Cultural relativism and universal human rights by carolyn fluehr lobban

In a substantive 2 double-spaced pages long essay, critically discuss the concept of cultural relativism. In your essay, you should relate this concept and the pros and cons of cultural relativism in relation to the practice of female genital mutilation/female circumcision.

Please be as specific as possible in your answer – you should define cultural relativism referring to discussions about it in the readings, and also refer to specific information and details from the readings, the power point presentation

24 CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban One of the most controversial issues within anthropology today concerns the sensitive intersection and potential contradiction between cultural relativism and universal human rights. Fluehr-Lobban ’s article helps define the issue, details specific illustrative cases from both abroad and in the United States, and suggests how anthropologists can be helpful in cases dealing with universal rights, including the right to “avoid harm ” in societies that sanction abuse in various forms. W hat members of one culture might view as strange and bizarre in another culture (for example, polygamy, body tattooing, or strict dietary laws) can be understood best within that culture’s context—or so cultural relativists believe. Cultural relativism, a hallmark of anthropology from its beginnings, asserts that cultural traits are best understood within the context of the cultural system of which they are a part and should not be judged by external or absolute standards. Cultural relativists believe further that since each^ulture has its own inherent integrity, with unique values and practices, valueiudgments should be withheld or suspended until cultural context is taken into account. Theoretically, anthropologists always should be observers and recorders, not evaluators of other people’s customs and values. While some anthropologists still agree with this view, others, both inside the field and outside, especially in the arena of human rights, are challenging this concept. Today, cultural relativism is experiencing a period of critical self-examination within the field of anthropology. But it is important to 299 300 Exploring Our Many Cultures state at the outset that universal human rights and cultural relativism are not philosophically or morally opposed to one another; the terrain between them is fluid and rich. Human rights, defined as the rights to which one is entitled simply by virtue of being human, are universal by definition. So although human behavior is necessarily culturally relative, human rights are universal entitlements that are grounded in cross-culturally recognized moral values. ANTHROPOLOGY’S ROLE IN HUMAN RIGHTS Historically, anthropology as a discipline declined to participate in the international dialogues that produced conventions regarding human rights, mainly due to philosophical constraints stemming from cultural relativism. In 1947 the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association decided not to take part in the discussions that produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), used subsequently as a foundation for opposition to authoritarian and politically repressive regimes. Nor was anthropology’s voice included in the drafting of human rights statements such as the United Nations’ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) or the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Despite this, some anthropologists have been active in cultural survival and human rights of threatened groups. As I explained in a 1995 article, anthropologists “are in a unique position to lend knowledge and expertise to the international debate regarding human rights.” And, in fact, anthropologists have spoken out against reprehensible practices such as genocide. They have testified in U.S. courts against government rules that impinge on the religious traditions or sacred lands of Native Americans. But there are other human rights issues, from domestic abuse to female circumcision to culturally based forms of homicide, about which anthropologists have remained silent. Thus, anthropologists have not built up accumulated experience in the area of human rights informed by cultural relativist considerations. This chapter is an attempt to lay out some of the basic issues and considerations in this arena, looking at the intersection of cultural relativism and the human rights issues that have gained more public awareness than ever before. THE LIMITS OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM Cultural relativism may be taken to extremes. Some argue that since cultures vary and each culture has its own unique moral system, we cannot make judgments about “right” and “wrong” in comparing one culture to another. Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights 301 Thus, one cannot reject any form of culturally acceptable homicide—for example, infanticide, senilicide, or “honor” killing of women in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern societies for alleged sexual misconduct—on moral grounds because cultural acceptance or condemnation is equally valid. This extreme relativist position is actually a form of absolutism with which few anthropologists would agree.