Cultural Relativism

I thought I'd kick things off with a real post. I gave some thought to our discussion on the merits and demerits of cultural relativism, and I came up with an approach that I hope will prove useful for the class.

First of all, here's dictionary.com's definition: the concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong.

Here's my thinking, in a nutshell. Some form of relativism is essential in distilling the systemic causes of poverty from what causes poverty on an individual level. I came up with this while juicing apples, so I'm fully open to being totally off base. Here's how this approach is different.

We'll use Hitler as an example, because he sucks. The questions I want to pose are the following: Was Hitler an extraordinarily evil man? or did Hitler spring from an extraordinarily evil system? (And by that I mean that the values, rules, norms, opportunities, etc. in German culture in the early 20th century were particularly conducive to Hitler's particular brand of "evil") The "or" bifurcates the argument, which (as we learned from the reading) is a problem - both factors probably come into play. Here's where the concept of cultural relativism helps us distill nurture from nature. Bear with me.

If we look at Hitler through the eyes of his particular culture and environment, we may see that he is less evil than he initially appears. (Make no mistake, I still think he's a bad guy.) As we think about how we think of Hitler vs how Germans thought of Hitler in the 1930s, we can learn some valuable lessons about the differences between the cultures that may have enabled terrible things to happen.

So, how can this particular use of cultural relativism inform our readings, discussions, and careers? Here's an example. I've heard people say that the root of Western prosperity is the Protestant work ethic. (I disagree) Through this lens, poverty is essentially caused by laziness. ("Country A would experience growth if its citizens only worked harder.") If we examine a single citizen in country A, we may see patterns of "laziness" as defined by Western culture. This person might actually be lazy. However, if we look at the individual through the lens of his/her own culture, we may see that this person is not particularly lazy, but something about the system makes not working a good option.

That's the idea; I think I've already written too much for the post to remain interesting. What am I missing? Is this useful? And, most importantly, is it possible to change the system?