Human Rights: can they have a universal meaning or are they culturally relative?

Introduction

The themes to be addressed in this present written paper are: the dualism between cultural relativism and universalism in Human Rights matter.

Discussions about relativism and universalism are not new. Although Human Rights in its cultural perspective may be recent, we should look back at ancient Greece to realize that since Parmenides Heraclitus, like Socrates and the sophists, the relativism or universalism of truth have always been conflicting in Philosophy.

The Eurocentrism was very standardized in the Middle Ages and the Colonial period. As European colonizers reached some parts of the world imposing their values and prohibiting local culture (e.g American and African continents), the discussion about values still is taken, once we investigate if they are universal or European construction’s influence.

This Article explains the discussion about Universalism and cultural Relativism in Human Rights question. It demonstrates why this discussion impacts the application of Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Islamicist, Hinduisms, indigenous people and the western world.

Relativism argues

The relativists idea of “the notion of the law was related with the politic, economic, cultural, social and moral current system in a given society” (Piovesan, 2015, p.227). In addition, the collectivism is more important than individualism and individual rights. This idea is against the international law from Human Rights. Louis Henking said that Human Rights are the clairvoyance of the one person from society.

Furthermore, for R.J Vincent, Cultural Relativism sustains that morality depends on each place. So, to have a notion of morality in each culture, it is necessary to consider itself in its cultural context. Consequently, there is no possibility to have an unique “Universal morality”, since the world has a vast repertoire of different cultures and each one of them produces its own values.

The main critics of relativism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the basis of the Declaration. It was written and voted by only 56 States. According to the relativism point of view, the universalism represents the arrogance of the west cultural imperialism. More than that, the universalism destroyed the cultural diversity ( Piovesan, 2015, p.230).

According to Dussel (2005, p.59), the Eurocentric and colonialism seem to have the idea that first world countries ( USA, Europe, Australia, Japan) have aim to remove the rest of humanity from its primitivism in order to lead  people towards progress and rationality. For example, it is awkward but common to see cases of human safari in Andaman Islands[1] , or the famous character of the white savior in very poor areas of sub-Saharan Africa.

Léo Calleja identified these types of relativism form: “Cultural relativism can take two forms.  The weak version simply points to the empirical fact of diversity among different cultures’ views of right/wrong to mount a challenge to universalism, while the strong version believes that this empirical fact of diversity itself demonstrates the falsity of universalism or any kind of conception of right/wrong that necessarily applies universally”

Finally, it is important to point that there are differences in moral and cultural patterns between Islamic, Hindu, Pacific Islands, South American indigenous peoples and the Western world. Examples include the practice of clitorectomy and female mutilation in different cultures that are not included in the Western world (Piovesan, 2015, p.228).

The Relativism idea was constantly beaten by the universalist and in the next point we will see the universalist points of the debate.

Universalism argues

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came after the Universalism, andall of its conventions assure the protection of fundamental liberties and the protection of rights. The cultural transactions are not used when there is a risk of its violation. Universalism can be radical, strong or weak, and none of these categories allow cultural peculiarities clash with the “irreducible ethical minimum”.

It is important to mention that universalists maintain a strong criticism of the questions of relativists when their speech tends to justify the serious cases of violation of the Human Rights, which are not punished under the argument of cultural relativism.

Furthermore, based on the relativism argument that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was discussed by a few States and the large majority of them from the West, the universalism fights back with the Vienna Declaration of 25 June 1993[2] that improved the text of the 1948 Chapter, and it involved discussions in 171 states from different cultures and parts of the world.

The Vienna Declaration has succeeded in reducing criticism of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, bearing in mind that it is clearer and helps the cultural relativism, while assures the Human Rights. In addition, the fact of being ratified by most of the countries around the world, the argumentative space of relativism has greatly diminished.

Edna Raquel Hogemann states that knowledges of Cançado Trindade (2003) “reveals with special  propriety  that  the  Vienna  Conference  of  1993  can  be  considered  as  the  mark  of  universalism-relativism tension. Proof of this can be deduced from the characteristically relativistic intervention made by the representative  of  the  Chinese  delegation,  stating  that  the  historical-cultural  aspect  of  human  rights,  putting  them  in  tow  of  the  stage  of  development and own understanding of each country of the same.”

Léo Calleja identifies two types of universalism form: “Weak Universalism – It is a basic assumption that all humans are entitled to equal dignity.  Strong Universalism – The basic assumption that all humans are entitled to equal dignity is justified by appeal to natural law, i.e., it is inherent in our common humanity.”

According to Jack Donelly, the Vienna Declaration adopted in its text the weak cultural relativism or strong universalism. He defends that weak cultural relativism and strong universalism have the same definition and the Human Rights are relatively universal.

Female genital mutilation

The female genital mutilation or female circumcision issue is a practice that suppresses the pleasure of the women during sexual relations. This practice has no relations to religion, but rather to the culture of various peoples around the world.

The reasons of its practice, according to the communities where it still happens, are:

•  ensures fidelity (as it causes the lack of sexual desire) and thus the family;
• Increases the sexual pleasure of the partner (the man);
• avoids pregnancy;
• helps with the hygiene, as the female genital organs are considered dirty for these communities in general.

Furthermore, in addition to suppressing woman’s sexual pleasure, this practice offers risks, such as: intense pain, infections, excessive bleeding, prejudice to sex life quality, and it can cause death, depending on the severity of infections.

The Amnesty International, signed in 1998, reports  “ La mutilación genital femenina y los derechos humanos: infibulación, excisión y otras practices cruentas de iniciación”[3]. It strongly criticizes the woman´s mutilation practice for the male benefit. This mutilation is nothing more than a subordination of one social group to the others, in the case, women, with cultural legitimation. This violence presumes the internalization of inequality, from north to south, so Human Rights must fight against it and all the violence behind.

The Amnesty International, in the same report, states that at that time ( 1998), more than 135 million of women suffered from this mutilation and 2 million were at risk of suffering it.

At the end, The Amnesty supports the Multilateralism idea[4] too, as I will write in the next chapter. In order to create a multicultural dialogue, the concepts of the human dignity are not only of “Western culture”, but are combined in every culture in the world, without any gap of cultural practices such as female genital mutilation or other practices that undermine Human Rights.

Multilateralism and Human Rights

Firstly, according to Brazilian jurist Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ article Toward a Multicultural Conception of Human Rights, the dialectic between universalism and relativism must overcome, and there must be intercultural dialogue. According to the fact that different cultures have different conceptions of human dignity at the same time they are incomplete, they should be aware of these cultural incompleteness and dialogue.

In addition, Boaventura said “human rights must be reconceptualized as multicultural. Progressive multiculturalism is a precondition for a balanced and mutually reinforcing relationship between global competence and local legitimacy. Progressive multiculturalism, as I understand it, is a precondition for a balanced and mutually reinforcing relationship between global competence and local legitimacy. In order to operate as a cosmopolitan, couterhegemonic form of globalization, human rights must be reconceptualized as multicultural and universal, the two attributes of a counterhegemonic human rights politics in our time”.

With the same idea, but different names, Bhikhu Parekh (Human rights in global politics, 1999) supports what he calls “pluralist universalism”, based on a dialogue between cultures and not ethnocentric, with goal of consistent values amongst all cultures. Joaquín Herreira Flores ( Direitos humanos, interculturalidade e racionalidade de resistência, p.7) says that the universalism of human rights should not be originated in universalist, but with the intersection of the proposals instead the superposition of then.

At the end, it is possible to observe in this chapter the various faces of multilateralism under an universalist perspective as well as dialogues with different cultures which preserve the respect for the essence of the human being.

Conclusion

During the article, it was possible to better understand the arguments of relativists, universalist and the most accepted solution today: multiculturalism, which is nothing else than universalism created by the dialogues of the nations of the world.

Since the 1993 Vienna Declaration, the relativists have lost part of the argument that Human Rights are too westernized, because the ratification of this document has embraced most of the states and cultures, in a clear attempt to dialogue with them.

The main problem, according to my point of view, is to convey the idea of multiculturalism in practice, the realization of Human Rights, bearing in mind that the dialogue of these cultures becomes more complicated as it is becoming rare. The advance of protectionist and conservative speeches from Western countries, such as Brazil, Hungary, or authoritarians  (Venezuela and Nicaragua) in addition to Donald Trump’s, the former USA president, have further distanced an agreement between cultures, specially the Arab ones. This interrelation of cultures would be essential to overcome the challenges that a globalized world requires, in addition to a time of climate change, which requires innovations in the field of international law in relation to climate refugees, for example.

In conclusion, Bonaventura says that the idea addressed in his work on multilateralism article is utopic. I agree, but the Vienna Declaration of Human Rights was an important step towards this aspect of the most universalist Human Rights and discussed among the most varied cultures. The next step to make Human Rights more effective will need more action from countries. In a world that was recently shattered by COVID 19 pandemic, it is quite obvious to presume that without coordinated work among the nations of the world, the damages are much bigger.

[1] http://g1.globo.com/globo-news/noticia/2014/05/safari-humano-trata-integrantes-de-tribo-primitiva-como-animais.html acess in 12/12/2021

[2] §5° “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

[3] “Amnistía Internacional, la práctica de la mutilación genital femenina. Recordemos, en primer lugar, en qué consiste la mutilación. En su forma más severa se conoce con el nombre de infibulación, procedimiento que incluye la extirpación total o parcial del clítoris y de los labios menores y el recorte de los labios mayores. El efecto es, según el Informe que aquí presentamos, crear superficies en carne viva que después se cosen o sellan con el fin de que, al cicatrizar, formen una membrana sobre la vagina. Se deja únicamente una pequeña abertura para permitir el paso de la orina y de los flujos menstruales. El fin de todo ello es la representación material del cierre del cuerpo de la mujer, reservado para la entrada del futuro marido y la asociación de sexualidad y dolor. Las infecciones, los desgarros y en los casos extremos la muerte pueden llegar a formar parte del ritual, según las condiciones sanitarias en que tenga lugar el mismo. En el futuro la penetración sexual y los partos auguran nuevos dolores y complicaciones sanitarias.”

[4] . “Las ideas de multiculturalismo y de diversidad cultural ponen de manifiesto reacciones resistenciales de culturas o grupos que ven amenazada su supervivencia, que temen perder su identidad frente a la cultura dominante. Como señala Alain Touraine, uno de los méritos de las ideas multiculturalistas es su reacción contra la homogeneización del mundo, realidad que se ha conceptualizado en la actualidad como globalización económica y cultural. El multiculturalismo y la diversidad cultural deben tener sus límites en los derechos humanos y deben avanzar en la dirección de la interculturalidad, es decir, hacia el mestizaje, el intercambio y la comunicación entre culturas y razas. El desarrollo moral sólo es posible si los individuos realizamos el esfuerzo de situarnos o aproximarnos al punto de vista cultural, sexual o de género del otro”

Bibliography

1. AMNISTIA INTERNACIONAL(1998). La mutilación genital femenina y los derechos humanos: infibulación, excision y otras practices cruentas de iniciación. Amnesty International Publications (1998). Madrid, pp. 7-14.
2. CALLEJA, L. (2014). Universalism, Relativism and the Concept of Law. Journal of the Philosophy of International Law, 5(1), 59-71
3. COUNTDOWN EUROPE e Associação para o Planeamento da Família (2015) – Mutilação Genita Feminina: Direitos Humanos de mulheres e crianças. CIG, UNFPA,APF (2015). Lisboa. Access in https://www.institutocamoes.pt/images/cooperacao/folha_de_dados.pdf
4. GREEN, M,J. Asian and Universalism. Center for Strategic and International Studies. pp. 2-6. Access: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep22544.4.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A620be6a58d90b0f3d65d769f559c344c
5. HOGEMANN, E,R (2020). Human Rights beyond dichotomy between cultural universalism and relativism. The Age of Human Rights Journal, edition 14. pp. 19-34 ISSN: 2340-9592 DOI: 10.17561/tahrj.v14.5476. Access in https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/article/view/5476/4775
6. MAIA, F,J,F (2012). The sophistic movement philosophical rhetoric as directed to the procedure of persuasion cognitive. Revista Cadernos de Ciências Sociais da UFRPE. pp.1-16. Access in http://ead.codai.ufrpe.br/index.php/cadernosdecienciassociais/article/view/234/205
7. PIOVESAN, F. Direitos humanos e o direito constitucional. 15 ed., São Paulo: Saraiva, 2015 pp. 227 -235.
8. SANTOS, B, S (2002). Toward a Multicultural Conception of Human Rights. Hernandez-Truyol, Berta (ed.), Moral Imperialism. A Critical Anthology. New York: Ney York University Press, 2002, pp. 40-57 .