Introduction
A main paradox of the Enlightenment that we have discussed this semester is the contrast between the theories of Universalism and Cultural Relativism. This theme is prevalent in the works of Denis Diderot, Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, Benjamin Franklin, Frank Kelleter, Isaac Kramnick, Adam Smith, and Daniel Defoe. Universalism encourages self-interest, but it is through the judgment of those living by the same code that gives Universalists justification. One can attempt to seek validation of personal motives in the context of a universal system, but the act of comparing oneself against those who employ the use of the same standard reflect an aspect of Cultural Relativism. It is impossible to adapt a Universalistic mindset without some degree of relativity. Even though Universalism does not answer to one specific culture or domain, it still values the use of one group’s approval (those who have adapted Universalism). In my final blog post I will focus on the conflicting and coinciding qualities of Universalism and Cultural Relativism, and the presence of this theme in the publications we have read this semester.
Universalism is founded upon the belief that each individual is seen as his or her own unit with guaranteed rights, preserved by the pursuit of self-interest. Therefore, their actions are judged on a universal scale (Reichert 27). Universalism stems from the belief that the more primitive cultures of the world will eventually conform to Western standards, where capitalism, industrialization, and democracy have emerged over time as characteristics of a cultural evolution (Reichert 26). These different ideologies are a product of Western imperialism, colonialism, and consumerism.
Cultural Relativism
“Cultural relativism maintains that there is an irreducible diversity among cultures because each culture is a unique whole with parts so intertwined that none of them can be understood or evaluated without reference to the other parts and to the cultural whole, the so-called pattern of culture’’ (Lawson 13).
Denis Diderot and Jean Le Rond d'Alembert both comment on the objectivism of other culture’s beliefs and the struggle different societies experience when attempting to accept those different from them. d’Alembert argues that human knowledge cannot be objective because of the selfish nature of man (Moscovici 387). One’s perspective is formed by what he or she personally knows and views as the right way to live. One validates the existence of those who live similarly to him, supporting d’ Alembert’s point that the partiality of one’s selfishness joined with the need to reaffirm personal values through others creates relativism.
In Diderot’s Supplment, he addresses the attitude one should take when viewing radically different societies from the supposed cultural norm. He makes the point through a series of fictional conversations that one should reject Universalism and Cultural Relativism, but respect the universality of one’s own values (Moscovici 7). Although he encourages the reader to consider their views on a universal scale, he does not make a clear distinction on what ideology is the solution to this global debate. He argues that one should maintain the superiority of one’s cultural values over those of others, rejecting the true definition of Universalism, but does not argue specifically for Cultural Relativism either by maintaining the belief that respect still must be given to differing cultures (Moscovici 7-8). Both of these authors mix a species of relativism with a sense of their own superiority to prove the point that each perspective has validity but cannot exist on its own.
Jonathan Braun references Frank Kelleter’s Franklin and the Enlightenment in his post “Enlightened or Ignorant.” Kelleter explains that Benjamin Franklin believed natural disasters benefit the human race as a whole in terms of knowledge and happiness. Braun agreed that natural disasters bring people of all cultures together for a common purpose, and that he has always enjoyed “holding the fairly common belief that in times of inordinate sorrow and disruption, there is a human element within us all that cannot be denied” (Braun 8/31/11). This belief reaches beyond the boundaries of Cultural Relativism, but instead employs a Universalistic approach that the human race as a whole can look beyond their respective cultures and adapt an enlightened definition of common reason. Molly Jaffe echoes the need for common reason when she insightfully quotes Kelleter in her post “Where do you find truth?” She writes, “What links the many ideas and ideals produced during the Enlightenment? According to Kelleter, it is the fact that each was produced in ‘a common attempt to redefine the meaning of human reason’” (Kelleter 77). He illustrates Benjamin Franklin’s message that enlightened thinking knows no cultural boundaries:
In BF’sMainSqueeze’s post, “London Riots-Enlightened?” she speaks on the same topic as Braun, discussing the effects of large-scale destruction on humans as a whole. She theorizes that one would think all humans would react the same way to global tragedy, but presents the example of the variance between the Southern United States and Britain’s approach to destruction. She contemplates, “how is it possible that tornado victims in the South can mourn the loss of their homes and places of business while citizens of London seemingly took such pleasure in destroying theirs? Even though we are all human beings, cultural variation accounts for different responses to the same occurrences” (BF’sMainSqueeze 8/31/11). She would like to share Braun’s sentiment that humans inherently connect with one another in times of great stress, but her post reflects her skepticism that people are Universally remorseful.
Cary Corrigan argues for aspects of both universal reasoning and Cultural Relativism in his post “Naiveties of the Enlightenment” by questioning the belief that “unassisted human reason, not faith or tradition, was the principal guide to human conduct” (Kramnick xi). Cary agrees that one should question what seems to pre-determined knowledge, but differs from Kramnick when he voices his opinion, “How many examples are necessary to show that individuals left to their own will are going to act immorally?” (Corrigan 8/31/11). He is in support the Universalistic belief that one should establish their own principles, but indirectly supports the idea of Cultural Relativism in the sense that people need something to compare themselves to. Kramnick takes a Universalistic approach in this excerpt by discrediting tradition and faith, both main components of one’s cultural identity. Cary questions the effects of unaided guidance further by contrasting Kramnick with Adam Smith. Adam Smith’s critique stated that people can act morally as “impartial spectators,” and examine the causal effects of one’s actions in a non-discriminatory way (Broadie 2). Cary juxtaposes this ideal by quoting Kramnick, “the Enlightenment valorized the individual and the moral legitimacy of self-interest” (Kramnick 81). Cary’s opinion clashes with Adam Smith’s, shown when he interjects, “Maybe it’s just me, but self-interest seems inherently morally illegitimate.” He rejects Smith’s argument that people are naturally unbiased, instead arguing that selfishness makes one incapable of fair judgment. Both of these arguments can be related to the debate between Universalism and Cultural Relativism, illustrated by the contrast of right for self-fulfillment but without the proper direction can lead to immorality.
We either approve or disapprove of the conduct of another man according as we feel that, when we bring his case home to ourselves, we either can or cannot entirely sympathize with the sentiments and motives which directed it. And, in the same manner, we either approve or disapprove of our own conduct, according as we feel that, when we place ourselves in the situation of another man, and view it, as it were, with his eyes and from his station, we either can or cannot entirely enter into and sympathize with the sentiments and motives which influenced it. We can never survey our own sentiments and motives, we can never form any judgment concerning them; unless we remove ourselves, as it were, from our own natural station, and endeavour to view them as at a certain distance from us (Broadie 5).
Smith is saying that in order to accurately judge one’s self he must pretend that someone else is looking in. The swap in mental persona to one of a spectator will create a false sense of judgment and behavior will be modified. Molly Jaffe writes, “He says that a human who grows up completely without society will not contemplate the moral implications of their passions. Only other people can provide a mirror fit for examining one’s self” (Jaffe 9/7/11). She is reinforcing another aspect of Smith’s theory that people only behave morally because of the judgments of their peers. This is suggesting that one’s surrounding environment is responsible for human morality. People do what is right because of the possible social repercussions they could face if someone were to witness an immoral act. Smith speaks to the influence of one’s surroundings when it comes to guilt, “What so great misery as to be hated and to know that we deserve to be hated?” (Broadie 7). When one grows up being held accountable for their actions they learn cultural expectations and realize a cultural standard. He writes that if a person who grew up in isolation were to enter society “all his own passions will immediately become the cause of new passions” because he would focus on what others valued in him and relinquish traits perceived as negative. This speaks to the aspect of Cultural Relativism found in Smith’s “The Impartial Spectator” because one basis is or her actions on what is culturally expected. As illustrated by Smith, if one were to realize the influence of society after being free from its judgment then they would immediately be focused on molding to the social norm. The ‘mirror’ the spectators would hold up is what Smith argues as the most effective way to make one consider his or her actions. The influence of others is crucial for human morality.
Scott Singer addresses Smith’s concept of a truly impartial spectator by discussing his struggle with “whether or not such an impartial spectator ever can really exist” (Singer 9/8/11). He makes relevant historical references to other works that have addressed the idea of a completely unbiased judge in his post, “Normative Ethics.” Scott writes:
Scott speaks to the relevance the concept of an unbiased spectator has beyond the Age of Enlightenment. Despite its historical relevance, Scott voices his opinion that morality is objective and it is foolish to raise one’s self-awareness of their morality above all else. He writes, “Can we really ever separate ethics from the individual perspective, and more importantly, are ethics even objective to begin with?” Scott suggests that many thinkers view ethics or morality subjectively, but Smith creates a paradox when he encourages self-judgment and the idealistic image of the impartial spectator. Smith takes a stance reflective of Cultural Relativism when he references the effects of society on one’s actions. He then employs the use of a Universalistic approach when he creates this illusion of that there is one “judge of moral worth-” (Singer 9/8/11) the impartial spectator. Scott returns to his primary point at the end of this post writing, “Why should we try to raise the moral sense above our other senses and attempt to find a neutral ground from which to make judgments? To me, it just seems unnatural to impose a normative function to a human sense, and in doing so, it somewhat weakens the argument for the moral sense” (Singer 9/8/11). Despite the discussion provided on the topic by Smith, Plato, and Rousseau, Scott strongly enforces his belief that it is impossible to take a Universalistic approach to morality because it is subjective in nature.
Daniel Defoe dramatizes the conflict of Universalism versus Cultural Relativism through his fictional work Robinson Crusoe. Crusoe lived twenty-eight years away from Western civilization, forcing him to consider the ideologies of Universalism and Cultural Relativism when encountering natives who do not know the implications of their actions from a perspective such as Crusoe’s. The inclusion of Cultural Relativism in Robinson Crusoe is indicative of the global debate over whether it is possible to adapt a universal system of law or social standards for a broad range of cultures.
Crusoe attempts to recreate the political hierarchy of Europe by referring to himself as the king of the island, referring to the island as a colony later in the book, and through his replication of a master-servant relationship with Friday. Crusoe, the supposedly enlightened, civilized master of a ‘savage,’ can only validate Friday’s existence if he adheres to Crusoe’s Christian values. Crusoe eventually realizes that he cannot judge those who know not of his God, but he still makes Friday his servant and forces his beliefs upon him. This is representative of the struggle between both ideologies to exist on their own. One cannot help but take into account his self-perceived superiority while relating to other cultures. Even if one tries to adapt the Universalistic view of personal identity, he is still providing evidence to the fact that some degree of Cultural Relativism is necessary in determining one’s self-worth.
Defoe takes the opportunity to comment on the religion implications of Universalism and Cultural Relativism by contrasting Crusoe’s understanding of God’s will with the impossibility of the same application by the savages. Crusoe explicitly says that the two major requirements of good Christians are to, “1) to submit oneself entirely to God's will, and 2) to be always thankful to God” (Defoe 205). Crusoe is unable to reach the natives with this message because they do not obey the same God. Defoe’s ultimate purpose in providing the effects of Universalism and Cultural Relativism on religion is to convey the message that Crusoe cannot expect the savages to adhere to the same principles as him because of their absence of Christian education. Cultural differences leave the natives unable to meet Crusoe’s religious-based expectations. Despite this, Crusoe’s steadfast belief that his views are correct reflects his lack of religious toleration.
The prevalence of the contrasting theories of Universalism and Cultural Relativism in Enlightenment literature is reflected in numerous blog posts from this semester. Jonathan Braun, BF’sMainSqueeze, Cary Corrigan, Scott Singer, and Molly Jaffe all include some aspect of both ideologies in their discussions of the publications we read this semester. Not only was the class able to provide some insight on the similar and contrasting aspects of Universalism and Cultural Relativism, Denis Diderot, Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, Benjamin Franklin, Frank Kelleter, Isaac Kramnick, Adam Smith, and Daniel Defoe all provide their feelings on what position the world should embrace. The priority of self-interest encouraged by Universalism contrasts with the need for an accepted cultural identity through one’s surroundings, a fundamental of Cultural Relativism. Although these ideologies disagree on how one’s morality should be judged, they both require a degree of relativity, whether on a cultural or universal scale.
BF’sMainSqueeze. “London Riots-Enlightened?” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Braun, Jonathan. “Enlightened or Ignorant.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Broadie, Alexander. "Sympathy and the Impartial Spectator." The Cambridge Companion to
Adam Smith. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Corrigan, Cary. “Naiveties of the Enlightenment.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press, 2010.
Jaffe, Molly. “Were Mirrors Less Shiny in 1759?” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 31 Aug. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Jaffe, Molly. “Where do you find truth?” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 9 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
Kelleter, Frank. "Franklin and the Enlightenment." The Cambridge Companion to Benjamin Franklin. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Kramnick, Isaac, ed. Introduction. The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Lawson, S. “Democracy and the problem of cultural relativism: normative issues for international politics.” Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, 12(2), 251–271. 1998.
Moscovivi, Claudia. “Beyond the Particular and the Universal: D'Alembert's "Discours préliminaire" to the Encyclopédie.” Eighteenth-Century Studies, 33. 383-400, 2000.
Moscovici, Claudia. Double Dialects: Between Universalism and Relativism in Enlightenment and Postmodern Thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Reichert, Elisabeth. “Human Rights: An Examination of Universalism and Cultural Relativism.” Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 22. 23-36, 2006.
Singer, Scott. “Normative Ethics.” Web blog post. ENGL 274: Benjamin Franklin and the Age of Enlightenment. Blogger, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Dec. 2010.
