Terrorism Has Shifted in Terms of Geographical Space and the Agents of Terror - Assignment Example

Human Rights The popular application of the concept of cultural relativism across various disciplines continues to shift in meaning and value as new challenges and realities emerge to stretch the essential meaning. The invention of the concept by anthropologist Franz Boaz and sociologist Alain Locke in the early twentieth century signaled a shift in the interactions and relationships between the world cultures (Deissler 104). In the opinion of some thinkers, the same application of the theory of cultural relativism acquires both positive and negative meanings when considered within the different ways that attend to the transaction between cultures, communities, groups, nations, and individuals. In the recent past, the theory of cultural relativism has found new expression in the language of human rights. Some human rights defenders argue that it is necessary for the world to shift the center of all possible cultural expressions from the traditional centers of power to multiple areas in order to engage with global concerns on equal grounds. The modern application of the theory of cultural relativism permeates within the spheres of human rights and the interpretation of various aspects of international terrorism. Approaches to human rights practices around the globe continue to take different forms in line with the essential differences in the differences in nature and culture of application (Glacier and Valérie 55). Some human rights theorists contend that the understanding of the positive tenets of cultural relativism is essential in order to expand the application of human rights practices in places where they remain obscure on account of the underlying cultural challenges (Afshari 41). Regarding terrorism, the theory of cultural relativism has often been used to understand the connections between culture and the changing manifestation of global terrorism. Furthermore, the same analysis should furnish the understanding of the nature of responses to terrorism from the perspective of culture and legal responses. The earliest human rights contributors in the debate on cultural relativism weighed onto the subject of whether it was appropriate to articulate the language of freedom within the American language of freedom. From this perspective, it was felt that the language the advocated for freedom was largely couched in the American cultural expression of liberty. As such, there was concern that the adoption of the principles of liberty would necessarily imply an endorsement of the American and western perspective on such matters. In a significant sense, it was felt that some of the issues that connected around the issues of freedom required a multi-cultural expression that would welcome and include the contribution of many cultures around the globe. Only by such an approach would the cultures of Asia, Africa, Europe, and Australia feel included in the general discourse. Essentially, some of the issues that attend to this matter should be understood in the cultural totality from a global perspective. However, some sociologists emerged to contest the principles of cultural relativism with the argument that the articulation of the language of moving the center could be used to justify exclusive discourses such as racism, apartheid, terrorism, tribalism, and ethnic ethnicity (Phillips 98). According to those who held on this view, cultural relativism was in danger of misuse by elements within the white supremacy fold to justify some of the racist perception of African cultures as negative and backward (Phillips 30). In some perspective, it might be argued that cultural relativism champions the cause of identity of cultures and civilizations that are generally assumed to be weak. The reclamation of such civilizations from the fold of cultural universalism, which has incurred the criticism of some sociologists on the charge of dictating terms to the cultures that are considered as week. The application of the theory of cultural relativism has converted into a fluid concept whose meaning depends on the intentions of the user and the context of application. The United States has devised elaborate methodologies of understanding and engaging global terrorism. For instance, Khalsa method of terrorism provides specific details of understanding the thinking of terrorists in order to determine the patterns of terror and engage them in the most effective manner (Tsang 66). In essence, terrorism operates in pattern, language, and tools that illustrate a cultural background of the phenomena. Apart from this methodology, the US has created various laws for effective handling of terrorism within its homeland and other parts of the world. The bold attempt to devise methodologies and laws for combating global terrorism is an acknowledgement of the cultural basis of global terrorism. However, the cultural basis of global terrorism is more complex than the conventional academic understanding of culture. Some of the approaches used by the US to combat terror have received criticism from various quarters because of perceived discrimination against various groups. The conventional understanding of global terrorism tends to lean towards the Islamic culture as the basis and springboard of global terrorism. This assumption has been fueled by the fact that most of the incidents of terror around the world are ultimately reducible to Islamic fundamentalism (Conte 142). In some way, the culture of fundamentalism has thrived within Islamic religion and culture and continues to change in orientation in various respects. Islamic culture differs from many other cultures in the sense that it advocates a wholesale adoption of its tenets in all spheres of life. In its different manifestations, Islamic culture projects an exclusive worldview of the world, which never yields space to other religions or cultures. Some schools of thought consider terrorism as a violent reaction against the existence of rival ideologies that seem to assume the center of cultural expressions. As such, it becomes appropriate to consider the manifestation of global terrorism in terms of a struggle for cultural dominance. The problematic understanding of global terrorism connects with the inability of the world to understand the internal dynamics within the Islamic culture. Internal divisions and variations in the interpretation of Islamic tenets have complicated the connection between the cultural element and the violent manifestation in the form of terrorism. As such, there is no direct link that could hold the whole of Islamic culture guilty of the perpetration of global terrorism. Religious literature and defenders of Islamic culture often adopt a line of defense by exonerating the religion from all blame. Essentially, Islam projects itself as a religion of peace and prosperity. According to various schools of thought, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism within the culture corresponds with the requirements of culture (Doswald-Beck 77). Relative perspectives on culture tend to reinforce assumptions about the existence of inherent traits, which determine the conduct of people as understood within a give cultural framework. External perspectives on the Islamic culture tend to foster negative impressions, which are projected to assign a general negative image on the culture. Those who embrace this position should be understood from the position of cultural relativism. In some perspective, cultural relativism assumes the diametrically opposed positions of the self versus the other. Any influences and actions that fall outside the framework of their cultures are considered as negative and belonging to the rival culture. From this perspective, some outsiders consider this culture as vile and generally predisposed to violence. As such, the shifting perspectives and defects in the methodologies adopted by these cultures or governments could be understood within the meaning of cultural difference. Cultural relativism struggles to redeem culture from negative associations that could establish hierarchies of superior and inferior cultures. The need to safeguard and protect human rights has faced significant challenges in the wake of the spreading wave of global terrorism (Benedek 133). In the past, terrorism was considered as a preserve of the Middle East or other Islamic societies around the world. However, the turn of the 21st century has witnessed a steady rise in the incidents of terror, which have called for various approaches in terms of response. The September 11 New York terror attacks showed new heights in terrorism. The attack also showed the rapidly changing sophistication in the tactics and agents of global terror. The same wave of terror has continued to nearly every part of the world including Europe, Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. One of the greatest challenges of global terrorism is that governments lacked the structures of engaging the cultural factors of terror. The existence law enforcement structures were not designed the highly fluid nature of global terrorism, which keeps evolving and reinventing itself in multiple perspectives. The US Patriot Act has variously come under condemnation because of its potential to undermine the rights and civil liberties of the country. To some degree, the structure of the act is meant to bypass the constitutional provisions, which protect and safeguard the rights of the civilians. There are also claims that some of the practices are openly discriminatory and that they would impinge on the privacies of citizens. The looseness of certain clauses could also be misused to subject suspects to torture. Human rights defenders continue to advocate for the repealing of this parts of the constitution with the aim of reclaiming the liberties and rights of the citizens and non-citizens who may fall subject to the adverse aspects of these laws. However, the government and the defenders of these laws argue that the laws are required to prevent terrorism. This perspective is usually considered within a utilitarian application of the laws. Briefly stated, the intention of the new methods and approaches is to serve the higher good of the society. The difficult task of containing the spread of global terrorism combines the challenges of perspectives, the incapacity of authorities to sift through the cultural aspects of terrorism, and the rapidly changing nature of global terrorism. Terrorism has shifted in terms of geographical space and the agents of terror. Any efforts to combat the resultant threat should acknowledge the attendant human rights dynamics and the impact on the security of the general public. All-inclusive approaches should come into play in order to enhance the positive aspects of cultural relativism, human rights protection, and the enhancing of national and international security. Approaches must change to match the enormity and complexity of the challenge. Works Cited Afshari, Reza. Human Rights in Iran: The Abuse of Cultural Relativism. Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Print. Benedek, Wolfgang. Anti-terrorist Measures and Human Rights: [colloqium Organized in Vienna on 30-31 October 2002]. Leiden: Nijhoff, 2004. Print. Conte, Alex. Human Rights in the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism: Commonwealth Approaches : United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Internet resource. Deissler, Gebhard. Cultural Engineering - Beyond Cultural Relativism. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2011. Internet resource. Doswald-Beck, Louise. Human Rights in Times of Conflict and Terrorism. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2011. Internet resource. Glacier, Osire, and Valérie Martin. Universal Rights, Systemic Violations, and Cultural Relativism in Morocco. , 2013. Internet resource. Phillips, Patrick J. J. The Challenge of Relativism: Its Nature and Limits. New York: Continuum International Pub. Group, 2011. Print. Tsang, Steve Y.-S. Intelligence and Human Rights in the Era of Global Terrorism. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Security Studies, an imprint of Stanford University Press, 2008. Print. Read More