Cultural Relativism and Human Rights: Achieving Understanding

“We should respect that other cultures have different values, even if that means they reject human rights.”

In the first section of this essay, I will touch upon the long-standing dispute between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism by discussing the persecution of albinos in the United Republic of Tanzania. I will then portray how the Tanzanian government attempted to resolve the dilemma between cultural relativism and human rights as in the case aforementioned. First, I will analyze cultural relativism in regard to non-derogable rights, particularly the right to life. While international human rights law allows the limitations, derogations, and reservations of second-generation rights, non-derogable rights are not exempt and are applicable even in times of public emergencies that threaten national security, and henceforth these rights cannot be violated in the name of culture, as even the situation of a public emergency does not receive that leniency.

I will conclude that the justification of cultural differences to violate human rights is implausible and must not be respected nor tolerated. I will conclude that the international human rights system must ensure that robust preventative measures are set by states to protect those vulnerable and to prosecute those responsible for abuses linked to cultural beliefs, precisely the role of witchcraft in albino persecution. Another role the international system holds is to propose a moral code to guide behavior in all societies, such as the value of protecting those who are less able in society, specifically persons with disabilities, as in the case of those affected by albinism from beatings, expulsion from society, deadly mutilation, torture, and murder. If and when these values are entrenched and accepted within the relevant cultures, these new ideas will be capable of shifting fixed attitudes in societies without imposing external norms.

Cultural Relativism and International Human Rights

Throughout the past three decades, and primarily through the dawn of the 21st century, Relativism has taken a front seat in the establishment of various theories, moral judgments, and ideological remands. Relativism encompasses an array of different disciplines, through which cultural relativism is extracted and thereafter incorporated in international human rights today.

The two extreme perspectives on cultural relativism are radical universalism and radical cultural relativism. Radical cultural relativism deems that rights only exist when a culture actively perceives them as rights. Radical universalism deems that culture is essentially irrelevant to the legitimacy of a right. However, other views do exist in between these evidently contrasting standpoints: strong cultural relativism accepts a few international rights but allows for major variations, whereas, weak cultural relativist perspectives accept a variety of universally applicable human rights. They affirm that culture cannot override absolute rights such as the right to life and the freedom of torture.

Regardless, I do agree that some variations must be left to the cultural disparity. When we consider the case of reservations on articles of treaties, the submitted reservations should aim not to deviate from upsetting the object and purpose of the convention. By variations, I am implying differences and not violations. For example, Malta presented a reservation to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) on universal education, with the justification that the population is mostly Roman Catholic, and due to fiscal limitations, delivering education in line with a particular religious belief, particularly with regards to rare minorities in Malta will essentially become challenging. Reservations on such minor issues can and should be tolerated since no major, malicious, or harmful human rights violations are committed. This will further enhance the convention and its purpose, as well as serve the purpose of bringing more parties to the treaty. However, reservations submitted on core rights, that will cause violence, unease, uprisings, and controversial debates based on religious or cultural beliefs must not be tolerated.

Having said this, I am certainly not claiming or supporting the idea that second-generation rights or derogable rights should be ignored. In fact, I am completely aware of the inevitability of the possibility that an infringement on any specific right can lead to the violation of another, as will be determined in the case below. For instance, some relativists accept that culture cannot annul non-derogable rights but can override other rights such as the right to physical integrity, the right to a fair trial, or the prohibition of discrimination.

It is essential to note that the right to bodily integrity is the right of each human being. it is extremely important for one to have the ability to have complete autonomy over their own body, this includes granting protection from medical experimentation, social sterilization, and cruel or degrading treatment or punishment. Although relativists disregard the right to bodily integrity as being an infringement on what they perceive as derogable rights, this can in fact result in the infringement on an absolute fundamental right such as the right to life itself. An alarming, yet related case was that of the stripping of albinos from autonomy over their own bodies by decapitation to make a profit out of selling their limbs, ultimately resulting in the death of many.

The Persecution of People with Albinism

The practice is generally labeled as the hunting of albinos. However, the utilization of the verb ‘hunting’ connotes that they are prey and thus contributes to their dehumanization, so I will refrain from using dehumanizing terms and refer to the practice as the persecution of albinos.

It is imperative to note that ancient ideologies and certain aspects of witchcraft, were eminent where the paranormal was used to explain human phenomena such as the condition of albinism. The belief system stemming from superstitions and witchcraft violates albinos’ fundamental human rights, which can clearly be deduced in various forms as presented below:

The most imminent threat to albinos is witchdoctors, as they exploit the fear they ignite in their followers by creating superstitions. They infiltrate the minds of their followers and make a profit through the belief system that they themselves have set up. They continue to claim that the organs and limbs of albinos strengthen the potency of their spells. An instance as such occurred when senior police officers in Dar es Salaam reported that an entire albino corpse – including all four limbs, genitals, and facial parts – sells for an equivalent of 75,000 US dollars. This astounding figure verifies that the dismemberment of albinos is ultimately guaranteed to subsist, as around 12 million Tanzanians continue to live below in poverty levels. As mentioned previously, the stripping of albinos from the right of physical integrity or self-determination over their own body parts by trading their organs for monetary gain, ultimately results in their deaths, and thus violates their right to life.

Additionally, bizarre beliefs have developed in response to the rise of HIV and AIDS in the African region. One of the most alarming of them all is that sexual interaction with people with albinism cures sexually transmitted diseases, which in turn victimizes more albino women than men. The sexually transmitted diseases are then transferred to their husbands and children. In 2016, 33,000 people died from an AIDS-related illness in Tanzania. Although albino women may not predominantly be involved in sex work, they are affected by the disease because of the belief that their condition has medicinal qualities, thus further fueling this form of violence. Although AIDS will not directly and instantaneously kill these women, the chances of high life expectancies are low, due to limited access of antiretroviral treatment. In turn, the rape culture associated with albino women might not strip them from the right to life directly, however, the deduction of years they have to live because of being infected with AIDS indirectly infringes upon this fundamental human right. Regardless, forced sexual conduct in itself directly or indirectly becomes a means of bodily violation.

Moreover, the persecution of albinos has a prominent gender dimension. Besides being more vulnerable to rape, women who give birth to children with albinism are thought to have brought shame upon their families and are consequently shunned by society. These women are suspected of being adulterers and are accused of committing infidelity with ‘white men’, resulting in their abandonment or divorce. Because of the stigma associated with albinism, the heavy burden placed on these single women pressures them into abandoning their own children, having abortions, or killing them. This practice has an obvious prominent gender and social dimension where women are predominantly discriminated against. Consequently, the discrimination of women can lead to infanticide, which in turn circles around back to larger infringements such as violating the fundamental right to life; specifically, that of an innocent child.

The Tolerance Argument of Cultural Relativism

The title of this paper in itself calls upon tolerance and the need to respect that other cultures have different values, even if it means that they reject human rights. My argument is that we can tolerate the indifferences of cultures, but not necessarily respect them. Therefore, I will use the tolerance argument of cultural relativism.

The tolerance argument states that by accepting the dissimilarities of other cultures, we are tolerant towards them. Relativism infers that we cannot impose our morality towards different cultures. By abstaining from doing so, we are tolerant. Thus, if we accept relativism, we are committed to the policy of tolerance. I do believe that the tolerance argument works insofar that no core rights are directly violated. However, in some cases, it is challenging to accomplish this as the violations of what is perceived to be minor rights ultimately breach core fundamental rights that are directly linked to the chain of infringements that occur and ultimately lead to one or more core rights being violated as presented in the case of albino persecution.

It is important to note that the definitions of the terms “tolerance” and “respect” cannot be used interchangeably. Tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behavior that one dislikes or disagrees with”. Whereas respect is “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements”.

To further verify my stance; imagine that you come from a culture that believes in the existence of witchcraft. It would be imperative for me, as a human being to tolerate your belief, even though I might believe it is ludicrous. However, this does not imply that I respect you, or the idea, or essentially admire it. Ultimately, problems occur when respect is expected and sometimes demanded from the holders of a specific belief. I can tolerate that cultures have their differences, but respect or admiration towards those dissimilarities would border on being forceful and would further violate various other human rights. In this sense, even tolerance has definitive limits. Therefore, it is more plausible and accurate to state that we should only tolerate cultural differences, but not when these practices are irrational or harmful to others.

The Limits of Toleration

Relativists believe that matters which are morally acceptable to certain cultures do not necessarily have to be morally correct for another. By being tolerant, we cannot impose our beliefs and perceptions of what we believe is ‘right’ onto other cultures. However, the principle of tolerance is not guaranteed by relativism. If you are a relativist, you are not bound to be tolerant of other people. To further expand, if a culture does not acknowledge the principle of tolerance, the members of the culture have no obligation to be tolerant. Correspondingly, If I choose to impose or adversely refrain from imposing my morality onto other cultures, I cannot guarantee that the members of the other culture will be tolerant of my own beliefs. I perceive the act of tolerance of others as a virtue, but not when differences inflict harm. The argument flows when applying the case of the albinos to the premises built by Tilley:

1. If relativism is true, we cannot enforce our morality on different cultures by stating that the persecution of albinos is immoral.
2. So, we must refrain from imposing this belief that the persecution of albinos is immoral in comparison to other cultures.
3. To refrain from imposing our morality or contrastingly, by allowing the persecution of albinos, we are tolerant of others.
4. Therefore, relativism ultimately compels us to be tolerant of other cultures or to accept the persecution of albinos.

The premises above reiterate that we cannot fulfill our obligations to human rights, as well as be tolerant of other cultures entirely. This is primarily true if crimes are committed against victims due to cultural prejudice. This, in turn, allows rights to be subject to cultural interpretations, menaces, and moral absolutism as a whole.

Furthermore, if the categorization of actions into right or wrong is dependent on cultural interpretations, it is consequently being insinuated that no universal morals, by which actions can be criticized, actually exist. Henceforth, tolerance essentially restricts relativists from disapproving of any atrocious acts, as it would entail intolerance. Even if the condemnation of a harmful practice is based on reasonable grounds, it would be discriminatory to criticize acts that occur outside one’s own culture. Essentially, what is being said is that as long as the persecution of albinos is normal in Sub-Saharan Africa, the practice is as morally valid as to its opposite; the killing of an Albino is as morally acceptable as the protection of people with disabilities elsewhere.

Possible Approaches to a Solution

Attempting to influence culture is vital, as culture in the case of albinos has proven to be stronger than the laws set by the Tanzanian government. As an example, the Witchcraft Act is a remnant of colonial rule, demonstrating that the damages deriving from witchcraft have had a historical presence. The recent amendment to the Witchcraft Act in 2009 is to reiterate that Tanzania will punish anyone convicted of witchcraft in accordance to the law, portraying that it is not a law implied by colonialists, but that even the current government will do not tolerate the practice. Although Tanzania has placed strong legislation to combat the practice, it still persists, as it is deeply rooted within the culture. Violations occur from within the community, and it is not the state that is violating their rights, therefore engagement and interference must occur on a cultural dimension. Dealing with the challenge of eliminating witchcraft which has existed since the pre-colonial era through legal means is inadequate, as the perpetrators continued to practice witchcraft, justifying it through a cultural aspect, only in hopes that they are not caught. Thus, it is important for the Tanzanian government to use a more strategic approach that combines both legal and educational means.

Despite these occurrences, I am not certainly not claiming that the international human rights system has not placed adequate efforts. The OHCHR has already established many programs including the World Programme for Human Rights Education to resolve such issues. However, the initiation of human rights education programs by regional human rights systems, rather than global systems would tackle culture-specific human rights concerns more efficiently, as other regions would prioritize issues relative to their own cultures over others; thus heightening the necessity of specific regional programs. Discussing the reasons behind the physical appearance of albinos on popular media outlets such as radio channels and hosting public meetings will educate those members of society on the genetic disorder; that should not be discriminated against. This exposure will, directly and indirectly, become a means of awareness and reduce societal hostility towards albinos and shift their dehumanization to a much lower extent such as that experienced by albinos. Additionally, albinos must be educated about the disease themselves, as the constant resentment they receive from their surroundings could result in self-loathing and voluntary self-isolation from the peripheral.

Having said this, if educational exposure does not prove efficient, aggressive approaches must be taken into consideration. My second proposal is the imposing of sanctions until governments progress in addressing cases of abuse. Even if it is not the state, directly violating the rights of the albinos, it is the states’ duty and responsibility to protect these individuals from abuse. A widely criticized consequence of sanctions is that they harm ordinary citizens living under the designated governments. However, the sanctions approach could be efficient in the case of culturally-linked human rights abuses, as it is the people who are violating the right and not the state as a whole.

Conclusion

In conclusion, some claims made by relativists threaten the implementation of human rights internationally. According to Murdock, cultures are viewed as “illusory conceptual abstractions,”. Although accurate in some ways, I do not hold the view that the eradication of cultures would be a plausible solution to the cultural relativism dispute, but in essence, I believe that cultures need to be anchored in the correct direction and also need to be positively influenced. If countries and their cultures are exposed to a more powerful and positive outlook on cultural norms, the personality of an entire group will change. This is in most ways an educational journey; a means of guidance, which is our global duty in various ways. Any method other than the proposition of promoting standards through education and guidance will trigger the colonialist argument by relativists. It is also important to note that culture is not a monolith and is capable of change, and in many ways is inevitably changed throughout the years. Therefore, the proposition of education on the subject of cultural mediocracy and human rights itself would aim to break the transfer of harmful or immoral practices to offspring cultures.