The Universalism and Cultural Relativism Debate

The debate between Universalists and Cultural Relativists about Universalism and Cultural Relativism is pivotal in contemporary human rights discourse. Universalists argue that human rights are inherent and applicable to all individuals, regardless of cultural distinctions. On the other hand, cultural relativism maintains that rights are culturally determined and vary across societies. They contend that imposing universal human rights can lead to cultural imperialism, undermining the autonomy of communities to define their norms. This essay critically evaluates the arguments of both Universalists and Cultural Relativists, examining each perspective’s potential strengths and weaknesses and exploring the implications of these views on global human rights practices.

The debate between Universalists and Cultural Relativists

In contemporary human rights discourse, Universalists and Cultural Relativists debate whether human rights are universal or culturally relative. Universalists advocate for inherent rights applicable to all individuals, regardless of cultural differences, while Cultural Relativists argue that rights vary across cultures. Cultural Relativists mainly contend that universalism leads to cultural imperialism and undermines the autonomy of communities to define their own norms and values.

Universalism: Advocating for Inherent Rights

Universalism posits that human rights are fundamental and should be applied universally. Universalists argue that these rights are not contingent upon cultural contexts but are inherent to all human beings. This perspective finds its foundation in international human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Universalists believe that certain rights, such as the right to life, freedom from torture, and equality before the law, transcend cultural and societal boundaries. They argue that these rights are essential for preserving human dignity and should be protected globally.

A key strength of Universalism is its emphasis on protecting individuals from abuses that cultural practices may justify. For example, Universalists oppose practices like female genital mutilation (FGM) and honor killings, which are often defended on cultural grounds. By advocating for universal standards, they seek to prevent human rights violations that may be culturally accepted but are fundamentally harmful. Universalists also argue that universal human rights create a common international cooperation and accountability framework. Without such standards, addressing human rights abuses consistently across different regions becomes challenging.

However, Universalism faces criticism for its potential to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to human rights. Critics argue that this perspective may overlook the diversity of cultural practices and values, erasing unique cultural identities. Additionally, Universalism can be seen as a form of cultural imperialism, where dominant cultures impose their norms on others. This critique is particularly relevant in post-colonial contexts, where former colonial powers often promoted Western human rights norms at the expense of local traditions and practices.

Cultural Relativism: Defending Cultural Autonomy

Cultural Relativists, in contrast, argue that human rights are not universal but culturally relative. They contend that cultural contexts shape rights and values and cannot be uniformly applied across different societies. Cultural Relativists emphasize respecting cultural diversity and allowing communities to define their norms and values. They argue that imposing universal human rights standards can undermine communities’ autonomy to govern themselves according to their cultural traditions.

One of the strengths of Cultural Relativism is its recognition of the diversity of human experiences and the need for cultural sensitivity in human rights discourse. Cultural Relativists argue that what may be considered a human rights violation in one culture may not be perceived as such in another. For example, some societies may prioritize community welfare over individual rights, leading to different interpretations of freedom and equality. Cultural Relativists argue that these differences should be respected and that human rights discourse should accommodate cultural diversity.

Cultural Relativism also highlights the potential dangers of cultural imperialism. Universalists may inadvertently impose Western values on non-Western societies by advocating for the universality of specific rights. This imposition can lead to the marginalization of local traditions and the erosion of cultural identities. Cultural Relativists argue that proper respect for human rights requires recognizing and valuing the diversity of artistic practices rather than imposing a uniform standard.

However, cultural relativism is not without its challenges. Critics argue that it can be used to justify harmful or discriminatory practices under the guise of cultural tradition. For instance, practices like FGM or child marriage are often defended on cultural grounds, even though they violate the rights of individuals, particularly women and children. Cultural Relativism may also hinder efforts to address human rights abuses, as it can be challenging to hold perpetrators accountable when cultural norms justify harmful practices.

The Tension Between Universalism and Cultural Relativism

The debate between Universalism and Cultural Relativism reflects a broader tension between the need for global standards and the respect for cultural diversity. This tension is evident in international human rights practice, where universal standards often clash with local customs and traditions. For example, enforcing gender equality in certain regions has faced resistance from communities that view these efforts as incompatible with their cultural values.

One way to navigate this tension is through a dialogue between Universalism and Cultural Relativism. This approach involves acknowledging the validity of both perspectives while seeking common ground. For instance, some scholars and practitioners advocate for a “culturally sensitive Universalism,” which recognizes the importance of universal human rights standards but allows for cultural variations in their implementation. This approach seeks to balance the need for protecting individual rights with respect for cultural diversity.

Another approach is to prioritise the voices of those directly affected by human rights issues. By involving local communities in developing and implementing human rights standards, it is possible to ensure that these standards are both culturally appropriate and effective in addressing human rights abuses. This approach requires a bottom-up process that empowers communities to define their rights while adhering to universal principles that protect human dignity.

Case Studies: The Impact of Universalism and Cultural Relativism

The impact of Universalism and Cultural Relativism can be observed in various human rights issues worldwide. One notable example is the global campaign against FGM. Universalists have condemned FGM as a violation of women’s rights and have called for its eradication. This campaign has led to legal reforms in several countries and increased awareness of the harmful effects of FGM. However, Cultural Relativists argue that the campaign has sometimes failed to consider the cultural significance of the practice and has alienated communities that view it as an essential tradition.

Another example is the debate over LGBTQ+ rights. Universalists argue that all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have equal rights and protection under the law. This perspective has led to the legalization of same-sex marriage in many countries and increased recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. However, Cultural Relativists contend that these efforts often clash with cultural and religious beliefs in certain societies. They argue that imposing LGBTQ+ rights in these contexts can lead to social unrest and resistance.

These case studies illustrate the complex interplay between Universalism and cultural relativism in human rights discourse. While Universalism offers a framework for protecting individual rights, it may sometimes overlook the cultural contexts in which these rights are applied. Conversely, cultural relativism provides a means of respecting cultural diversity but may risk condoning practices that harm individuals.

Striking a Balance in Human Rights Discourse

The debate between Universalists and cultural relativists is a central issue in contemporary human rights discourse. While Universalists advocate for inherent rights applicable to all individuals, cultural relativists argue that rights vary across cultures and should be respected accordingly. Both perspectives have strengths and weaknesses, and the challenge lies in balancing them.

In conclusion, a critical evaluation of the Universalism vs. cultural relativism debate reveals the need for a nuanced approach to human rights. By recognizing the validity of both perspectives and fostering dialogue, a human rights framework that protects individual dignity while respecting cultural diversity can be developed. This balanced approach can help address the complexities of global human rights practices and ensure that all individuals, regardless of their cultural background, can enjoy their fundamental rights.

The Universalism vs. Cultural Relativism – Resources and references

• Lida Bteddini, ‘Reconciling the Debate on Universal Human Rights: Reframing the Notion of Identity’ (2008) 7 ResearchGate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215570266_Reconciling_the_Debate_on_Universal_Human_Rights_Reframing_the_Notion_of_Identity accessed 10 August 2024.
• Paul Atagamen Aidonojie and others, ‘Human Rights: Between Universalism and Cultural Relativism’ (2021) 5(1) ResearchGate 97 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351783418_HUMAN_RIGHTS_BETWEEN_UNIVERSALISM_AND_CULTURAL_RELATIVISM accessed 10 August 2024.
• Sandra Danial, ‘Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism: Female Genital Mutilation, Pragmatic Remedies’ (2013) 2(1) Prandium – The Journal of Historical Studies 1 http://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/prandium/article/view/19692 accessed 10 August 2024.
• Nazir F, ‘Humanism with a Difference: Universality and Cultural Difference in Postcolonial Theory’ (2018) 2(1) Journal of Cultural Studies 1, DOI:10.54487/jcp.v2i1.774.
• Eshetu Y, ‘Understanding Cultural Relativism: A Critical Appraisal of the Theory’ (2017) 4(6) International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 24, DOI:10.18415/ijmmu.v4i6.121.
• Binder G, ‘Cultural Relativism and Cultural Imperialism in Human Rights Law’ (1999) 5 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228321995_Cultural_Relativism_and_Cultural_Imperialism_in_Human_Rights_Law accessed 10 August 2024.
• Cassman R, ‘Fighting to Make the Cut: Female Genital Cutting Studied within the Context of Cultural Relativism’ (2008) 6 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 128 http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol6/iss1/5 accessed 10 August 2024.