In this essay, I have focused on the very content of human rights, thereby, relating to the debate between universalist and cultural relativist theory. While the former promotes the idea of equal rights for all human beings and considers culture irrelevant for the validity of moral rights, the latter views culture as the exclusive source of moral rights (Donelly, 1984, 400) and stresses, that “right” and “wrong” differ from culture to culture. (Tilley, 2000, 501) In the light of this debate, I have argued, that human rights are not merely “Western” constructions, as they withstand, despite their historical and geographical significance, accusations of cultural superiority (Tilley, 2000, 527) and of evaluations of other cultures according to the terms and conditions of “Western” culture (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013), or in short: of “Western” ethnocentrism. I have held this premise as response specifically to the allegation of cultural insensitivity brought forward by cultural relativism, which emphasizes human rights' ignorance towards cultural complexities by prioritizing some values over others, thereby, disregarding the collective spirit of some communities. This is said to render the concept of human rights inapplicable in non-”Western” societies. I have counter-argued that the human rights conception is culturally sensitive, as it recognizes diversity of moral views by promoting freedom of choice and the inclusion of voices otherwise left unheard under the umbrella of collectivism. Thereby, I have shown that universal values can indeed be justified, while cultural relativism fails to provide a sufficient explanation for moral validity. In this respect, I shall challenge the term “culture” and will show that human rights advocate tolerance. They do so through their stress on the preservation of cultural pluralism. Thus, they are not set out to destroy local culture but rather arguments of authority. (Tesón, 1985, 388) From this I have concluded, that the premise set out above holds true. Consequently, human rights by upholding universal moral values and by promoting cultural diversity, despite their geographical and historical distinctiveness, are more than “Western” constructions.
At a glance
- Examines female genital mutilation through universalist and cultural relativist perspectives
- 15 sources in the bibliography
Table of Contents
The document does not contain a table of contents.
Objective and Themes
This essay asks whether human rights are merely Western constructions, focusing on the debate between universalism and cultural relativism and on the charge that human rights are culturally insensitive.
- The historical origins and claimed universal validity of human rights
- Individual rights and collective cultural practices
- Property, marriage, family and religious freedom
- Cultural diversity, choice and moral change
- Female genital mutilation as a case in the debate
- Culturally sensitive implementation of human rights
Excerpt from the Book
Cultural Insensitivity: To Whom?
The core issue of this debate relates to the question of compatibility of values, as cultural relativists argue, human rights with their emphasis on individual rights ignore cultural complexities as, i.e. they aren't obviously applicable in communities following a collectivist approach. Not only do they focus on the individual, but completely neglect communal rights. For example, everyone's right to own property clashes with social ownership, a concept, where land is owned collectively. (Pollis and Schwab, 1979, 17) But, with view to such incompatibility, the dilemma only starts when cases of discrimination, marginalization and exclusion arise under such collective spirit. For instance, in many cultures women are prohibited from owing property including its inheritance. The cultural relativist sees nothing wrong in this, justifying the practice in terms of his/her cultural norms. But by systematically excluding some of its participants in the name of culture, the relativist refutes himself, as it is him, who has become the culturally insensitive one, hindering culture from flourishing to its full extent. (Scheithauer, 2013, 21)
In this sense, the biggest challenges, however, rest in the private sphere, especially regarding family and religious rights. The former provides for full age and “free and full consent” of both partners upon marriage. Further, it guarantees for religious, national and racial non-discrimination, equal rights in marriage and upon its dissolution, as well as to found a family. (Universal Declaration, 1948) Relativists claim that these provisions demonstrate a clear disregard for different moral views and with it for certain cultural practices and traditions, since these rights are neither compatible with practices of arranged and underage marriage, nor with some Islamic conceptions prohibiting interfaith marriage, nor with certain family planning strategies such as i.e. female infanticide. Here, the matter is of similar nature, centering on exclusion from decision-making. But by precluding certain voices from speaking out, the danger arises that people's conformity with cultural norms is a result of coercion rather than conviction. (Meckled-Garcia, 2013)
This exemplifies, that cultural relativism by determining the rightness of an act by one's cultural norms (Tilley, 2000, 527), doesn't allow for differing moral views, whereas universalist provisions, promoting free choice, respect the moral views of others. In the case above, by requiring the coming of age to enable self-determination, the necessity for “free and full consent” (Universal Declaration, 1948) aiming at the authenticity of decisions made, anti-discrimination regulations to open up the pool of choices, and equal rights provisions to guarantee fair conditions for decision-making.
Section Summaries
Cultural Insensitivity: To Whom? The main section examines tensions between universal human rights and cultural relativism through property, family, religion and female genital mutilation. It also considers cultural change, political authority and the implementation of rights.
Conclusion: The author restates the argument that human rights can uphold universal moral values while supporting cultural diversity and protecting vulnerable people.
Keywords
human rights, universalism, cultural relativism, cultural sensitivity, Western ethnocentrism, cultural diversity, individual rights, collective rights, religious freedom, property rights, female genital mutilation, moral values, cultural pluralism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this essay about?
It examines whether human rights are merely Western constructions, with particular attention to the claim that they are culturally insensitive.
What are its central themes?
Its central themes include universalism, cultural relativism, individual and collective rights, cultural diversity and moral values.
What is the primary research question?
The essay asks whether human rights can be justified across cultures despite their Western historical and geographical origins.
What method does the author use?
The author develops a conceptual argument using scholarly literature and examples; the essay does not describe an original empirical study.
What does the main section cover?
It discusses property, family and religious rights, cultural change, female genital mutilation and the relationship between human rights and local traditions.
Which keywords characterize the essay?
Key terms include human rights, universalism, cultural relativism, cultural sensitivity, ethnocentrism and cultural pluralism.
How does the essay use the example of female genital mutilation?
It uses the practice to examine competing claims about cultural norms, bodily integrity and the values offered to justify a practice.
Why does the essay discuss property and marriage?
These examples illustrate potential tensions between individual choice and practices justified by collective cultural norms.
Does the essay address the origins of human rights?
Yes. It distinguishes their Western historical and geographical origins from the question of whether their underlying values can be universal.
- Quote paper
- Anna Scheithauer (Author), 2014, Are Human Rights "Merely" Western Constructions?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/350576
