A classic nature-versus-nurture debate in cognitive science concerns the relation between language and perception. The universalist view holds that language is shaped by universals of perception, while the opposing relativist view holds instead that language shapes perception, in a manner that varies with little constraint across languages. Over the years, consensus has oscillated between these two poles. In this talk, I argue that neither position is fully supported. I argue moreover that the universalist/relativist opposition itself should be resisted as a conceptual framework, since it paints with too broad a brush, and obscures interesting realities. I argue this general point using two case studies in the naming and perception of color.