Cultural Values in Forming Human Rights - Essay Example

?Cultural values and human rights Introduction Human rights are defined uniquely by each individual who considers them. As a result, it is understandable that through the ideological differences that can be appreciated from one culture to another, the nature of human rights are defined through different terms of compassion and attention. The way in which social groups are formed often has an impact on how human rights are determined. Rights, as they are ascribed by skin color, gender, or age, vary within a culture, thus creating a diversity of values from which a human rights theorem is developed. Although members of the Western culture have developed worldwide organizations addressing human rights issues, there are vast differences between the way that Western values address the nature of the individual in comparison to values of other cultures. Through aspects of work, feminism, and punishment, there is a great variety of value administration towards addressing the rights of members of a society. The nature of human rights as they are practiced within a region are determined by the values of the relevant culture that has control over the ideological philosophies that inform public policy. Value Diversity What is culture? When speaking of culture, it is necessary to understand that any discussion of culture will include an “implied other”, thus defining one group as different from another (Storey 2006: 1). The truth about the concept of culture, from some perspectives, is that it divides people much more definitely than is actually appropriate. Being human allows for the same motivations for behaviors, the needs for life not changing from one regional setting to the next. Human beings need to be warm enough, cool enough, satisfy their hungers, and satisfy their bodily needs. Everything that is done is an extension of basic human needs and the way in which the environment lends support to those fulfillments. How life is framed for supporting these needs is how culture is defined. If one looks at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, for purposes of understanding the nature of human need fulfillment, one can see how all people share the same focused needs, that it is just the semantics of how those needs are approached that change from one region to the next (see Appendix 1). Motivations emerge from the bottom of the pyramid up, each level of need reflected through the behaviors and activities of each region of human development, no matter what that level of development and despite frameworks that vary from one set of people to the next. Culture is defined by frameworks that support needs, rather than through differences in basic human needs. Thus, human rights, despite the differences that are appreciated from one culture to the next, are not different. It is only the introduction of power that changes the way in which one culture will define how people are treated. Those in power will assert their authority by manipulating people through threats and rewards towards their human needs. Deprive a man of basic physical needs, and the motivations to follow the reigning authority will increase as those needs are fulfilled by that authority. Deprive those needs and not fulfill them and the next rebellious force that comes along promising to fulfill those needs will gain support. How human rights are defined is about the political frameworks in which needs are addressed and fulfilled. However, this still does not fully explain or define culture. There are general terms in which to define culture. Storey (2006: 1) suggests that a good broad definition of culture can be considered by saying it is a “general process of intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic development”. This definition allows for the separation between the diversity of culture and the cohesion of human needs as universal. People are essentially the same through each incarnation of culture. The differences are in the interpretations that are created about how to address needs, not from within the human condition. What people come to believe is a very different concept to why they come to believe it. Why is framed by how a need is perceived, who has the power to define fulfillment, and how that power is used to implement those fulfillment strategies. Value Diversity There is a perceived concept that there are different values within different cultures that contribute to the diversity of human rights applications within those regions. The unfortunate truth is that the values, for most purposes, are universal. Each culture defines values by the way in which they support their need fulfillment. Even in cultures where it appears that there is a disparity of beliefs where life is concerned, the truth is that power has corrupted the basic human values that are held within that culture. According to Chitkara (1997: 3), “Corruption and reactions to it are part of the regular operation of society”. Corruption can be defined by its affect on values. Corruption is the nature of a society to test basic human values, to find a way to fulfill greed over the needs of others within a society. Through the basic ideas of corruption, the antithesis of values can be observed. When values are compromised to serve corruption, abuses of power occur. In understanding the differences between cultures, it is not in the differences of values, but in the differences of how those values have been corrupted. The key, however, is in determining how values are defined as corrupt. An example of this can be seen through looking at the plight of women in different cultures. In Muslim cultures, women are required to lead a life that is considered restricted by many Western cultures, although in Muslim perspectives, Western women present themselves in a disrespectful manner and are not ‘good’ women (Mansson 2009: 89). Therefore, the way in which human rights are distributed can be associated with the way in which values are perceived. It is universal that motherhood is a valued position in life, but how that state is defined determines how the culture has been defined. Some aspects through corrupted values, and others through enlightened values, but determining which is which is a matter of cultural reference. The need for a culture to define its beliefs in reference to values presents one of the ways in which culture is defined. Power According to Van Dyke (1977: 345) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines rights as universal for “everyone…without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. If this is true, then the question becomes centered on why there are differences between the way that people are treated in some regions in comparison to the way they are treated in other regions. Defining the disparities that are seen between the treatment of individuals in one culture from another is defined by the aspect of power. How power paradigms come into line from one state to the next will determine how the development of belief will determine how individuals are treated. How people are perceived, whether as resources or as valued individuals, can determine how those who have taken power use that power to manipulate the people of a region. In this manipulation, human rights are central to defining how people will respond. Allowing and stripping those rights defines political power, the ability to use what people need in order to motivate them into action. Svennsson (1995: 421) states that “Only individuals are conceived of as holding rights and bearing claims; groups are merely aggregates of individuals whose status in law and politics arises not from their collective identity, but from the rights and interests of the individuals of which they are composed”. This concept of connectivity, that groups come together through interests that provide for a collective establishes the foundation for culture. While the rights that should be afforded to individuals in order to support their individual needs are the same, the way in which the collective acts to protect, promote, or assert their rights in conjunction with perceived threats from other groups defines the conflict that comes between cultures. The way in which power is developed, the nature of its support and the control with which it is wielded will create the nature of the force with which a group will assert their beliefs over another. One of the ways and excuses that arises from one group to another in taking rights away from a social group can be developed through concepts of ‘race’. The idea of race is defined through groupings that take differences that have nothing to do with classification of ’human’, but are often used as an excuse to treat a group as if their needs, desires, and behaviors are not the same. Divisions Western Failures in Equality There is a decisive difference between Western cultures and Eastern cultures, but not through the individuals, but through the ideological frameworks in which humanity is addressed. Western cultures have focused a great deal of energy on defining the rights and beliefs of the individual as prominent. However, the way in which the individual is defined is often framed through the Caucasian male, other groups not being afforded the same rights because of observable differences that provide for the formation of social groups. Social groups are not necessarily a bad thing, however, when rights are denied to social groups merely because of their inclusion in those groups, this becomes a problem. Western cultures have a history of oppressing anything that comes into their path and is determined as ’other’. Tomasi (1995: 581) suggests that there are two approaches to the use of rights within the human political system. Rights can be universal or they can be consociationally. Rights that are universal within a political group are given to each member that is within the jurisdiction of a political state. Rights that are consociationally distributed are given in regard to social groups, one social group having rights that are not evenly distributed, or are possibly denied from one to another. These types of uneven distributions can have positive or negative connotations. An example that is given by Tomasi (1995: 581) is that in Canada, some aboriginal lands are not allowed to be sold to anyone outside of that social grouping. Therefore, the nature of the diverse rights that are given might have some positive aspects as groups that have been oppressed or used in ways that did not support their basic rights in the past, can regain some power in regard to their cultural connectivity. While the uneven distribution of rights might seem to provide an unfairness, it is a redistribution of rights that provides for a culture to retain its identity while providing for basic human needs (Kymlicka 1994: 140). The uneven attributing of rights by dividing groups through skin color, the nature of ’racial’ divisions as a way to inform social policy has often been used to oppress and steal away the natural resources that defined a culture for its fulfillment of personal rights. Examples of this can be found through colonialism and slavery where people were used as resources, without regard to the irreparable damage that was done to the environment that denied a group the methods that they had defined to support their human needs, while using them for the furtherance of acquisition that seemed to be important to the Caucasian male within Western society. The nature of colonialism is in direct conflict with Western ideals, the nature of oppression being against the ideologies on which the Western world had developed its concepts of individualism. In the 1960s, the UN began campaigning against European colonialism was “an anachronistic institution and at odds with any reasonable moral pact” (Skrentny 2004: 73). Therefore, it must be understood that while the West has claims of enlightenment through the rise of the recognition of the importance of individualism, that individualism has been hard one by minority groups. This might be considered a game of balance, where the West defined these types of individualistic characteristics, but failed to see that all of humanity was included within this framework. The work of Elias Havelock can be used as an example. As recently as the late 19th century, there was a pervasive belief that there were differences between people that made them sub-species of humanity. In other words, Havelock, as an anthropologist, determined that there were “lower races” and that they had attributes that allowed for using them without regard to their needs (Rafter 2009: 184). This belief that some ’races’ were lower was used as an excuse for treating humans as animals. Race The problem with social groups that are identified through observable differences is that it suggests that exterior attributes have something to do with determining humanity. ’Race’, when it is determined by skin color is a non-entity, a status in which the definition is purely a social construct without any true meaning in regard to science. To divide people through skin color is to make a division that is not relevant. Crawford (2007: 27) states that racial “ correlation was an artifact of population stratification”. The nature of defining people by skin color associated to geographical location has become no longer relevant as most cultures now exist in an integrated state, the nature of skin color not consistent due to climatic influences of adaptation. However, due to European colonization and African slavery histories, the use of skin color as a determinant for human classification has become a predominant issue. Visual cues that lead to stereotypes have caused the denial of rights to some groups in order to facilitate desires of another. This has led to a belief system that skin color dominates in which one group looks down upon another, the creation of prejudice becoming a problem in which groups are denied politically structured rights through the power that is asserted by the dominant group. Human Rights versus Political Rights Minorities and Rights Discovering the difference between human rights and political rights provides context for determining how culture is involved in assessing human rights. Danley (1991: 170) defines Kymlicka’s beliefs in rights as divided into two aspects: “ as citizens and as members of a cultural community”. In defining rights through these two aspects, the political system of rights is considered for its inequalities, the nature of laws protecting some groups over others. As previously mentioned, the laws in Canada protect the rights of the Aboriginal communities against losing their lands to outside cultural possession. Danley (1991: 170) suggests that this is a continuation of inequality. In denying some members of a political state rights and asserting those of a cultural group, the nature of rights are controverter through the inequality. However, Kymlicka, according to Danley (1991: 170) asserts that “the value of cultural membership purports to identify the necessary conditions for self-respect”. Therefore, in creating inequalities in political rights, the self-respect that has been imposed upon and diminished through inequalities of the past are made manifest through inequalities that tip the scale in the other direction in the present. This addresses higher levels of need as they are observed on Maslow’s pyramid (see Appendix 1). In finding cultural identity and asserting respect and dignity through political rights, the needs for self-actualization can be addressed. The state represents the people, and in this representation an emerging nature of multiculturalism has imposed the need to address different cultures under different frameworks. This can be defined by accomodationist policies that are intended to take into consideration the needs of one culture over another, the purpose being to hold in respect the traditions of a culture in order to preserve its basic beliefs and traditions when they are placed in conflict with former policy (Shacher 2000: 64). This does not mean that basic law should be denied and that the health and welfare of others can be diminished in order to provide for a culture, but it does mean that certain protections can be put into place to protect endangered systems of cultures that have been previously corrupted through actions that took something essential from that society. In this, the connection between political and human rights can be established. While many political rights are not directly relevant to human rights, the nature of many are defined by their association with the fulfillment of human need. Essentially, human rights are the fulfillment of human need, the right to find ways in which to live within the framework of human experiences through those fulfillments. This means that a human right is to eat, another is to be safe, and yet another is to have dignity. Human rights are about having the means through political provisions to fulfill needs. While there are many countries in which basic human rights are violated, there is also a concerted effort on the global plane to address these needs. As the world is tightening and becoming more singularly focused on beliefs and systems of values, the basic rights of human existence are becoming more relevant as corruption of values and human need is being brought into human consciousness. Cultural and National Identity One of the ways in which divisions exist within society is through the divisions between national and ethnic identities. Ethnic communities are tied by language, traditions, and belief systems, while national identities are defined by geographical existences. The ethnic community will have a place within the national community, thus providing an instant duality within which the nature of the existence of an individual is within frameworks that have greater frameworks of understanding and definition. Who a person is as an ethnic member of a culture is very different than the identity of that same individual as a member of a national group (Levey 1997: 217). As an example, there is a strong Jamaican presence in the United Kingdom, due to post-colonial migration, however the members of the cultural group are also members of the national group of the United Kingdom. Thus, the individuals have a duality of identities. This exists across all human existence, whether or not the national identity is singularly ethnic or if there is a multi-ethnic nature to the geographical locus. Part of the problems with trying to address the disparities in history in regard to rights and indignities is that the experiences of the past are felt in the present through individuated cultural memory. According to Kukathis (1992: 674), group rights cannot be equally addressed because the experiences of the individuals within the group cannot be defined as equal. Individuals will always have very unique perspectives, thus to try to create an equality through inequitable law is not truly possible, even though it is still a laudable effort. Groups cannot be defined through experience as experience happens to individuals. Thus, the group must come to a consensus about how a law affects their cultural dignity. As an example, while the Canadian government may believe that their effort to keep Inuit lands in Inuit hands provides a sense of compensation, the idea that it has an effect is really only relevant to how it effects the experience of the individual member of the group. The appearance of reparation is not always relevant to the actuality of the effort. Kukathas (1992: 110) discusses the importance of recognizing both the concept of individualism and the concept of community. In recognizing the importance of the individual, the importance of community is not ignored. There is an imperative to realize that a community is about individuals, that it is connected by the similarities that make up the whole, the nature of that community in relationship to the next community as they all share similar needs. In extension, then, the necessity to connect one state to the next as all human needs are the same, no matter how differently they are framed. As Kukathas (1992: 110) discusses the idea that cultural groups should be considered for political considerations from different perspectives, he reminds his readers that individuals make up the concept of a cultural group, thus it is a changing and shifting entity that cannot be framed in a static structure. Thus, it is the concept of individual rights that must ultimately inform political frameworks on how to address human need. Universal Rights Charney, according to Bell (1999: 849), defines universal rights as “held by individuals. They protect individuals against the actions of other individuals and/or collectives (including political and economic organizations)”. However, identifying this structure is more difficult than one might imagine. Bell (1999: 850) flogs Charney for assumptions that universal rights must be defined by Western standards of definition. Thus, the nature of universal rights becomes corrupt. Providing for cultures to determine their own belief systems is part of a universality of rights. Thus, as in the example between Muslim and Western traditions of female interactions within society, the values of one culture may seem in contradiction to human rights, where the intolerance of the other provides for values to be diminished. In this sense, values become in conflict with culture. Conclusion Cultural values are not as relevant to the creation of human rights frameworks as might be first considered. Human rights are defined by the needs of the human existence, the essential elements that can be defined through Maslow’s Hierarchy, as a rudimentary form of theory, in order to define what is imperative to the human condition and what is not. To define universal rights is to discount culture, but it cannot be denied that there are basic rights that must be addressed for the welfare of human life. Therefore, the concept of human rights must be informed through culture as filtered through basic human needs. It is in the corruption of human values that human rights are denied. Therefore, in order to define human rights, one must see where needs of one person are circumvented by either law or tradition. When those needs are denied and an individual is no longer able to fulfill needs because of imposed problems that create obstacles to fulfillment, then law or custom has violated human rights. Cultural values do not change the nature of human rights, because the needs of all humans are the same. Culture is a construct that originated in geography, not in biology, thus human rights must be considered through need. References Bell, Daniel A. (December 1999). Which rights are universal? Political Theory. Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 849-456. Charney, Evan. (December 1999). Cultural interpretation and universal human rights. Political Theory. Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 840-848. Chitkara, M. G. 1997. Corruption "n" cure. Delhi: A.P.H. Pub. Corp. Crawford, Michael. (2007). Anthropological genetics: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danley, John R. (Spring 1991). Liberalism, aboriginal rights, and cultural minorities. Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 168-185. Kukathas, Chandran. (February 1992). Are there any cultural rights? Political Theory. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 105-139. Kukathas, Chandran. (November 1992). Cultural rights again: A rejoinder to Kymlicka. Political Theory. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 674-369. Kymlicka, Will. (February 1994). The rights of minority cultures. Political Theory. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 140-146. Levey, Brahm. (April 1997). Equality, autonomy, and cultural rights. Political Theory. Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 215-248. Mansson McGinty, Anna. (2009). Becoming Muslim: Western women's conversions to Islam. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Patal, Manoj. (2011). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Kalyan City Life. Retrieved on 20 May 2011 from http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view ;_ylt=A2KJkeyO49lNvUcA5MiJzbkF?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.searc h.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va% 3DMaslow%2527s%2Bhierarchy%2Bof%2BNeeds%26fr%3Dyfp-t 701%26ri%3D7&w=1024&h=698&imgurl=lh6.ggpht.com%2F_iFIztPmvqg 8%2FTCV1ifbPCTI%2FAAAAAAAAC3g%2F5gdwbBhtK3M%2FMaslow- Hierarchy-of-Needs-Motivation-Theory.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkalyan- city.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fmaslow-hierarchy-of-needs-theory- of.html&size=179.7KB&name=+Theory+of+Human+Motivation&p=Maslow %27s+hierarchy+of+Needs&oid=79bc0f51929f611efd95ddfaed4b8f6e&fr 2=&fr=yfp-t 701&tt=+Theory+of+Human+Motivation&b=0&ni=21&no=7&si gr=12grt01o r&sigb=13ftrmkaq&sigi=13e5s540p&.crumb=eRAEDXVgnlW Rafter, Nicole Hahn. (2009). The origins of criminology: A reader. Abingdon: Routledge. Sacher, Ayelet. (February 2000). On citizenship and multicultural vulnerability. Political Theory. Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 64-89. Skrentny, John David. 2004. The minority rights revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Storey, John. 2006. Cultural theory and popular culture: an introduction. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Svennsson, Francis. (1995). Liberal democracy and group rights: The legacy of individualism and its impact on American Indian Tribes. Political Studies. Vol. XXVII, No. 3, pp. 432-439. Tomasi, John. (April 1995). Kymlicak, Liberalism and respect for cultural minorities. Ethics. Vol. 105, No. 3, pp. 580-603. Van Dyke, Vernon. (April 1977). The individual state, and ethnic communities in political theory. World Politics. Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 343-369. Appendix 1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Patel 2011) Read More