply based on his point of view; instead, Savater focuses on addressing ideas from diverse sources without passing judgment. I would argue that he is once again employing cultural relativism. Freedom, according to Savater, is the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to particular actions based on one’s will (93). Essentially, he mentions the ideas of Ilya Prigogine, Rene Thom, Heisenberg, and Spinoza regarding freedom and determinism to make their conclusions. An action is free because its cause is a matter of desiring, selecting, and performing tasks, such as fulfilling its objectives (Savater 94). Essentially, I agree with this viewpoint because I consider that a free man has control over his actions.
Nonetheless, Savater illustrates three distinct perspectives on freedom, each significant. The first is that freedom is acting on one’s wishes or ambitions. (Savater 95). The second is a tendency to want something rather than simply doing or attempting it. For instance, even if I cannot travel, the others cannot prevent me from desiring to travel. This understanding of freedom suggests that the spontaneity of wishes is free. The third meaning of freedom is “to want that which we do not want, and of wanting what in fact we want” (Savater 96). To explain this concept, Savater gives an example: “I am what I want to be, but at the same time I wish to be different, better” (96). For instance, a person wants to lie but does not want to see themselves as liars. Significantly, I agree with Savater’s approach to interpreting ‘freedom’ in three different ways, as every culture perceives freedom based on cultural realism.
The intriguing concept is that humans can constantly create and push themselves beyond their boundaries. According to Sartre, man is nothing but his constant choosing what he wants to become (Savater 98). Nevertheless, Savater if circumstances like the time we live in and the social class we belong to might expressly forbid us from achieving our goals. It is difficult, in my opinion, to reject the reality that surrounds us and construct another world. I believe that we can shape ourselves, but cultures and backgrounds still significantly impact our lives.
Conclusion
Cultural realism supports that ideas and actions should be assessed based on a person’s experience. Hence, depending on one’s beliefs, the concept of ‘freedom’ can have a broad range of applications. Culture is crucial in identifying and realizing the individual’s motives and desires. Savater claims that we need to consider rational reasons to understand human actions. Instincts and other forces of nature suffice to explain events in which humans are protagonists (Savater 99). People are forced to act because of the circumstances that determine their lives. Savater acknowledges that perceptions are often based on mentality (104). He provides examples of different behaviors and views of Christian and Hindu pearls of wisdom, emphasizing that culture plays a vital role. To conclude, the complete comprehension of human activity requires investigating cultural constraints, the perception of various concepts, such as responsibility, and understanding of freedom in action.
Works Cited
Lynch, William T. “Between Kin Selection and Cultural Relativism: Cultural Evolution and the Origin of Inequality.” Perspectives on Science, vol. 27, no. 2, 2019, pp. 278-315. Web.
Savater, Fernando. “Freedom in Action.” The Questions of Life: An Invitation to Philosophy, Wiley, 2002, pp. 89-106.