Discussing difficult topics - understanding the viewpoint of the “other”.

Topic- Discussing difficult topics- understanding the viewpoint of the “other”.

Presenter- Michael.

In anthropology, our stock in trade is to come to an understanding of why people do what they do, not just in our culture, but in all cultures. Of course, this is not an easy task by any means. With all the different worldviews out there, it is unrealistic that you will find yourself agreeing with all people at all times. You may even find yourself trying to understand a culture that is radically different, even contradictory, to your own. Yet anthropologists do this all the time.

How we handle it is by following a few guidelines when interacting with people of different backgrounds. These guidelines are always being debated and refined, even within anthropology, but they have served the discipline well for the nearly two-hundred-year history of anthropology.

These concepts aren’t just for anthropology or the social sciences, however. They are for anyone who finds themselves dealing with difficult conversations, conflicting viewpoints, and differing worldviews.

Some of the topics that I want to talk about. Many are based in social science methodology, but all are applicable outside of academia as well:

Ethnocentrism (egocentrism) - In anthropology, ethnocentrism is judging another culture by our culture’s standards rather than their culture’s standards. The same principle applies in discussions. Judging someone from your personal perspective may make you miss things about the other person’s perspective that you would discover if you tried to understand the internal reasoning behind why that person has the perspective that they do.

Relativity - Looking at things from solely your own perspective can lead to you making some rash judgments, and/or misinterpret a lot of situations.

Bias and stereotypes - Probably the hardest part about relativity is being able to overcome your own biases and judgments and view a culture (or person) on its own terms. Being ethnocentric in our judgments about another culture can color our perceptions of that culture, just like being egocentric in our judgments of others can color our perceptions.

Cultural relativity vs. moral relativity - Moral relativity is about moral standards, not cultural standards. Cultural relativity is about culturally specific standards. Any practice could be looked at with either. Moral relativity is really a subcategory of cultural relativity, which is meant to determine if something violates a universal human right. Cultural relativity is about understanding something from the perspective of the culture you are studying. Moral relativity is about determining if a morally ambiguous practice can be excused using cultural relativity.

Context and framing - Putting things in context often changes how we look at things. How we frame an argument or opinion has consequences on how it is viewed by others.

Opinions vs. facts - The difference between the subjective and the objective.

Discussing vs. arguing - Trying to understand each other vs. trying to win an argument with the opposition.

Attacking or celebrating ideas vs. attacking or celebrating people - Does a bad idea make a person a bad person? Does a good idea make a person a good person? Are we agreeing or disagreeing with the person’s personality or their idea?

Understanding vs. proselytizing - Discussions should have to reach understanding as its goal, not proselytization for your own ideas and beliefs. Realize that we are not all the same and there may be no middle ground. In a perfect world we can all get along. In this world we will not all get along.

Activism for the right reasons - Is being an activist warranted, or if it is just something that is based on a difference in worldview? If you are against a practice, is the practice in question really harmful, or is it just a different way of doing things than you are used to?