Cultural Relativism
In his essay "Robust Relativism", Joseph Margolis dissects the theory of cultural relativism in order to answer pressing questions about the status of cultural objects and practices. Can interpretations of cultural objects such as art and music be determined as logically true or false? Even if some interpretations or some aspects of an interpretation of some cultural work can be determined as logically and absolutely true or false, must the goal of all interpretations of all cultural entities be to determine their absolute truth or falsity? Or is it possible, even necessary, that interpretations be concerned with determining the value of a work based on plausible, not necessarily true or false, conditions of the work? He attempts to prove that some cultural entities can support several different (and seemingly contradictory) interpretations by exploring the nature of cultural objects and practices and the history of relativism itself. Margolis begins his essay by stating that those opposed to this view who believe that there can be only one true interpretation of a cultural work which excludes all other opposing interpretations, have never "shown why non-converging interpretations cannot be legitimately defended"(41). By dis
Furthermore, even if a definite authorial intention or meaning can be found within a work, it does not follow that this meaning (the author's interpretation of his own work) is the only valid one. If a human being (defined as a human by having rationality) creates an interpretation, it must be based on some rationality. It would be impossible for everyone in an entire society to have the exact same ideas of what is right and what is wrong. We can make plausible statements concerning the origin of earth, that is statements which are not false because they do not contradict any given facts, however these statements are not necessarily true either, they only could be true. Margolis would explain that just because an idea has minimal rationality does not give it weight equal to that of other rational ideas. Plausible statements cannot logically contradict a statement that is absolutely true. Margolis claims that one cannot separate descriptions of what is in the cultural work, from interpretations that reach something out of the work. He makes a point to explain that relativistic judgments must be based on some set of non-relativistic notions such as the definition of truth. He reiterates the need for an alternative set of truth-values (i. Margolis defines incongruent judgments as "judgments that, construed in terms of truth and falsity, would be incompatible, that are actually not incompatible"(46). Two statements, which may not necessarily be true, can both be plausible. This ability to defend seemingly incompatible interpretations is the major strength of Margolis's project. Because of the nature of cultural objects (the difficulty of telling what is really in and out of a work), there are few facts upon which to base these decisions but this is not due to lack of effort on the part of the pertinent practitioners, merely the nature of the culture. Because of the nature of culturally created objects and practices, it seems clear that statements of truth, as opposed to mere plausibility, are difficult to make about them. Margolis explains that his theory of cultural relativism including the interpretation of cultural entities can and does extend further than simply aesthetic criticism and into the natural sciences as well.
Common topics in this essay:
Joseph Margolis,
Starry Night,
cultural relativism,
true false,
compatible using,
relativistic judgments,
robust cultural relativism,
cultural objects,
multivalent logic,
interpretation cultural,
robust cultural,
necessarily true,
logical contradictions,
compatible using multivalent,
,
statements necessarily true,
cultural relativism robust,
multivalent logic bivalent,
|
Acceptance Essays
