In the last century, the term "human rights" has taken a strong foothold in international policy. The phrase became especially prominent after World War II, when the United Nations published its Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], defining what every individual ought to have a right to, in 30 articles.
The values the document established have served as a guiding light for many organizations all around the world. Since 1948, hundreds of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and other groups have formed in the name of defending human rights. Oftentimes, these groups are established in Western states, and promote human rights at an international level.
There are many critiques surrounding the universalization of human rights. The greatest one is voiced by cultural relativists: individuals who believe that a society's values can only be accurately critiqued from the perspective of that society itself. Cultural relativists do not believe that there are objective, underlying rights that unite all people, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights suggests. Instead, cultural relativists argue that all cultures, opinions, and worldviews are equally valuable, and no one society may impose their own values onto another. To cultural relativists, groups that intervene in local traditions in the name of human rights are practicing a form of imperialism.
For example, some cultural relativists are critical of interventions surrounding the act of female genital mutilation, a practice common in many African countries, especially Kenya and Tanzania[2]. Oftentimes, cultural relativists would entail accusing organizations that discourage female genital mutilation of being ethnocentric; the organizations base their judgements of other cultures on Western notions of what is right or wrong, when, in reality, no one society can accurately generalize these values. Instead of trying to put an end to female genital mutilation, outsiders must attempt to understand the value the cultural practice holds within practicing societies today, and respect societies' abilities to determine what they deem valuable or invaluable themselves.
Cultural relativists have a point. If a woman wants to undergo female genital mutilation, even if it will most likely harm her reproductive health, then why should we stop her? Is female genital mutilation really a human rights abuse, when there's more to the practice than simply instilling pain? And why should the West intervene? It's hard to tell.
But what if a woman did not want to undergo female genital mutilation, despite pressure from her community? If the purpose of cultural relativism is to grant each community a right to self-determination - then do we also grant freedom of self-determination to individuals within the community to make their own choices?
I think these questions bring to light a dead-end in cultural relativism. Whose values are we to respect - the communities themselves, or the individuals within the communities? How can we distinguish between community values and individual values?
This confusion surrounding what communities or societies cultural relativism wants to respect is a problem Guyora Binder addresses in his paper "Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law."[3] He explains how the very term "cultural relativism" is what it hopes to reject: ethnocentric.
Tying cultures to nation-states is a Western phenomenon, Binder argues. In most post-colonial countries, cultural structures are disconnected with the state sectors. So, "the cultural relativism critique of international human rights law as an expression of western cultural imperialism depends upon the related ideals of national culture and national self-determination. And both of these ideals may be no less 'foreign' than Western ideals of human rights."[4]
Binder's argument touches on another important point. It is not possible to escape the influence of the cultures we associate with, as cultural relativists suggest. The practical application of cultural relativism - to immerse ourselves into another's culture to the point that we can understand it as well as those born within it - is built on ideals of self-determination and, as Binder argues, ties between culture and national identity that are inherently Western.
It may not be possible to escape ethnocentricism. But I do think there is something truly universal to human rights. And the only means of building a cooperative globe is by pinpointing what we all share in common. It seems that a point all can agree with - cultural relativists and universalists alike - is the inherent right individuals have to self determination. In Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities, Martha Nussbaum dedicates a chapter[5] to establish what all humans undeniably share, and how, with that information, we can proceed to design appropriate public policies and international law. Nussbaum lays out ten "Basic Human Functional Capabilities." Some include "not dying prematurely," achieving "sexual satisfaction," having the opportunity to "engage in various forms of social interaction," and "being able to imagine, to think, and to reason."[6] The vagueness of these capabilities is designed specifically to accommodate for the diversity of lifestyles and worldviews individuals have. Similarly to the United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights, Nussbaum claims there is a universal truth all humans can agree to. Unlike the Declaration of Human Rights, however, Nussbaum lays out how the ten capabilities she developed stem from characteristics all humans inherently share.
Proposing a solution to the tensions between universalism and cultural relativism in this paper would require more time, research, and skill. So I will simply suggest that perhaps, with the technologies that exist today, we are already working towards this universalism that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights suggested fifty years ago. With increased physical and digital mobility, globalization seems to be an inevitable force that will grow stronger with time. Perhaps we are all working towards becoming "global citizens," not bound to a specific cultural or geographical area. Certainly, there is inequality in the digital age; Western nations are overrepresented. But the internet nonetheless provides the most accessible universal platform that has ever existed. The force of globalization is unstoppable - and this could either make our attempts at universalism much more complicated, or much simpler.
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights," United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/
universal-declaration-of-human-rights. ↑
"Prevalence of FGM/C in girls under 14 has significantly dropped in Africa, according to recent study," AMREF Health Africa, last modified November 30, 2018, https://amrefusa.org/news/
prevalence-of-fgmc-in-girls-under-14-has-significantly-dropped-in-africa-according-to-recent-study/. ↑
Guyora Binder, "Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law," Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 5, no. 6 (1999): 211-222, HeinOnline. ↑
Binder, "Cultural Relativism," 221. ↑
Martha Nussbaum, Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities (Clarendon Press, 1996), 72 -117, https://doi.org/10.1093/0198289642.003.0003. ↑
Nussbaum, Women, Culture, and Development, 84. ↑