Cultural Relativism and Human Rights
Cultural relativism gives priority to the judgment of the internal society. Makau Mutua argues that the West remains in the past perception concerning the non-Western community, an insight that is largely driven by the cultural superiority and racial perspective of the West. The term culture means the societal set (Ferreira Dias, 2024).
Non-Western Origins of Human Rights
Human rights do not belong to Western discoveries. For instance, Peter Schwag and Adamantia Pollis claim that each society has its human rights concepts. On the other hand, Yogindra Khushalani also argues that human rights concepts can be drawn from the origins of the human race. The historical manifestation of human rights, as well as society’s cross-cultural conceptions, is not true at any given time. The human rights of every citizen allow them to have respect and equality in the state. Human rights are neither a group of objectives nor abstract values such as liberty, welfare, and political participation, which are critical elements that tie social practice to the notion of human rights (Pachori, 2023). Therefore, the idea of having human rights from the West is not correct.
Critique of Eurocentrism
Makau Mutua claims that the enterprise of human rights inaccurately presented itself as an eternal guarantor of truth, and its absence will make the availability of human civilization impossible. Makau argues that the corpus of human rights, though well-meaning, is a Eurocentric construct for non-Western people, as well as a reconstruction of society, which contains cultural biases, practices, and norms. For instance, he explains that the state is the only body that can salvage any victims. The state is the major human rights subject and guarantor. The state is the main predator of human rights that must be controlled. Unlike the perspective of international human rights regulations, the state is the one that has the power to control the country and salvage human rights. This is because the state has public power as well as executive power. The state understands the different people in it and can, therefore, understand the required human rights. This ties human rights entirely to the culture that they have in the state. Culture is the main savior, not even the state, since human rights are tied entirely to the state. As a result, the violation of human rights is considered a clash between a salvaging culture and the human rights culture. Therefore, the corpus of human rights, though well-meaning, is a Eurocentric construct for non-Western people, as well as a reconstruction of society, which contains cultural biases, practices, and norms (García Escobar, 2023).
Toward Inclusive Universality
Makau maintains that the success of the human rights movement will only come by avoiding Eurocentrism, such as European attacks and the civilizing crusade. The approach to human rights can bring the universality of human rights. The traditions of the Indigenous people of Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the Pacific must be installed to reconstruct and deconstruct the universal rights bundle that all human beings can call theirs. For instance, he explains that crusades, such as the anti-Female Genital Mutilation campaign, have taken the European approach. For instance, African culture allows the mutilation of all women. This should come with minimal discrimination and racism, as the West shows. The Western crusade was led by a Judeo-Christian prejudice, ignoring the moral as well as the cultural practices, showing ignorance, aggressiveness, paternalism, activism, as well as contempt, frustrating and shocking even people of goodwill. Therefore, the traditions of the Indigenous people of Africa, Asia, the Americas, as well as the Pacific must be installed to reconstruct as well as deconstruct the universal rights bundle that all human beings can call theirs. This is the only way the approach to human rights can bring the universality of human rights (Alkış, 2024).
The Universalist Perspective
On the other hand, universalism means application in a worldwide context. Donnelly explains the universality of human rights. He explains that human rights are not cultural at any given time. Culture does not play a role in the development of rights, nor does it have any role in supporting or opposing specific human rights. He states that there is no specific culture or any doctrine that is either incompatible or compatible with any human rights. The most important thing is what the people in a society do with all the cultural resources available. Cultural practices are massively malleable. Donnelly uses many illustrations from various cultures of different countries in explaining his theory of human rights universality rather than cultural relativism. Therefore, Donnelly explains that human rights are not cultural at any given time but practices that need to favor human life (Pachori, 2023).
Human Dignity and State Sovereignty
Similarly, Donnelly explains human rights as the rights that protect the necessary things for life and dignity for a healthy human life. Donnelly takes the position of universality. For instance, he explains ways in which human universality enables a state to preserve sovereignty as well as autonomy and citizens’ self-determination. Donnelly illustrates this in his two examples. First is the example of apostasy law, in which Article 18 of the UDHR 1948 states that every human being has the right and freedom of conscience, religion, and thought. In this situation, religion is very critical in Muslim or Islamic states. This restricts these nations from punishing people who choose to change their religion. Therefore, the universality of religion can aid in defending such cultural practices that do not show human rights and dignity at any given time (Ferreira Dias, 2024).
At the same time, he explains ways in which human rights are universal. First, all the nations consider human rights that are internationally known as firmly founded on international policies as well as law. Second, every leading worldview, culture, and religion participates in intersecting harmony universality as well as functional universality. Lastly, the consensus is based on a contemporary standard that threatens universality and affects human dignity in modern states as well as modern markets. Therefore, intersecting consensus universality, functional universality, as well as international lawful universality are connected with human rights, meriting the existence of human dignity and the value of life (García Escobar, 2023).
Forms of Human Rights Relativity
Human rights are fundamentally relative in five ways. First is ontological relativity, whereby human rights are excluded from a natural fabric of reality, and they do not relate at any time or everywhere. Second, in anthropological or historical relativity, human rights involve the historical response to any threat posed to life by either modern states or modern markets. This threat did not exist in the traditional period, and it cannot be assumed that it will exist in society in the next years. Third, the foundational relativity of human rights has different foundational considerations. The foundation of human rights is not based mainly on culture but depends on other universal factors. Fourth, in enjoyment relativity, human rights, even if they hold universality, are installed internationally, making enjoyment relative to where an individual was born or lives, the state. Lastly, in relativism specificity, the human rights list should allow individuals to learn socially as well as historically about the importance of human rights. Therefore, human rights universality does not entirely depend on culture but on a consideration of factors that threaten human life and possible protection measures to preserve human life (Alkış, 2024).
References
Alkış, M. (2024). Rethinking the debate on universalism versus cultural relativism regarding human rights: The case of China. İnsan ve Toplum, 14(1), 46–59. https://izlik.org/JA25UT64DM
Ferreira Dias, J. (2024). Can cultural relativism affect the international protection of human rights? Revista Jurídica Portucalense, 36, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(36)2024.ic-14
García Escobar, G. (2023). Norms versus interpretations: Human rights universality revisited. Global Jurist, 23(2), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1515/gj-2023-0001
Pachori, A. (2023). Strengthening the universality of human rights in praxis. Lex Humana, 15(1), 401–414. https://seer.ucp.br/seer/index.php/LexHumana/article/view/2414
Academic Master Education Team is a group of academic editors and subject specialists responsible for producing structured, research-backed essays across multiple disciplines. Each article is developed following Academic Master’s Editorial Policy and supported by credible academic references. The team ensures clarity, citation accuracy, and adherence to ethical academic writing standards
Content reviewed under Academic Master Editorial Policy.
