CULTURAL RELATIVISM’S HINDRANCE TO HUMAN RIGHTS 7
Introduction
In a semi-viral 2018 video, aired on CNN’s YouTube channel, over two million people watched as Kenya’s president, Uhuru Kenyatta, clearly stated that Kenya regarded LGBTQ rights as an issue ‘of no importance’, citing the prevailing national cultural background and constitution. As expected, in an era where inclusive diversity and acceptance are highly regarded, that statement elicited a strong reaction from the host, Christian Amanpour. The comment section was alive with debate as some supported the president’s view while others opposed it. Such discussions frame the context of human rights at both the local and international levels and expose how cultural differences factor in the concept of universal human rights application. International law has historically endeavoured to create universal order by developing normative human rights applicable to humans based on their humanness. However, this ideal has not been easy to realise due to factors such as ideology, nationalism, statism and, more importantly, cultural relativism. At its core, relativity holds that due to different conventions and assessment frameworks, the authority of the concepts of reasoning standards, right and wrong, and justification procedures rises from the context that they originate. When applied to culture, it means that innate differences in what constitutes morality and legality determine the rights accrued to individual society members. However, cultural relativism advocates for the tolerance of all cultures, stating that each culture has its truths, moralities, and realities. While this is a noble recognition, it negates cultural judgment. It hampers the development and application of universal human rights. Therefore, it is essential to understand what cultural relativism implies and its possible effects on the international enterprise to afford human rights to every human regardless of cultural inclination.
Definition, Analysis and Impact of Cultural Relativism on International Human Rights Development
Understanding cultural relativism demands that one comprehends human nature. Human nature defines the motivations, propensities, capabilities, beliefs and values that extend beyond individual genes. The confluence between human nature and culture is that while most humans are biologically similar, factors such as geographical location have led them to develop different ways of life and shaped their reality. Culture arises from the human-inherent primitive nature of cultivating food crops; thus, culture is basically a collection of humans who have cultivated diverse skills to produce crops. This cultivation of skills requires mind training and tradition refinement over a long period, leading to behavioural patterns, beliefs, and values that define people’s systemic arrangements in terms of religion, government, morals, and marriage. Therefore, culture translates to people’s collective behaviour in a particular setting, including their tastes, values, language, rules, standards, hopes, doubts, beliefs, dislikes, and other material outcomes such as housing, dressing, and ceremonies. Culture is essential to international law because it is the quality that influences the individual’s ability to enjoy rights, freedoms and benefits of international human rights law and also defines political beliefs regarding justice as informed by religious, ethical and philosophical inclinations. As such, a person’s ability to exercise their individual rights is contingent on the social environment and public culture where they function.
Cultural relativism is a multi-faceted philosophical doctrine that attempts to frame the intricacies of culture and its effects on societal functioning. The idea behind cultural relativism is that through the process of enculturation, where culture adjusts an individual’s mind towards a specific conceptual direction, the individual’s experiences inform how they make judgments. At its core, this doctrine espouses the constant idea that all cultural values and views possess equal esteem even though they vary regarding their social, political and cultural backgrounds. Due to the nature of its permissibility, the entire concept of relativism continues to elicit debate with its supporters, seeing it as the only position that tolerant, intelligent, open-minded and ethical actors should advocate. At the same time, critics detest it for its illogicality and intellectual leniency. Despite this conundrum surrounding cultural relativism, it still offers vital political discussion. Cultural relativism proponents provide four major considerations, including empirical, normative, inductive and methodological considerations. The first consideration is the empirical one that argues that there is a distinct degree in the range of norms, beliefs and values across historic periods and cultures. In contrast, the second inductive consideration presents the view that there are no universal criteria for negotiating between contradictory worldviews because of the differences in resolving historical arguments on the diversity of cultures. Thirdly, the methodological assumption that human biology cannot sufficiently explain many of the differing culture’s important elements because behaviour and thought are products of social and cultural backgrounds. Finally, the concept proponents apply the normative principle necessitating the world to be accepting and tolerant of other people’s viewpoints. Therefore, cultural relativists see the divergence of cultural views as a vindication that there cannot exist universal norms and values upon which human rights are founded.
Human rights accompany the notion of universalism which goes against cultural relativism. The Office of the Higher Commissioner for United Nation’s Human Rights defines human rights as rights redeemable to every human being simply for being human, including the right to life, food, work, education, liberty and health, which accrue inherently to each human irrespective of their sex, nationality, colour, ethnicity, religion, language or another status. While this universal perspective of human rights is noble and reasonable, its Western political and philosophical roots present challenges in enforcing them to all global cultures. Other non-Western cultures may have compatible ideas with the current international human rights framework. Still, its framing does not align with all cultures in an acceptable and identifiable way because it excludes consideration of historic power and cultural politics in other countries and territories. Cultural relativists contend that the reflection of Western ideals and values in international human rights makes their application difficult in non-Western cultures because while Western rights are individually-based, many cultures define rights on a collective, group-based level. Therefore, despite the existence of international organisations such as the UN and documents such as Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, cultural relativism continues challenging what it means to create and enforce universally-accepted human rights in the face of oppression and atrocities.
Cultural relativists posit that the imposition of universal human rights acts as an avenue to discount and disregard existing cultural differences by putting globalisation above cultural advancement as the main force of change. Hence, they maintain that civilisations and cultures should be immune to judgment and condemnation for human rights violations that are mostly viewed through the lens of Western values. Central to this argument is the rejection of the contextual interpretation of a certain human right’s claim. Indeed, cultural relativists emerge as two groups where the more extreme ones argue it is impossible to develop universal human rights as cultures are relative and constant and that such rights are relevant to specific cultures only. In contrast, the less extreme side accepts cultural diversity and relativity but sees overlaps that indicate the possibility of universal human rights. Nevertheless, cultural relativism has served to bring forth the scepticism with which cultures view universal rights that bypass any consideration of history and culture. The problem seems to emanate from the tendency of universal rights documents and proponents to stress absolutism in values and norms, which has previously functioned as a weapon of imperialism as Western countries justified their cultures as more advanced and utilised their advanced position to colonise and exploit other countries. With the effects of colonialism still fresh in the purview of most cultures, it is no surprise that cultural relativists find it distasteful to advocate for a uniform global human rights framework when Western influence is inherent within these rights.
Admittedly, cultural relativism encumbers women’s rights development and faces continued criticism from women’s rights activists, feminists and civil groups. In many non-Western cultures, women are accorded fewer resources, little independence and limited participation in decision-making activities both at the family and community level. Consequently, this gender inequality leads to health consequences specifically for women in disadvantaged social, economic situations. For instance, due to overriding patriarchal structures that limit negotiation powers in using condoms during sexual relations and the inability to reject unsolicited or forced sex, a majority of the 100,000 people in low income and emerging economies are women. Patriarchy is well-established in society’s fabric and emphasises control, centeredness, male dominance and identification and manifests through limiting women’s rights over their bodies, marriage, sexual freedom and reproduction and restricting their participation in work and liberty. Feminists view cultural relativists with suspicion, given that the former advocate for cultural change to stop women’s discrimination. At the same time, the latter argues for the cultural appropriateness of gender-specific roles and treating them in specific culturally accepted ways. Women’s rights activists, including feminists, view cultural relativism as a continuance of male supremacy and women’s subjugation as male elites silence women who dare oppose such oppression. Feminists oppose the current universal claim of human rights as they see them as gender-biased, with men’s needs taking precedence over women’s rights and concerns. This way, cultural relativism promotes an environment where women’s rights as demarcated in the international human rights documents and frameworks are not upheld. Cultural relativism also provides avenues for governments to apply reservations to specific rights treaties and declarations citing cultural or religious reasons, which further perpetuate culturally allowed oppression systems against minority groups, including women.
Simultaneously, the acceptance of cultural relativism in the international human rights discourse has aided the development of women as victims. Cultural relativism was not a particularly popular concept in the centuries preceding the 20th because the media, some civil societies and governments ignored culture and saw it as an impediment to spreading superior (Western) ethical values. Feminists were also not excited to accept culture as a right because it meant endorsing the concept of cultural relativism, which they saw as an opposing force towards women’s rights recognition. It was, therefore, a critical milestone when international organisations and governments began championing culture as a collective and reflection of individual’s unique experiences as the 2000s came around. However, at the same time this recognition of culture took place, its opposition began rising, focusing on women’s plight-minority, migrant and indigenous-as being a product of culture. Therefore, vested interests have taken the path of depicting culture as opposition to equality by using it to explain violence against women as particular cultures’ issue as well as Muslim countries’ male guardianship policies, female genital mutilation, forced marriages and slavery and restrictions on dressing among France’s minority women. While these are relevant issues that require a universal human rights framework intervention, they have been used to project minority women’s victimhood and urging them to adopt western thought and mannerisms to survive and be heard by reworking their stories and fitting into categories of international advocacy. This portrayal as victims of their own cultures has led to women (especially the minority) lacking the necessary empowerment to succeed within and beyond their cultural bounds.
Other rights such as LGBTQ rights also suffer in light of cultural relativism. As the Kenyan president’s example provided earlier in this paper showed, the argument that cultures should be acknowledged as sufficient policy determinants negatively affect minority groups like the LGBTQ community. Religion also plays a big role in alienating members of this group by demonising them and calling for other community members to expose and shun them. At the same time, cultural relativism promotes the idea that everything is acceptable and should be tolerated as long as it falls under the cultural umbrella. This stance has led to the concept’s employment in justifying slavery, torture, stoning women over infidelity, female circumcision and even honour killings. The main criticism in this regard is that cultural relativists advocate for retaining cultures in their original forms, without external influence, without accounting for the dynamism that characterises culture and religion. By taking such a position, cultural relativists promote inaction in the face of persecution and oppression and hence, fail the victims of abuse and the human rights community.
Conclusion
Certainly, the efforts towards striking a balance between honouring culture and human rights’ universality is a delicate one; it simultaneously highlights human experiences in different socio-economic, religious and cultural contexts while also exposing specific individuals and groups of actors within these contexts to continued harm and oppression. Yet, tempting as it might be to dismiss cultural relativism, it is crucial to note its role in functioning as a robust human rights’ critique system. As they are currently formulated, universal human rights retain and promote Western values and exclude those of other cultures, which necessitates feminists, LGBTQ activists and cultural relativists to consider working together towards the inclusion of both gender and cultural perspectives into the larger human rights framework.
Bibliography
Asomah JY, “Cultural Rights versus Human Rights: A Critical Analysis of the Trokosi Practice in Ghana and the Role of Civil Society” (2015) 15 African Human Rights Law Journal 129
Baghramian M and Adam CJ, “Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)” (Stanford.edu2015)
Broberg M and Sano H-O, “Strengths and Weaknesses in a Human Rights-Based Approach to International Development – an Analysis of a Rights-Based Approach to Development Assistance Based on Practical Experiences” (2017) 22 The International Journal of Human Rights 664
Chow PYS, “The Culturalization of Human Rights” (2016) 14 International Journal of Constitutional Law 307
CNN, “President: Gay Rights ‘of No Importance’ in Kenya”
Good C, “Human Rights and Relativism” (2010) 19 Macalester Journal of Philosophy 27 accessed June 14, 2021
Holness T, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Rights in the Caribbean: Using Regional Bodies to Advance Culturally Charged Human Rights” (2013) 38 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 926
John Alan Cohan, The Primitive Mind and Modern Man (Bentham Science 2014)
Joyner C and Dettling J, “BRIDGING the CULTURAL CHASM: CULTURAL RELATIVISM and the FUTURE of INTERNATIONAL LAW” (2015) 20 California Western International Law Journal 1
Kanarek J, “Critiquing Cultural Relativism” (2013) 2 The Intellectual Standard 1
Madiba S and Ngwenya N, “Cultural Practices, Gender Inequality and Inconsistent Condom Use Increase Vulnerability to HIV Infection: Narratives from Married and Cohabiting Women in Rural Communities in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa” (2017) 10 Global Health Action 1341597
Msuya NH, “Concept of Culture Relativism and Women’s Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa” (2019) 54 Journal of Asian and African Studies 1145
Nayak BS, “Challenges of Cultural Relativism and the Future of Feminist Universalism” (2013) 6 Journal of Politics and Law
Paul Tiyambe Zeleza and Mcconnaughay PJ, Human Rights, the Rule of Law, and Development in Africa (University Of Pennsylvania Press 2004)
Shoma C, “Gender Is a Human Rights Issue: The Case of Women ’S Entrepreneurship Development in the Small and Medium Enterprise Sector of Bangladesh” (2019) 20 Journal of International Women’s Studies 13
Susetyo H, “HUMAN RIGHTS REGIME between UNIVERSALITY and CULTURAL RELATIVISM: THE ASIAN and INDONESIAN EXPERIENCE” (2019) 16 Indonesian Journal of International Law 191
Turner BS and Dumas A, “Vulnerability, Diversity and Scarcity: On Universal Rights” (2013) 16 Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 663
United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “OHCHR | What Are Human Rights” (Ohchr.org2019)
Wood HJ, “Gender Inequality: The Problem of Harmful, Patriarchal, Traditional and Cultural Gender Practices in the Church” (2019) 75 HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies
Xanthaki A, “When Universalism Becomes a Bully: Revisiting the Interplay between Cultural Rights and Women’s Rights” (2019) 41 Human Rights Quarterly 701