In a world increasingly interconnected yet deeply divided, cultural relativism offers a powerful lens through which we can understand difference without judgement. First developed within the field of anthropology, this concept has evolved into one of the discipline’s most foundational and controversial ideas. At its core, cultural relativism is the principle that an individual’s beliefs and behaviours should be understood based on that person’s own culture, rather than judged against the criteria of another (Brown, 2008).
The Origins of Cultural Relativism
The roots of cultural relativism can be traced to the early 20th century, particularly through the work of Franz Boas, a German-American anthropologist. Boas rejected racial hierarchies and argued that all cultures possess their own internal logic, shaped by unique historical and environmental circumstances (Boas, 1911). His approach laid the foundation for modern anthropology, encouraging researchers to practice cultural immersion and ethnographic observation rather than impose external frameworks.
This perspective was radical for its time. Western colonial powers were justifying imperialism by portraying non-Western societies as “primitive” or “savage.” Against this backdrop, cultural relativism served as a counter-narrative, challenging assumptions of European superiority and advocating for the equal worth of all cultures.
Relativism in Practice: Anthropological Case Studies
One of the most cited examples of cultural relativism in practice is Bronisław Malinowski’s study of the Trobriand Islanders in Papua New Guinea. Through participant observation, Malinowski (1922) revealed how their kula ring exchange system, though economically irrational by Western standards, served vital social and spiritual functions. Rather than reducing the practice to mere trade, he showed how it was embedded in kinship, prestige, and cultural identity.
In contemporary times, anthropologists continue to employ cultural relativism to understand diverse contexts. For instance, Campbell (2024) explores how industrial labour in developing countries can only be meaningfully understood through their local sociocultural frameworks. Western notions of individual agency or economic value may not align with the lived experiences of workers in non-Western settings.
Benefits of Cultural Relativism
The value of cultural relativism lies in its ethical stance and methodological approach. It encourages openness, reduces ethnocentrism, and promotes cross-cultural understanding. In multicultural societies such as the UK or Canada, embracing cultural relativism can enhance social cohesion and policy inclusiveness.
From a research standpoint, it fosters objectivity, allowing anthropologists and social scientists to suspend their own biases. For example, linguistic anthropologists study how language shapes thought and social behaviour within a cultural context, resisting the urge to label one language structure as “better” than another (Duranti, 1997).
Critiques and Ethical Dilemmas
Despite its strengths, cultural relativism is not without critique. One major ethical tension is the possibility of moral relativism—the idea that no cultural practice can be judged as right or wrong from outside its own context. This becomes problematic when confronting issues such as female genital mutilation (FGM), child marriage, or honour killings. Can we justify such practices simply because they are culturally sanctioned?
Tilley (2000) and Appiah (2006) argue for what they term “respectful critique”—recognising cultural context while also defending universal human rights. This debate illustrates a key tension in anthropology: balancing cultural understanding with moral accountability.
Cultural Relativism Beyond Anthropology
Cultural relativism has transcended anthropology and found relevance in fields such as law, education, international relations, and business ethics. In global diplomacy, understanding cultural norms can improve negotiation and conflict resolution. In business, awareness of cultural differences in leadership styles, communication, and decision-making is crucial for effective international partnerships.
For instance, in organisational ethics, Akrivou et al. (2025) show how cultural relativism can inform more context-sensitive leadership models, especially in multinational environments where a one-size-fits-all ethical framework can lead to misunderstandings and conflict.
Digital Anthropology and the New Frontier
With the rise of digital anthropology, cultural relativism now extends to virtual worlds and online communities. Anthropologists studying social media behaviours or digital activism must navigate new terrains of culture where norms are evolving rapidly. A post on Twitter might be perceived as humorous in one culture and offensive in another, illustrating how digital communication magnifies cultural misunderstandings—and thus, the importance of relativism (Miller & Horst, 2012).
Education and Global Citizenship
Today, cultural relativism is a cornerstone in global education. Universities promote it through intercultural competence programmes, study abroad opportunities, and curricula in global citizenship. Students trained in this perspective are better equipped to navigate pluralistic societies and engage with global challenges such as migration, climate justice, and global health from a more empathetic stance.
Cultural relativism remains a vital yet debated concept. It compels us to question our assumptions, open our minds to difference, and understand others on their own terms. While not an ethical carte blanche, it challenges us to seek balance between respect and critique, between empathy and accountability. In an era marked by polarisation and misunderstanding, cultural relativism offers not just an anthropological method, but a philosophy for coexistence and mutual respect.
References
Akrivou, K., Martínez, M., Luis, E. O. & Scalzo, G. (2025). Making wiser decisions in organisations: Insights from inter-processual self theory and transcendental anthropology. Humanistic Management Journal. https://link.springer.com
Appiah, K. A. (2006). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton.
Boas, F. (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: Macmillan.
Brown, M. F. (2008). Cultural Relativism 2.0. Current Anthropology, 49(3), pp. 363–383. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/toc/ca/current
Campbell, S. (2024). For an Anthropology of Relational Difference. Springer. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10624-024-09745-9
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge.
Miller, D. & Horst, H. (2012). Digital Anthropology. London: Berg.
Tilley, H. (2000). Cultural Relativism and Human Rights. African Studies Review, 43(1), pp. 65–90.
