BY: JAVAS BIGAMBO
Introduction
There has existed a long standing debate between universalism and cultural relativism, to the extent that social scientists and human rights scholars have barely found acceptable symmetry in the ideological standoff. The nexus between the two ideologies is largely sustained by conservatism and liberalism, both pulling from different sides. Proponents of universalism assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human, and that such rights should be universal to the extent of their nature. To them, human rights are thus conceived in a Universalist and egalitarian fashion. Such entitlements can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or natural rights supported by strong reasons, or as legal rights either at a national level or within international law. On the other hand, cultural relativism is the view that no culture is superior to any other culture when comparing systems of morality, law, politics or religion. It’s the philosophical notion that all cultural beliefs are equally valid and that truth itself is relative, depending on the cultural environment. Those who hold to cultural relativism hold that all religious, ethical, aesthetic, and political beliefs are completely relative to the individual within a cultural identity. Relativism often includes moral relativism, (that ethics depend on a social construct), situational relativism (where right or wrong is based on the particular situation), and cognitive relativism (truth itself has no objective standard). The divergence of these views kills the would-be possible consensus between the two ideologies. Universalists argue that if truth is relative, then rights are relative and not absolute. Among scholars of the two separate worlds, there seems to be an endemic and congenital trait of what could be described as a natural benign docility generally brought about by years of blind social submission and unquestioning compliance to the mystique of higher authority that reigns surreptitiously yet effectively in the two blocks of ideologues in varying degrees. True. This benign natural docility is generally regarded as positive, legitimate and virtuous strictly within the context of a fixed intellectual regime. Left without dialogue, the two ideologies remain antagonistic. A new twist for Kenya comes into play, especially with the prospects of a new constitutional dispensation. With the provisions of the Bill of Rights, which shall bring in a fresh regime in human rights advocacy, and the religious feuds over certain constitutional provisions, this is set to redefine the positions of ideologues in the two world on the Kenyan stage. This paper therefore seeks to foster intellectual symmetry between the two sets, by bringing scholars together. The objectives of this paper are: a) to examine the critical nature of universalism and cultural relativism in regard to human rights; b) to initiate practical relations between the two ideologies with regard to Kenya’s cultural diversity and constitutional dispensations; c) to examine the place of universalism and cultural relativism in the 21st century in regard to globalization
Concept Rationale for the Debate
For a fact, one of the most relatable issues of the past twenty years has been the dispute between two different ideologies of human rights on a global scale, universalism, and cultural relativism. Universalism holds that more “primitive” cultures will eventually evolve to have the same system of law and rights as Western cultures. Cultural relativists hold an opposite, but similarly rigid viewpoint, that a traditional culture is unchangeable to its enthusiasts. Academic literary criticism has attempted to be transformed from customary inquiry into an overarching search for symmetry between universalism and cultural relativism in the context of human rights. But is this merger possible?
The main problem in different cultures is that the question about morality isn’t settled and the common moral norms are not invented. In most cases disagreements between different cultures appear because of disagreements in facts. So, regulation of the most important facts leads to the solution of this problem. Another source of cultural disagreements and so criticism of other cultures are caused by differences of values. They are fundamental moral disagreements and their solution is practically impossible to the extent of the variance.
According to cultural ethical relativism morality is a matter of the culture. Moral principles of the individuality are formed according to the social morality. The conclusion is that people should follow moral norms and laws of their own society. Their own morality gives them a possibility to judge and so criticize all the other cultures. The concept of rights has no meaning unless rights are universal, but rights cannot attain Universality without a certain social anchoring. In other words, rights must be founded upon equality of access to economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights. The declaration of human rights occurred immediately after the atrocities committed during WWII. Then the end of the cold war created a series of tentative attempts to define “a new world order” for the stability of states the world over. Pursuant to this, the globalization of human rights began when the world was awakened to the crimes committed under one government (Hitler), and the need for a more universal system of accountability and responsibility. The Second World War led to many undertakings. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created following the Holocaust during World War II. The sheer atrocities committed by the Nazis through the enslavement and annihilation of Jews in Europe caused the world to cry out for justice. The Holocaust changed the worldview on human rights. Prior to the war, human rights were initially considered a “domestic concern”; they were to be enforced by only the governments of individual countries.
This view shifted considerably during the war, as human rights were then considered a universal concern and they were to be a concern for every person. By the end of the war, the world as a whole felt the need for the security of inalienable human rights. The Declaration describes how the rights in it are not to be enforced, but rather, represent a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations. Among these rights include the right to life, the right to not be tortured or enslaved, and to not be unfairly persecuted. The Declaration also grants freedom of thought, expression, and religion. The cultural rights laid out include the right to marriage, education, employment, food, and shelter. The Declaration was only a resolution adopted by the General Assembly, so in the legal sense, it is a non-binding document. In spite of this, since its adoption, it has grown to become a major factor in international law. In the wake of global terrorism and strengthening of national security measures, does universalism favour global progress? Does cultural relativism favour the same or antagonize it? These questions that judge the two varying ideologies could also synchronize them. Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly constructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy. Introspectively, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards. The International Human Rights Day therefore provides a fine and fair platform for critical discussion and debate on these two opposing ideologies.
Outputs and Outcomes
This paper was conceptualized as a sound platform to bringing together a slate of scholars and experts in the human rights circle within the civil society. This is expected to shift the positions of ideologues with firm positions of conflict between universalism and cultural relativism in a world keen on globalization. But more than that, with the possible dawn of a new constitution for Kenya, it shall be interesting to see the position of the policy brief in regard to Kenya’s apparent religious antagonism to the constitution which seeks to shift socio-cultural positions among the people.
CONCLUSION
Certain logical core values, cultural themes and patterns of cultural adaptation unique to human rights have been presented in this paper, as identified in the conflict between universalism and cultural relativism. This paper intends to catalyze sensational debate and bring into play various viewpoints whether religious, political, or the Johari window perspective, given that cultural relativism is an exact antithesis to universalism.
Javas can be reached through: jbigambo@interthoughts.co.ke