Cultural Relativism and Universalism of Human Rights: An Anthropological Approach - Coursework Example

RUNNING HEAD: CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND UNIVERSALISM Cultural Relativism and Universalism of Human Rights: An Anthropological Approach Tutor: Date: Abstract If the concept of ‘human right’ is analyzed from an anthropological perspective, it appears to be contextual and historically specific. Therefore the notion of cultural relativism is adopted within the definition of human. But yet the cultural definition of human right can does not include the universal aspect of rights. In order to meet both the universal and cultural demands of human rights the anthropologists attempt to include both of the trait within the definition of right. Cultural Relativism and Universalism of Human Rights: An Anthropological Approach Introduction An Approach to the concept of ‘Human Right’ from the anthropological perspective critically reflects upon the predominant engagement of the topic with its relativistic and universalistic aspects in terms of culture, politics and the socio-economic condition of man. Necessarily the anthropological perspective of human right takes the geographically divergent factors into consideration within the definition of human right. Due to the width of the circumference of the term ‘human right’ the anthropological approach to human right is more of an exposition than of a definition. Scholars interpret the cultural concerns in the notion of human right differently. As the cultural commitment of human right, in other words, its commitment to the cultural aspects simply proves to be insufficient to encapsulate the extensive circumference of human rights in general. Therefore in order to ensure an all-embracing aspect of human rights social anthropologists attempt to focus into its origin in culture and society, as in this regard Cowan (2001) et al note, “In anthropology…cultural relativism was advocated as a mean to counteract the negative effects brought about by the imposition of universal rights” (p. 27). But it becomes significant the concept of “cultural relativism” also does not include the issue of universal rights and a close analysis of rights from an anthropological point of view the notion of human right is an absolute one, rather it is contextual and historically specific. At this point Cowan (2001) says, “What is needed, therefore, are more sophisticated views of both relativism and universalism, but the relationship between these two moral positions” (p.27). Origin of Human Rights: Historical and Anthropological Perspective The issues of human right abuse and violation dated long back in human history but pro-human right movement started several centuries ago, as in this regard Rayner says, “It is essentially the product of 17th and 18th century European thought” (n.d.). The issues like the violation of the rights of the minority, women’s right, racial inequity and discrimination, etc have been the issues for thousands of years. Scholars have tried to approach differently to the issues to what right is right and to what extent confirmation of right is to counted as anarchy and whether one’s right appears to the violation of others’ right. Indeed the majority of these arguments evolve from the Socio-cultural and religious perspectives of the individuals with what they count as their rights. But always the relative view of right has dominated the definition of human right. It varies both geographically and historically; therefore they have been amended frequently from time to time. Yet all the definitions of human rights are stitched together with a common thread of human beings’ universal needs. As a result the universality of human rights has always been put into question and scholars attempted to define it from a narrow political and culturally relativistic view (Cohen 1989, pp.1014-1017). But both the universal and the socio-political view of rights have been dealt in a holistic approach. In the modern context of human right movement, the universal aspect of right has been endeavored to apply it in a global framework. Universalism: The Possibility of Universal Right According to Rayner (n.d.), the concept of universal of human right is generated first by the European philosophers like Locke, Hobbes and Grotius. But immediately after the Second World War it was accepted globally. In this regard, Görkem Birinci (n.d.) says, “Human rights were brought into the focus immediately after the Second World War with the establishment of the United Nations” (p. 1). This universal aspects of human right is asserted on the fundamentals of being or existing as human equality and freedom. But choice of the individual is certainly advocated to be dominated by the reason and conscience. In Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is asserted that “All human beings are born free….endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (UDHR, 1948, Article 1). Before the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948, under the statement of “Bill of Rights” in 1689, “Magna Carta”, “Declaration of Independence” in 1776, “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens” several attempts were taken to preserve human rights. These bills were not all-embracing enough to include the all of the traits of human rights. Then the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” was made, as United Nations Human Rights says, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status….These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible” (UNHR 2008). Cultural Relativism and Universal Aspects: The Pluralists’ View In the first place, universalism of human rights is to deal with the “question whether universal human right is applicable and valid in a situation where there is no universal culture existing in this world” (Stuart, 1999, p.2). On both sides of the debates between Cultural relativism and Universalism There are firm grounds of arguments that can strongly support universal and relativistic views. The divergence and contradiction between cultural relativism and universalism emerges from the epistemological specificity of norms and culture. In this case Pluralists’ position is that the idea of good is itself not absolute and it is contextual and therefore comparative. Societies and cultures compose the norms and values in order to guide its members and as the societies and cultures are determined by geo historical factor, they cannot be universal. (Galston 1999) The idea of universal right appears to be flawed in practical reality because of the extensive influence of the socio-cultural views of individuals. The fact whether human rights can be both universal or not, is bound to engender a set of controversies. But this debate between cultural relativism and universalism can be inflamed over the possibility of a universal culture. As the political system of any country is committed to the stability and harmony within the national territory, it more likely is bound to adopt views of human rights that appear to be in harmony with the culture and religion of a society. Therefore the concept of human rights appears to be political also, while it tends to be universal. Religion, Culture and Human Rights: Contradictory or Complementary As far culture and religion are concerned with the rights of individuals in a society, the definition of human rights appear to be cultural and so it is possible that it vary from culture to culture, and geographical. Often human right violation is veiled under the attire of the norms of culture and practice in a society. Even these violations are found to happen in the apparatus of the judiciary systems of societies, as in this regard, William Schulz (2003) says, “Whether it be a religion, a nation, or the world at large, the norms that govern at any one point in history reflect the views of those who are at the moment holding the prevailing mantle of power” (p. 110). It seems to pose the challenge as to what rights are and what are not. Simply this complexity evolves from the concerns of the individuals regarding the decision whether it will be appropriate for them to shun the offers of their culture. What is considered to be right in a society is considered to be the violation of right. In some cases its definition appears to be self-contradictory and self-destroying. Culture, Anarchy and Dignity: Human Rights The concepts of freedom and dignity are two crucial terms in the notion of human right. In order to protect human being from rigid religiosity and the despotic political rule, the idea of human right was proposed to ensure dignity, freedom and respect of the individuals. In this regard, Birinci says, “Universal…..Human Rights….asserts that persons must be protected against the arbitrary use of power…..freedom of expression….their rights to safety and security of persons and ideas” (n.d., p. 4). The UDHR asserts, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (1948). In this regard the oriental scholars argue that one’s freedom may prove to be violation of others’ rights. This argument is necessarily pertinent to the issue of women’s right in Indian societies and cultures. When the oriental societies draw a clear distinction between men and women depending on the physical inferiority, in these cultures freedom of women’s choice in some affairs like education, marriage, and other outdoor activities is considered to be anarchy. Here it is often accused that western consumerism manipulates such freedom of women’s choice and other human right issues to reach their political and commercial goals. In the way how the western societies handle this issue prove to be beneficial to a selected minority, while it affects the majority severely. For examples exposition of female body for the marketing purposes does nothing good rather destroying the moral level of the people. In this regard Stuart (2009) says, “These handful business magnets need freedom to display sexual and obscene episodes to increase the appeal of their million dollar films more than a pair of lovers needs freedom to make love publicly” (p. 2). Such freedom of human rights seems to be more alien and devastating in the third world countries than the western countries. As to the concept of individual political freedom Messer says that leaders of the Asian countries such as china, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. have argued these rights to be foreign to their communal socio-cultural traditions (Messer 1997). Culture as the Safeguard of Rights: The Asian Contexts Cultures and societies of the world hold particular views of rights that appear to be compatible with their socioeconomic condition, norms and customs. A close analysis of the cultures and societies of the Asian countries shows that they have their own traditions to defend and safeguard their members’ rights. These ways of the members’ rights -that are manifested as social rules and laws- function as parts of the organic whole of the social systems. Whereas the oriental cultures such as the Indian cultures and the Confusion culture in China mutilate any right of the members in one way by any rule or law, the mutilated right appears to be compensated with other privileges. For examples, the women of the Indian aristocratic Hindu society and the Islamic societies are not allowed to go outside of their houses for any financial and money earning activities. But their social norms and customs of these societies always impose the responsibility of family maintenance on the male members. Anyway this theory of compensation can generate some other severe violence of women’s rights. On the other hand the oriental scholars and other Islamic scholars refer to some striking contradictions of the western concepts of human right. They are prone to take the concepts of universal human right as a tool of western oppression. For them some features of universal human rights are self-contradictory and self-consuming. While it preserves the freedom of choice for the individuals, in reality it imposes some alien features upon the people of other cultures. When Article 8 (2) of the UDHR (1948) asserts mutual respect for every culture as it is in the following statement, “States should encourage popular participation in all spheres as an important factor in development and in the full realization of all human rights” (UDHR 1948), also Individual freedom and freedom of choice are encouraged by the Western concept of universalism up to such a point in an individual is allowed to go against the social restriction and norms. Conclusion When the definition of human rights necessarily refers to rights that are considered to be one’s possessions acknowledged by others only because he is a human being, rights are obviously bound to be universal. But this universality is questioned when issues of right is dealt in different socio-cultural contexts. Yet some trait of human rights can be considered as universal because they are contained by all cultures and society. As there is the possibility that every culture holds a view of human being that is common to a great extent, and as every society deals with these issues in its own way, a universal aspect of human rights is possible that avoids the conflict between the application of human right issues and the cultures. Apart from this, the self contradiction within the idea of human right is that it endows the individuals with the freedom to practice of one’s religion freely. But though it poses the contradiction, this universal aspect of human, in return, wins the individual heart. (Gibson, 1991) References Birinci, G. (n.d.). Global Pluralism versus Universal Human Rights. Retrieved from www.wiscnetwork.org/getpaper.php?id=128 - Cohen, R. (1989). Human Rights and Cultural Relativism: The Need for a New Approach, American Anthropologist, New Series, 91(4), 1014-1017. Cowan, J. K. (2001). Marie-Benedicte, D., and Richard, A. W., (eds.) Culture and Rights: Anthropological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galston, A. W. (1999). Value Pluralism and Liberal Political Theory, The American Political Science Review, 93(4), 769-778. Gibson, J S. (1991). International Organizations, Constitution Law and Human Rights. Boston: Praeger Publishers International Council on Human Rights, (2002), “Human Rights after September’ 11. Versoix Messer, E., 1997, “Pluralist Approach to Human Rights”, Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, Universal Human Rights versus Cultural Relativity, pp. 293-317. Rayner, M. (n.d.). History Of Universal Human Rights - UP TO WW2, Retrieved from http://www.universalrights.net/main/histof.htm Schulz, W. (2003). The Origin of Human Rights and the Challenge of Universality. New York: Thunders Mouth Press Stuart, J. (2009). Origin of Human Right. Human Right Journal. 34(3), 39-57 United Nations Human Rights. (2008). Your Human Rights, Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx "Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948". Wright, S. (2001). International Human Rights, Decolonization and Globalization: Becoming Human. London: Routledge Read More