Different cultures, different rationalities?

Winch's 'Understanding a Primitive Society' addressed the question of how t o interpret apparently irrational alien beliefs and practices. Criticizing Evans-Pritchard's study of Zande witchcraft, Winch argued that across cultu res there are divergent conceptions of what is rational and real and that, where they diverge, it is mistaken to apply 'our' standards and conceptions to 'their' beliefs. Winch's position is here re-examined in the light of t he current debate about whether the Hawaiians thought Captain Cook was divi ne. Sahlins holds that they did, asserting that different cultures have dif ferent rationalities. Obeyesekere disagrees, holding that these views are j ust further evidence of European mythmaking about the natives' savage menta lity, and that 'practical rationality' is common to all cultures. In conclu sion it is argued that Sahlins's 'Maussian' interpretative strategy is pref erable to Obeyesekere's 'Davidsonian' approach, that Sahlins cannot sustain his Winchean claim about rationality and that denying it is a precondition for understanding a practice central to all cultures: that of trying to ge t the world right.