The Language Teacher
November 2000

Relativism vs. Universalism: A Hoax?

Trevor Sargent



Response to Relativism and Universalism -- Opposing Views of Education for Internationalization; Joseph Shaules, Inoue Aiko; TLT, May 2000

Shaules and Inoue (TLT, May 2000) try to show that there are two opposing views of education for internationalization, called Relativism and Universalism, represented by Intercultural Communication (IC) and World Citizenship (WC) respectively. I see little merit in this.

Why, for example, do Shaules and Inoue couch their preamble discussion of the similarities/differences issue in such a way that readers must choose between them as if they are mutually exclusive polar opposites in a dichotomy, ("The answer to this question can be divided into two opposing viewpoints" p. 14) when they are addressed in IC (Hofstede, 1984, p. 34) as interdependent terms, consistent with a continuum? They acknowledge that "both common ground for understanding, and respect for difference" (p. 13) are important, yet deliberately pose their question at the bottom of page 13, in defiance of reality, in a way that does not allow it to be answered in the only reasonable way possible -- "An understanding of BOTH similarities AND differences are necessary." What happened to this all-but-ubiquitous middle ground?

They then create a juxtaposition of "Universalists" and "Relativists," that equally defies reality by inexplicably utilizing Bennet's (1993) developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. This ignores the more obvious and well-documented connection between the similarities/differences issue, and universals-like "general polycultural classification schemes" (Hofstede, 1984, p.33) and "cultural relativity," (Hofstede, 1997, p. 7). Thus, Shaules and Inoue neatly substitute the genuine issue with a morphologically similar, yet semantically different one. Crucially, unlike the similarities/differences-related issue common in IC, Bennet's universals-related term is developmentally inferior to his relativity-related term. This allows for their finest reality-defying move, which essentially presents the similarities/differences issue as inescapably, an either/or choice between the inherently superior "differences" option and the inherently inferior "similarities" option! Whoa! Their sole justification is "we believe" (p. 14) this to be so. They quite pointedly claim the superior option ("differences," and by inexplicable extension -- ethnorelativity) they conjured up for themselves, and vainly attempt to foist the inferior one ("similarities," and equally inexplicably -- ethnocentric universalism) onto WC. Are Shaules and Inoue really this extremist, and elitist?

In the real world, the exclusive focus on cultural differences and its associated extreme relativist view find little support. Kale (1991) explains that a strict interpretation of cultural relativity suggests "that it was proper for Hitler to murder six million innocent people since the German people did nothing to stop it" (p. 422). Not surprisingly, it is moderate cultural relativism that is widely accepted in IC. This also allows for comparison between cultures on the basis of "general polycultural classification schemes" and the discussion of human universals (Hofstede, 1984, p. 33; Hofstede, 1997, p. 5-6). It is in the middle ground that IC is flourishing, not the extremities. Thus, how do Shaules and Inoue justify claiming Hofstede, and indeed all IC, reside exclusively under a relativity-related label and not under a universals-related label as well, given both are meaningfully discussed within IC itself?

If the authors do indeed consider themselves to be highly developed, superior "ethnorelativists" in Bennet's sense and not strict "cultural relativists" in the IC sense, what is the connection between this and the similarities/differences issue, which is logically connected to the latter, not the former?

Just what, was the purpose of this article? To present Bennet's model as a candidate for education for internationalization? If so, why not simply do that? Regrettably, all the foregoing hoopla only detracts from this single point of merit. In principle, I am supportive of this idea, but hardly for the reasons the authors suggest. The significant merit of a model such as Bennet's, in this context, is its phenomenological basis in contrast to the ideological basis of WC. Why didn't the authors acknowledge this obvious and important difference?

Or did the authors go to the trouble of creating this reality-defying framework as a means of labeling WC authors as "Universalists" in Bennet's sense? This is of course undeniably insulting as Bennet explicitly coins this term to describe a comparatively less enlightened -- cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally -- ethnocentric state, that precedes the more enlightened ethnorelative state. If indeed this was their purpose, their muddled framework fails miserably to do it for them. Even worse, Shaules and Inoue make assumptions about what certain WC authors wrote and then rely entirely on their own assumptions to support their insinuations about them! Essentially, "universalism" in Bennet's sense describes an individual's psychological state. Surely, at a minimum, before asserting, in print, that anyone exhibits this comparatively inferior, immature state of mind, much more substantial evidence than the mere personal conjecture of self-proclaimed "experts," however highly developed they may regard themselves, must be produced.

References

Bennet, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.) Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences n work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the wind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kale, D. W. (1991). Ethics in intercultural communication. in L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.) Intercultural communication: A reader (6th ed.) Belmont Ca: Wadsworth. (pp.421-426)

Readers interested in a more detailed version please contect the author at <tsargent@fed.tottori-u.ac.jp>



All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website