17 Reconciling Universalism with Cultural Relativism

Dr. Y S R Murthy

Table of contents

1. Learning Outcomes

2. Introduction

3. Universalism of Human Rights

4. Culture Relativism and Non Western Concept of Human Rights

5. Conclusion

1. Introduction

This module explores the idea of reconciliation between the notions of universalism and cultural relativism with regard to human rights in the realm of public international law. For many years, the discourse around international framework on human rights has been marred by the conflict between these two concepts of universalism and cultural relativism.

2. Universalism of Human Rights

“Human rights are a special class of rights which one enjoys simply because one is a human being. They are the rights of the highest order.” They have become a standard of political legitimacy. The principal aim of human rights we can say is to change the existing situations especially legal institutions.

The term ‘universal’ denotes something which can be applied everywhere. Human rights are often described to be as indivisible and inalienable, something which is associated with every human being. They are also universal in another sense that they are accepted universally in this world and serve as international legal standards. In other words, the universality of human rights affirms “incorporating the inherent dignity of all inhabitants of the planet, independent of their culture, religion, social status, ethnic origin, gender or traditions.”1 According to this doctrine, any cultural differences should not be permitted to justify and limit the scope of human rights that are recognized in the UDHR, as well as the rest of the conventions promote a universal system for the promotion and protection of human rights.2 Human rights therefore, according to this doctrine, cannot be seen valid in certain contexts, but rather, “their validity is derived from the very source of their existence”, which is the very nature of human beings.3 Consequently, the States by their agreement to the UDHR and the subsequent human rights instruments have collectively attested to and recognized the universality of human rights.

Human rights are universal in three senses:

• They are endorsed by maximum number of states which makes them legally universal.
• They are functionally universal as they are the proven ways of protecting human beings.
• They are accepted by the leading schools of thought and philosophy and various religions.

The universality of human rights can be seen from three perspectives:

a) Legal universality

The existence of human rights is attributed to Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by General Assembly in 1948. This UDHR has been ratified by 87% of member states. Today the principles evolved by the UDHR are given very much weight and importance as their protection from gross violation becoming a precondition for legitimacy of states.

Brysk (2005, cited, Donnely, 2007) holds that international legal universality operates at inter- state level and while seeking social justice and during times of political opposition. International issues like migration; finances in global trade and issues related to pharmaceutics are some human rights in this context. Further Donnely states that legal universality deals with rights that are contingent and also relative. For states that “violate internationally recognized human rights do not lose their legitimacy in International law”. And at the same it is also said:

“ Except in cases of genocide, sovereignty still ultimately trumps human rights. But protecting internationally recognised human rights is increasingly seen as a precondition of full political legitimacy. Consider Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Even China has adopted the language (although not too much of the practice) of internationally recognized human rights, seemingly as an inescapable precondition to its full recognition as a great power”.

Thus legal universality is based on the fact that how much the states consider the authority of universal declaration of human rights according to Donnelly.

b) Functional universality

Though the concept of human rights is internationally recognized but their enforcement and implementation makes human rights functionally relative and not universal. The responsibility of implementation of human rights has been given to the states which differ in each country. The advocates of human rights can engage in activities to change the human rights practices in a country but except in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and arbitrary execution they are not entitled to interfere with other states sovereign jurisdiction.

However the merit of human right application lies in the functionality as per Donnelly. For Donnelly contends that nations witnessed evolution of human rights after struggles against historical situations and through religious; political and moral discourses. John Locke’s efforts through his Second treatise on Government; French Revolution and religious scriptures – all aimed at individual rights and equality. Thus functional universality in each historical phase came as a demand against “scripture, church; morality, tradition, justice, natural law, order, social utility, and national strength”5.Furthermore it is due to this functional universality “human dignity” is being questioned against market economies and bureaucracies as per Donnelly.

c) Historical Universality

There have been various claims that the concept of human rights has been manifested in every society. Historical universality is also called as “anthropological universality”. From the history on anthropology we find that there are two main types of arguments behind all the cultural theories. One theory pre supposes a psychological unity among all mankind – human beings faced with similar situations will react in the same way. On other hand, there are theories which presume the existence of social facts outside the human control”. But sociological research studies on culture aim to find an “autonomous world of social truth by eliminating all human variables”.

Donnelly’s study cites many findings based on anthropological and historical studies how human rights had been the subject matter in various cultures and religions. It is stated that Hindu caste system ; Arab literature; African societies; Asian cultures; Koranic texts – all as a sources and manifestation of human rights and human rights as integral part (Zakira 1986; Coomaraswamy 1980; Wai 19080; Pollis and Schawab 1980 and Penna and Campbell 1998; Anwar, 1994; Buultjens 1980; Khushalini 1983 and Stackhouse 1984 cited).

However human rights conception through cultural studies is not complete and moreover confusing also according to Donnelly. Further values like justice and fairness and rights as distinct social values are not in the earlier cultures. Hence Donnelley concludes:

“There may be considerable historical/anthropological universality of values across time and culture. No society, civilization, or culture prior to the seventeenth century, however, had a widely endorsed practice, or even vision, of equal and inalienable individual human right”.

Further Donnelley substantiates his argument:

“The ancient Greeks notoriously distinguished between Hellenes and barbarians, practised slavery, denied basic rights to foreigners, and (by our standards) severely restricted the rights of even free adult (male) citizens. The idea that all human beings had equal and inalienable basic rights was equally foreign to Athens and Sparta, Plato and Aristotle, Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Thucydides. Much the same is true of ancient Rome, both as a republic and as an empire. In medieval Europe, where the spiritual egalitarianism and universality of Christianity expressed itself in deeply in egalitarian politics, the idea of equal legal and political rights for all human beings, had it been seriously contemplated, would have been seen as a moral abomination, a horrid transgression against God’s order”.

However one has to understand the roots of rights in religions and cultures and the normative nature of rights therein to some extent and how they have been further questioned and progressed in the modern and secular civilizations.

3. Culture Relativism and Non Western Concept of Human Rights

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been both widely discussed, appreciated at the same time criticized by different groups. Culture relativism is a response to the claim of universality of human rights. It basically asserts that human rights are not universal but relative and implemented variedly according to one’s culture. Thus, culture is the source through which human rights derive their validity. As such the present debate on human rights is centered on right to religion versus human rights.

John Rawls, in his book “The Theory of Justice” proposed a method to achieve objectivity that others should be treated simply as human beings, apart from any unique characteristics they may have. But such method ignores gender differences and religious distinctiveness and thus minority interests are too overpowered by the idea of majority.

Religion is something universal and thus it is fatal for any human rights declarations to ignore the moral authority derived from religions. As Gerrie ter Harr notes, “For most people in the world, religion is an integral part of their existence, inseparable from the social and moral order, and it defines their relations with other human beings”

A strong argument can be made that the current formulation of international human rights constitutes a cultural structure in which western society finds itself easily at home … It is important to acknowledge and appreciate that other societies may have equally valid alternative conceptions of human rights.

Addressing the root of conflict.

The process of reconciliation can start only with the recognition that the core principles of the current framework of the international human rights are universal in nature. At the same time, it needs to be highlighted that the argument advanced by the cultural relativists has to be given due regard. The conflict between the two ideologies is due to the origin of the current framework which lies in the western conception. In spite of this fact that the current framework had its roots in the West, almost all states of the world have accepted in the broad aims of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other core human rights treaties in some way or the other. Eminent Scholar Jack Donnelly made  a profound observation in this regard-“Despite striking and profound international differences in ideology, levels and styles of economic development, and patterns of political evolution, virtually all states today have embraced – in speech if not in deed – the human rights standards enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Human Rights Covenants. This consensus presents a strong prima facie case for a relatively strong universalism; that is, for weak cultural relativism. Even if this “consensus” is largely the complement of vice to virtue, it reveals widely shared notions of “virtue,” an underlying “universal” moral position compelling at least the appearance of assent from even the cynical and corrupt.”

In the following section, the claims of relativism are discussed and how they can be reconciled with universalism:

i. Rights are “culturally specific” in Asia and distinctive than Western views

The debate around the relative influence of culture on the understanding over the definition of human rights is central to the whole conflict between cultural relativism and universalism. There are two important strands of this argument. For example, in Article 8 of the Bangkok Declaration of 1993 Asian states declared that “human rights must be considered in the context of a dynamic and evolving  process of international norm setting, bearing in mind the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds.”

In this regard, it can be seen that there is a certain kind of statist response by the cultural relativist as they emphasize on the right of the particular state to arrive at a definition and value system of human rights.

ii.  Precedence of Social and economic rights than political and civil rights

The balance and relative importance given to social and political rights vis-à-vis civil and political rights is an important pillar of the debate. Ching,1993 states “The US state department, issues annual reports on the human rights situation in countries around the world, but the reports cover only political rights, not social, economic and cultural rights.” The Chinese White Paper (1991) stated that “to eat their fill and dress warmly were the fundamental demands of the Chinese people who had long suffered cold and hunger. Political and civil rights, on this view, do not make sense to poor and illiterate multitudes; such rights are not meaningful under destitute and unstable conditions.”

The assumption behind this argument from the cultural relativists is that “that poor and illiterate people cannot really exercise their civil-political rights. Yet the poor and illiterate may benefit from civil and political freedom by speaking, without fear, of their discontent. Meanwhile as we have seen, political repression does not guarantee better living conditions and education for the poor and illiterate. The leaders who are in a position to encroach upon citizen`s rights to express political opinions will also be beyond reproach and accountability for failures to protect citizen`s social- economic rights.”

This argument is very likely to become a tool for states to become authoritarian in order to take away basic liberties from people in the name of their economic welfare. However, this is a critical issue that still needs to be given more serious thought by those who are entrusted with solving the dispute.

iii. Economic Development rights should get priority over other human rights

The argument regarding prioritizing economic development over human rights is often advanced by developing societies which are struggling with their economic issues. It needs to be highlighted that the idea of human rights is extremely important for all nations regardless of their economic status and hence, one need not be compromised for the other. In this regard, the view taken by Former Thai Minister Surin Pitsuwan is very relevant.

iv. Prioritizing of group and communal rights over individual rights

One of the important strands of cultural relativists holds that the current framework favours excessive individualism and thus, there isn’t enough balance of the individual rights with community rights. While the demand for creating a balance is legitimate, but this argument can sometime become a tool for curbing individual rights. Scholars have argued that this argument “creates confusions by collapsing “community“ into the state and the state into the regime. When equations are drawn between community, the state and the regime, any criticisms of the regime become crimes against the nation-state, the community, and the people. This cultural relativist’s view relies on such a conceptual maneuver to dismiss individual rights that conflict with regime`s interest, allowing the condemnation of individual rights as anti-communal, destructive of social harmony, and seditionist against the sovereign state.”14 Another criticism of this argument is that “collective or group rights are also potentially worrying because it is not always clear which group should have the right to self- determination, for example, and who belongs to the group. In the words of Alan Gewirth: ‘the emphasis on individual rights is not only compatible with, but requires a conscientious concern for, the common good.”
The balance between group and communal rights and individual rights is very difficult to arrive at. Therefore, a calibrated approach needs to be adopted in order to arrive at a consensus on this issue. More serious engagement is necessary in order to achieve a common perception about this balance.

v. More regional instruments and less global directives should be included in the UDHR

Global directives in the form of international law instruments have been perceived by the cultural relativists as a symbol of western arrogance and hence, it is said that there is a need to have more regional instruments. It is argued by the relativists that-“the world community needs more regional instruments and less global directives from the UN. The form in which human rights are protected should also be more co-operative rather than confrontational.

vi. Discriminatory application of principles of Human rights

This is a legitimate concern raised by the relativists that while the standards of human rights are considered uniform but their implementation is not uniform in any sense. In this regard, scholars have said that “the use of the international instruments by the international community is not a conceptual problem or a matter of differences in culture. It is a problem of politics in the international community in general. So, in this ground of discriminatory nature of the human rights there should not be any room for Asian states to violate human rights to endanger human security.” Therefore, it is not difficult to be resolved.

Conclusion

The principle argument of the concept of cultural relativism “lies in the hypothesis that every culture has humanitarian ideals or principles that could contribute to the redefining and promotion of universal standards as the latter adopt local and national standards.”15 While it is true that the west had immense influence in giving shape to the current framework of human rights, the non-western societies have also created an impact in the drafting process. For instance, the UDHR provides “references to economic and social rights that are not included in [most] Western documents on human rights.” Arguably, the inclusion of such references is attributable to the participation of members from non-Western countries such as India, Cuba, Panama, Chile, and Lebanon in the drafting. In fact, Article 28 of the UDHR which provides for the social and international realisation of human rights and freedoms was specifically introduced into the UDHR by Charles Malik, the Lebanese representative”

This lesson discusses of different aspects of human rights between cultural relativism and universalism. The reasons are in fact addressed to the political role of imperialistic nations or organizations that advocate universal rights. At the same time cultural relativists are agonized by the ignoring attitudes of Universalists of their specific rights. But a student of human rights will certainly wonder why these discrepancies in understanding of rights while both streams of thought aim for collective human rights.

Culturalist’ claim is for their specific right for there are certain traditions and practices that are akin to the specific culture belonging to specific region. Some are attached to land; some traditions attached to plants or trees and some others in their modes of lives and livelihood. For example, claims of tribes of India can be taken. Development projects often displace the tribes with certain compensations. However in their utilitarian point to do more justice and equity for more number of people development projects displace tribal people from their lands. This is an Universalist’s approach for rights. Let us assume the development project compensate the displaced persons with proper compensation in terms of money or land or some livelihood. As an universal understanding of development one may find it is justified when proper compensation as per law had been done. But to a culturalist such compensation still might not be justifiable. It is not justified for a culturalist because of one’s specific cultural practices; livelihoods and life-styles and above all emotional relations of people attached to the land. These attachments cannot be compensated with any amount of compensation in terms of money or land in a new area. Further the inhabitants of tribal area are used to do some works where their mind pleases to do; more so some people might not be able to do other professions. Hence the culturalist perceptions of preservation of rights are different and their perceptions are justified in the eyes of environmentalists and bioethicists.

Hence it is necessary to understand beyond the culturalist’ claim and Universalists’ claim and find a proper reconciliation and also certain culture-specific solutions in resolving human rights issues. Donnelley rightly used the term “Universalism without imperialism” to think of human rights in a better sense. Then universality of rights can be translated despite the myriad or small differences in cultures or religions or any other differences. Such understanding also facilitates amicable solutions for culture specific issues on human rights. Then not only universalism can protect culture specific protection but also can question bad practices rooted in culture as “bonded labour” and “female genital mutilation issues” and “violence against homosexuals” etc.,

Reference

• Chilean Representative in United Nations General Assembly, Official Records, Fifty-fifth session, (December 2000).
• Osaka, Hurights, Human Rights and Cultural Values: A Literature Review. (2003), online: http://www.hurights.or.jp/database/E/hr_cultural_values.html
• Jack Donnelly (2007). The Relative Universality of Human Rights (Forth coming, 2007, Human Rights Quarterly).
• Edmund R. Leach, “The Comparative Method in Anthropology:” in David L. Sills(Ed.,), International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vol 1, London: The Macmillan Company &The Free Press, New York 1968/reprint 1972, p.344
•  Jack Donelly, “Culture Relativism and Universal Human Rights” in Human Rights Quarterly. Also in The Development of International Human Rights, Volume 1, Ashgate, 2014. P. 400-419. Also available at <http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/preamble_section_7/concept_history.html>
• Gerrie ter Harr, “Rats, Cockroaches, and People like us: Views of Humanity and Human Rights” in Human Rights and Responsibility, Joseph Runzo, V. IV, Oneworld Publications, England 2003. Pg. 80-81.
• “Non-Western Societies Have Influenced Human Rights” in Jacqueline Langwith (ed.), Opposing Viewpoints: Human Rights, Gale/Greenhaven Press: Chicago, 2007.
• Donnelly, (1989). Human Rights in Theory and Practice London: Cornell University Press.
• Francis Deng, “A Cultural Approach to Human Rights Among the Dinka,” in Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im and Francis Deng, Human Rights in Africa: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Washington D.C.:,Brookings, Institution, 1990) at 261.
• Virginia Leary, “The Effect of Western Perspectives on International Human Rights,” in Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im and Francis Deng, Human Rights in Africa: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (Washington D.C.:, Brookings Institution, 1990) at 19.