The ethics of criticising other cultures

Abstract

This thesis attempts to answer the question of whether it is wrong to criticise other cultures. It focuses on the ethical position of social movement activists who object, on feminist or animal rights grounds, to the cultural practices of minority groups. It explores the problems inherent in criticising other cultures through two case studies concerning non-indigenous people who have publicly taken moral stands against particular indigenous cultural practices. In the first, two white women protested against Maori ceremonial protocol which they saw as sexist. In the second, anti-whaling activists protested against the revival of an indigenous whaling tradition. Without endorsing cultural relativism, I argue that there are sound moral reasons why members of more privileged groups should sometimes refrain from criticising practices identified with cultural groups that face pervasive stigma and disadvantage. I do not argue that each culture is a self-contained moral universe, nor that moral dialogue is impossible between people of different cultural backgrounds. Instead I argue that genuine cross-cultural dialogue is a worthy ideal, but in societies where cultural identity is linked to status differences between citizens its realisation is more difficult than often appreciated. In order to illustrate the limits of my argument I analyse a third case, the debate over whether foxhunting should be banned in England and Wales. In this case we see an attempt by a relatively powerful group of people to secure protection for a controversial blood sport by linking it with their cultural identity. This final case serves to demonstrate that, regardless of the importance of these practices to their cultural identity, criticising the practices of privileged groups does not have the same sensitivity as criticising the practices of marginalised groups. Building on the work of theorists of deliberative democracy I present an account of the type of dialogue in which cross-cultural criticism could play a fruitful part. Engaging in such dialogue requires reasonableness, respect for others' positions and humility. I argue that the media-oriented communicative styles embraced by campaign organisations are not conducive to building the trust, mutual understanding and respect characteristic of genuine cross-cultural dialogue. Criticism of cultural practices is more likely to promote dialogue if expressed in person than through the mass media, calling into question some prominent treatments of dialogue across difference that emphasise interchange in the larger public sphere. Show more