Replying to Gerald Prokopowicz:
>
>  The absurdity of the relativistic notion that all cultures are equally valid
> in all situations sometimes becomes obvious.
> First, one can look through history and say of some cultural practices that
> however "valid" one wishes to consider them in their original time and place,
> they are not acceptable here and today.  Perhaps one can argue that
> cannibalism was OK in some primitive societies, that human slavery was
> acceptable in the ante-bellum American South, or that genocide was a
> culturally valid practice of the Third Reich, but no one endorses such
> behavior today.

Or even better, that cannibalism made sense within the context of a
particular group's worldview, in order to adapt to their environment and
give structure to their social interacions.  That does NOT assert that
cannibalism is universally valid; just that we cannot tell another group
what is ethical for them using our principles and from within our own
culture.
No, WE don't defend cannibalismm or antebellum slavery of Nazi philosophies;
and I hope no one else does, either; but the
test of time has reached some consensus on these cases -- for
better comparison, rules of
decency and morality are not yet unanimous on the subject of people's
treatment of animals for food, decoration, ornament, or pets.  When a
subject is still in contest, it is premature and haughty to claim the
high ground of morality and knowledge.


> > Second, if my culture of respect for others and their objects is no more
> deserving of respect than someone else's culture of disrespect and
> self-gratification, is not the reverse also true?  In other words, if neither
> culture is morally privileged, then in a space where only one can prevail at a
> time, isn't my right to impose moderate, respectful behavior just as valid as
> a loud, disrespectful visitor's right to impose noise, disorder and damage?

It usually boils down to who has the power to enforce their views on
others.  In the case of the museum setting, you might have the authority
(legitimated power) to make and enforce rules of decorum, but if the
community who ultimately "owns" your institution rebels,
you lose the power to enforce your claim.

The history of contested public terrain between smokers and nonsmokers is
one example; nonsmokers could not overcome traditional practices of smokers
to light up where they wished until popular political will prevailed in local
legislation.

> > Abraham Lincoln used this argument against slavery:  "If A. can prove, howev
er
> conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B.-- why may not B. snatch the
> same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?"  If rowdy visitors
> are entitled to impose their behavioral codes on museums, why can't museums
> snatch the same argument and educate visitors to follow their codes of
> behavior?
>  Of course, the key to this argument is that the premise is false.  Lincoln
> only rhetorically conceded the possibility that "A can prove...that he may, of
> right, enslave B." to show that it still wouldn't lead to the justification of
> slavery.

Lincoln's argument was founded on an ethical code that was "natural" to
those who adhered to it.  Those who were opposed presented multiple
defenses (in increasingly desperate fashion) to justify the practices of
enslaving Blacks and Indians.  They believed that "right" here was not
delivered from power, but in "natural" characteristics of those whom they
enslaved.


>> Similarly, I don't accept the premise that a culture of ignorance and
> disrespect is just as valid as one of knowledge and respect for others,
> present and past.  If I did, why would I bother working in a museum?
>

Personally, I don't either.  But I am not going to declare that I have
the right and the ability to state objectively that my ideas of knowledge
and morality are true, that others' are "ignorant" and "disrespectful."
What appears normal practice of handling objects to some (like museum
staffs) can appear "ignorant and disrespectful" to others -- review, if
you will, the long and bitter negotiations for repatriation of Indian
objects to their homes.

 Richard Perry
 UC San Diego
 [log in to unmask]