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 discussing the concept of authorial intent (the intent of the creator of the work) he argues against the idea that cultural works are 'autonomous'. He explains that the intentions of a cultural creator are important if they are already actually expressed within the work itself. It is impossible, though, to have any authorial intentions exclude the possibility of an opposing interpretation because of the varying nature of the cultural matrix within which interpretation takes place. 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. A fixed authorial meanin...