Universalism and Relativism in Human Rights

universal jointism and Relativism in adult male being RightsOne of the virtually pertinent issues of the past twenty dollar bill years has been the conflict between two distinct ideologies of military man recompenses on a issue scale, familiarism, and pagan relativism. world-wideism h grey-haireds that more primitive cultivations go away in the end evolve to discombobulate the same agreement of lawfulness and rights as westward cultures. Cultural relativists hold an opposite, but similarly rigid viewpoint, that a tralatitious culture is unchangeable. Much like the school principal whether a tolerant nine should tolerate intolerance, the debate between widely distributed propositionism and cultural relativism is more convoluted than it depends.In universalism, an individual is a hearty unit, possessing inalienable rights, and driven by the hobbyhorse of self interest. In the cultural relativist model, a lodge is the basic social unit. Concepts such as indiv idualism, freedom of choice, and equality ar absent. It is recognized that the community forever and a day comes premier. This doctrine has been exploited by m each states, which decry any impositions of occidental rights as cultural imperialism. These states ignore that they feed adopted the western nation state, and the goal of modernization and economic prosperity. Cultural relativism is in itself a very arbitrary idea, cultures argon rarg sole(prenominal) unified in their viewpoints on different issues, it is always those who hold the microphvirtuoso that do non go (http//www.aasianst.org/Viewpoints/Nathan.htm).This discourse begs the question that in precisely what way ar homophile rights wolframern. And tied(p) if they were Hesperian in 1948, ar they still horse opera at present?Cultural relativism continues to problematize the Universal Declaration of clement Rights since it was adopted in 1948 . In fact, the problem of what universality might pixilated in a multicultural founding haunted the United Nations humane Rights project from the beginning. As shortly as news of the project became kn avow, the Ameri conserves Anthropological Association, through the themes administrator board, warned the serviceman Rights Commission through a letter against drafting a statement of rights only in basis of the values prevalent in the countries of Western Europe and America. However, eon the anthropologists working from within a mannequin of cultural relativism issued a warning, the UNESCO Committee on the The Theoretical Bases of world Rights offered accept by pointing out that even people who seem to be off the beaten track(predicate) apart in opening keister agree that veritable things are so terrible in practice that no one will publicly approve them and that certain things are so nifty in practice that no one will publicly oppose them.Whenever one concourse denies rights to an some other group within a culture, it is usuall y for their accept benefit. Therefore adult male rights gutternot be truly universal unless they are not bound to cultural decisions that are often not made unanimously, and olibanum bottom of the inningnot represent every individual that these rights apply to.Even though cultural relativism has great problems and a potential for abuse, universalism in its current state is not the ideal solution. Universalism is used by some(prenominal) Western states to negate the daring of more traditional strategys of law. For example, if a tribe in Africa is ruled by a chieftain and advised by the twelve approximately elderly villagers, is this system any less representative than the more liberal societies of the West? Is it possible to impose a universal system of human rights if the do of social change stemming from modernization are not understood or worse yet, ignored? In non-Western societies, industrialization, capitalism, and democracy might not experience been the eventual ou tcome of the go of cultural evolution. These ideologies have been shaped and created by Western imperialism, the slave trade, colonialism, modernization, and corroderism.Todays world shows signs of positive progress towards the universal system of human rights. The declaration of human rights occurred immediately after the atrocities committed during WWII. The globalisation of human rights began when the world was awakened to the crimes committed under one policy-making relation (Hitler), and the need for a more universal system of accountability and responsibility. through with(predicate) a forum such as the United Nations, cultural differences are better able to be resolved, at that placeby paving the way for universalism while at the same time recognizing and compromising on the needs of certain cultures. The recent adoption of the Inter issue criminal court in June 1998 is an authorised step in enforcing and promoting the values agreed upon by the member nations. As the world becomes a smaller place with the advent of globalization, universalism contains more aesthesis as a philosophy of human rights. In a world where many people might not be g overned by national borders, having fundamental human rights instead of ones bound to certain cultures provides the better(p) solution.The question of Westernness versus the universality of human rights remained a live issue throughout the process that led to the framing of the UDHR.In the 1950s the UDHR came under criticism as cosmos Western at the hands of the newly independent states of Asia and Africa. And in the heat of the Cold War, its perceived emphasis on political and genteel rights also allowed the countries of the Soviet Bloc to skewer it as such, with the Third mankind looking on in wonder if the white mans burden was being explouted once again to secure the white mans gain.In 1996, Prime take care Mohammad Mahathir of Singapore famously declared Asian values are universal values. Europea n values are European values.(p. xi) Kishore Madhubani writes that any Asian head who challenged the prevailing Western ideas in contemporary social and political theory must be advocating the superiority of Asian values. Actually, the only point that most(prenominal) Asians were trying to make was that Asian values were not inferior. They were trying to avow that on that point was a need for a level playing stadium in the new intellectual debate of the 1990s. With the advantage of historical hindsight, we can now look at those years and see that Asians were not process out in that period to proselytize to the West, They are only replying to Western proselytization.The Boston Sunday Globe on 29th April 2001 carried a sp ask head entitled the BIG IDEA followed by the title Are Human Rights Universal? Or is the West imposing its philosophy on the persist of the human. It also carried two pieces elaborating divergent perspectives, one by Makau Mutua and the other by John Shatt uck, Boston Sunday Globe, 29 April 2001, p. D8. Perhaps it is the intuition of Makau Mutua on this point which finds fuller expression in the following remarks byUpendra Baxi The more human rights are hailed as the patrimony of the West, the greated is the inclination in most Euroamerican societies towards world hegemony. Also keener, as a result, is the inter governingal desire in roughly non-Euroamerican societies to reject the be aspiration affirming equal worth of all human beings. not merely repressive regimes but also progressive intellectuals in these societies remain ambivalent towards contemporary human enunciations. And (as Chapter 6 illustrates) progressive Eurocentrism inclines us all towards a postmodernist crtitique of notions of human rights. Au accordinglytic intercultural, or even inter-faith, dialogue remains a casualty of warped approaches to histories of human rights ideas and practices.(p. vi of The Future of Human Rights) The principal msg of this work is t hat the originary authors of human rights are people in struggle and communities of resistance, which standard scholarship demotes to a base status Once claims to authorship stand so pluralized, it follows simply that human rights are not the gifts of the West to the Rest the dominant discourse is indirect when it locates the origins of human rights in the Euroamerican tradition and experience and when it pursues endless debates over universality and relativism of human rights.(p. xiv) There is no unified Asian view in human rights and freedom of the press. These are Western concepts. Asians are obliged to react to them An understanding of the Asian reactions is clouded by the fact that many Asians tactile sensation obliged to pay at least lip service to Western values.The universalist theory of Human Rights is indeed largely found on Western philosophy and the value it places on the individual. Product of Greek philosophy, Christianity and the depth thinkers, the universalis t approach to Human Rights contends that one can use character, God, or reason to identify basic rights, inherent to every human, which pre-exist society. Jack Donnelly best summarizes the contemporary doctrine of the universalist approach by putting anterior the following conclusions1. All humans have rights by virtue of their military man2. A souls rights cannot be conditioned by gender or national or ethnic origin3. Human Rights exist universally as the highest moral rights, so no rights can be subordinated to another person (e.g. a husband) or an institution (e.g. the state)By contrast, cultural relativism is based on the idea that there are no objective standards by which others can be judged. The debate between universalism and relativism is as old as the bill of philosophy itself and its discussion of the genuine. Relativism was introduced by, among others, the sophist Protagoras. He rejected objective truth by saying in so many words, later quoted by PlatoThe way thin gs appear to me, in that way they exist for me and the way things appear to you, in that way they exist for you.It is a perfect reflection of the European Enlightenment Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau are its spiritual founding fathers. Indeed the Covenant insists on negative rights, those that limit the role of government and prevent its intrusion in ones life, seclusion, and freedom of speech, religion, opinion and association. Political liberalism thus defined has been the force underlying the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of reality and Citizen and the French Constitution. It is also the emphasis of the International Human Rights command and thus legitimizes the efforts by the West to spread-some say impose-Western models of democracy.This is a first level of hostility brought forward by cultural relativism proponents. To limit the role of government and its manipulation of nationals is an prophylactic with domest ic affairs and a violation of state sovereignty, which for most of them is newly acquired and still fragile. The debate in very simple terms could read as follows As soon as we (usually Third World countries) are granted independence and sovereignty, you (the West) introduce Human Rights and your style of government as a limit or as a condition.Indeed, the old mission civilisatrice is now replaced by the spread of multiparty democracy. Christianization, civilization, democratization the rhetoric has changed, the interference has not. Furthermore, there is still the underlying concept that Western culture, because it legitimizes itself behind its disguise to universality, also positions itself as superior to non-western culture. Universalism becomes Westernization.A question remains, if it is westernization, then westernization for what answer? Once again we need to look back at the history of political liberalism and its expression in the modern Human Rights doctrine. Locke cannot be set-apart from Adam Smith. Central to a western definition of fundamental freedoms is the right to property. Economic liberalism and political liberalism are brothers and in Western philosophy they are Siamese twins. The freedom to vote is often translated in the freedom to consume and/or the freedom to invest. It is very important that one billion Chinese be free to vote and express their opinion as coarse as they also choose to buy Motorolas and Marlboros.The link between Western-defined Human Rights and globalization of the economies explains the virulence of the West on the issues of fundamental freedoms. In other terms, critics agree that the universalist discourse barely hides a Western get to give a moral legitimization to an economic agenda. The ultimate contradiction lies in the fact that political liberalism has supported the same economic liberalism that has legitimized, for example, the Structural allowance account Programs of the IMF. The SAPs in turn have been the catalyst for the curtailment of political freedoms and human rights in many developing countries.That the universal Human Rights discourse can disguise a hidden agenda is certainly undeniable. But does this mean by contrast that the cultural relativist discourse is agenda-free? Lets place it under scrutiny.The first level of criticism of the use of cultural relativism as an exception to universal norms, lies in the fact that bringing forward culture at a given time is to fundamentally ignore the dynamic and fluid nature of culture. Cultural relativism adopts a static definition of culture a scene of a group of people and their system of meaning at a given time with the underlying assumption that they will not change. It introduces in the paradigm an element of determinism that has no factual or historical relevance. atmospheric static definitions of culture also lead to such statement as traditional ancestral ethnic hatred, which explain conflict in terms of culture, obliterat ing in the process all other determining parameters such as political economy.However, cultural relativisms most fundamental weakness in the work towards Human Rights lies in the conflict of interest between the people who articulate the line of work and those they represent. More often than not, cultural relativism is claimed by repressive regimes whose practices have zippo to do with local or indigenous cultures but more with their own self-preservation.4 Cultural policymakers are those who can speak for the group and articulate the group values to the outside world. Such spokesmen are likely to only stress the elements insuring their position. This is especially important in multi-ethnic or multi-cultural states where not only would it be difficult to establish a national identity based on cultural values but also where one group dominates the others at best, blatantly discriminates at worst. Would someone attempt to define what is the culture in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Or in Rwan da? Culture is a construct much(prenominal) more so than a reality and people can always find different levels of allegiance. Indeed, one critique of cultural relativism is that it leads to fragmentation. Cultural relativism as a tool is a legitimization of a behavior designed to preserve a structure of powers.In a study on Iranian women, Karen Miller illustrates that in rejecting the aspirational character if universalism, relativism merely perpetuates traditional practice. Miller insists notably on the fact that generally women have not taken a large part in determining the culture because traditionally, male activities have set the standards. In fact, violence against women seems to be plebeian in many cultures.5IV. Reconcilability of the Two Approaches.Neither universalism nor cultural relativism is exempt of political manipulations. Does that mean that uncomplete view carries some validity? Furthermore, if they each carry some validity, are they mutually exclusive?To answer the first question by the affirmative-neither is valid, Human Rights paradigms are tools, therefore they do not have intrinsic values-would be reducing critical thinking to syllogism. Letas more importantly see if some(prenominal) notions can and should be reconciled in theory and in practice. That there exist profound differences of perceptions among cultures or groups of people according to their history, language, and economic hazard might be true. Does that mean that there exist among them no common points? Not necessarily. It is actually quite remarkable to do a proportional textual analysis between Confucius and Locke and to see how both at different times, insist on the centrality of the concept of Humanity in defining individuals.64 Donnelly, Jack.5 Miller, K. Human Rights of Women in Iran the Universalist Approach and the Relativist Response. http//www.law.emory.edu/EILR/volumes/win96/miller.html6 Nicoll, N. Confucianism and Human Rights, unpublished paper.Secondly, disa greeing with the content of what is now presented as universal does not have to mean that there are no values or norms universally agreed upon. Western values may not be universal but it does not mean that universal values do not exist.This leads us to a level of conciliation that would embody a true cross-cultural search of what can be universally agreed upon. Universal standards should be the goals while cultural legitimacy would offer a method. This would be made that much more relevant if those defining the culture were not those in power. The search of commonalties would (in theory) bypass the structures of power. It could forge a necessary dialectic between external attempts to build a universal system and the inhering assistance of various civil societies.V. The Obstacle of LawIt is precisely at this juncture that we see how the debate between universalism and relativism has contributed to perpetuate a bit that has actually hindered, more than benefited, the cause of Human Rights. The defense of Human Rights has been presented as a legal endeavor among state actors. The debate is essentially a legal debate when texts of internationalistic law are being drafted. Discussions then follow on what understanding to give to the term degrading treatment or what reservations can a domestic legislation make in the name of religion, culture or constitution (in the case of the US).The debate concentrates on the content of the legislation or its interpretation or application in domestic law, never on the means itself the fact that there is an over reliance on law to address Human Rights issues. Actually if there is a western influence, it is to be found in that domain. Law as an absolute value is permeating the international realm. In international law nation-states are both creators and parties. In Human Rights, like in any other domain, states are not going to create universal or local structures that bypass their level of control. The western idea that a good litigation can solve all problems is also present in Human Rights doctrine. The fact is that the Human Rights legislation, which by nature of the international system lacks serious mechanism of enforcement, has acted as a smokescreen and has often turn efforts and resources from other locales. Victory is claimed when a given country finally adopts an international treaty or adequately adapts its domestic law, i.e. China signs the ICCPR or Kenya outlaws female circumcision. Efforts can then stop or more vividally, MFN status can be renewed.The issue of course is that most people whose rights are violate do not have equal access to the law-especially true for women in many countries. What difference would a change in the legislation make when you cannot drive or go to an urban center, or for that matter, even read?In addition, the nature itself of the existing legislation on Human Rights has indeed under western influence, favored such rights as privacy and property. The legislat ion has erected a wall between the public cranial orbit and the private sphere to better protect those rights. This has been ultimately catastrophic for womens rights for most violations of women happen in the private sphere. This is really a domain where one can interpret how both theories, universalism and relativism, have had a negative impact by creating a double standard. Men readily accepting western norms of obeisance for privacy and property and women made to bare the brunt of cultural authenticity within a private sphere made untouchable by virtue of respect for fundamental freedoms.ConclusionThe debate between universalism and relativism should be a non-issue. Universal goals and cultural sensitivities can be reconciled in the establishment of realistic strategies. However the debate in its present form contributes to divert assist from more important issues. Is International Law, made by states, the right venue to improve human rights? The effective protection of Huma n Rights requires a chemise not only of government and laws but of the non-state institutions and practices that the present Human Rights doctrine-universal or relative-does not touch.