Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Cultural relativism is one of the foundational concepts in anthropology—and one of the most frequently tested. When you encounter exam questions about this topic, you're not just being asked to define the term. You're being tested on your ability to apply the concept: Can you explain why anthropologists suspend judgment when studying unfamiliar practices? Can you distinguish between understanding a practice and endorsing it? These questions get at the heart of what makes anthropology distinct from other social sciences.
The examples in this guide illustrate key tensions in anthropological thinking: emic versus etic perspectives, the universalism-relativism debate, and the ethics of fieldwork. Each practice demonstrates how cultural context shapes meaning—what seems harmful or strange from one perspective may carry deep significance within its own society. Don't just memorize these examples; know what anthropological principle each one illustrates and be ready to discuss the limits of cultural relativism when human rights concerns arise.
Many cultural practices that challenge outsiders' assumptions are deeply embedded in systems of kinship, gender roles, and social organization. These examples reveal how societies regulate sexuality, marriage, and family structure through culturally specific norms.
Compare: Arranged marriages vs. child marriage—both involve family decision-making over individual choice, but child marriage raises distinct human rights concerns due to age and consent. If an FRQ asks about the limits of cultural relativism, child marriage is a strong example of where anthropologists debate intervention.
Anthropologists study how societies use the body as a canvas for cultural meaning. These practices often mark transitions between life stages or signal group membership, illustrating Victor Turner's concept of liminality and Arnold van Gennep's three-stage model of rites of passage.
Compare: Foot binding vs. female genital cutting—both are bodily practices tied to gender norms and marriageability, both cause physical harm, and both have been targeted by reform movements. Use these together to discuss how anthropologists analyze harmful practices without dismissing cultural meaning.
How societies treat the dead reveals deep beliefs about personhood, the afterlife, and social obligations. These practices often seem shocking to outsiders but carry profound meaning within their cultural contexts.
Compare: Fore cannibalism vs. sati—both are mortuary practices that outsiders find disturbing, but they differ in key ways. Fore cannibalism was community-wide and gender-neutral; sati targeted widows specifically and was tied to patriarchal control. Both raise questions about when external intervention is justified.
Some practices that seem cruel in isolation make more sense when understood within their ecological and economic contexts. Anthropologists emphasize that behavior must be analyzed in relation to environmental constraints and subsistence strategies.
Compare: Infanticide in Inuit cultures vs. child marriage—both involve children and both challenge Western moral assumptions, but they arise from very different cultural logics. Infanticide was tied to ecological survival; child marriage is tied to gender and economic systems. Use this contrast to show how context shapes anthropological analysis.
In many societies, family honor functions as a form of social capital that must be protected. Violations—especially by women—can trigger severe consequences, revealing how gender, reputation, and violence intersect.
Compare: Honor killings vs. sati—both involve violence against women justified by cultural norms about honor and family. However, sati was tied to widowhood and death rituals, while honor killings respond to perceived sexual or social transgressions. Both test the boundaries of cultural relativism.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Rites of passage / bodily practices | Scarification, foot binding, female genital cutting |
| Kinship and marriage systems | Arranged marriages, polygamy, child marriage |
| Mortuary rituals | Fore cannibalism, sati |
| Ecological/survival adaptations | Inuit infanticide |
| Honor and social control | Honor killings, sati |
| Limits of cultural relativism | Female genital cutting, child marriage, honor killings |
| Culture change through contact | Fore cannibalism, foot binding, sati |
| Gender and power | Foot binding, sati, honor killings, female genital cutting |
Which two practices in this guide are both mortuary rituals but differ in terms of gender dynamics and who participates? What does this comparison reveal about how death practices reflect social hierarchies?
Identify three examples that anthropologists commonly use to discuss the limits of cultural relativism. What do these practices have in common that makes them controversial?
Compare foot binding and scarification. Both are bodily modifications—what cultural functions do they share, and how do their social meanings differ?
If an FRQ asked you to explain how ecological context shapes cultural practices, which example would you choose and why? What anthropological concept would you use to frame your answer?
How would an anthropologist using cultural relativism approach the study of honor killings differently than a human rights activist? What are the strengths and limitations of each perspective?