Human Rights in Law, Politics and Society Lecture 4: Universalism, cultural relativism and multiculturalism Steven Greer Reminder • Next topic is ‘Democratization and Transitional Justice’ not ‘Judicial Enforcement’ Overview 1. Preliminary definitions 2. Universalism and cultural relativism • Arguments for the universality of human rights • Arguments that human rights are relative only to western culture • Universalist arguments against the cultural relativity of human rights 3. Multiculturalism • Multiculturalism and monoculturalism as concepts • Historical background to 2nd World War • Historical background: immediate aftermath of 2nd World War • Historical background: mid-late 20th century • Conceptual issues • Multicultural public policy issues • ‘Post-multicultural’ public policy issues 4. Conclusion 1. Preliminary definitions • Universalism and human rights • Human rights are ‘universal’ by definition because they apply to all human beings everywhere • Cultural relativism and human rights • Human rights are the product of only one of the world’s many diverse value systems/cultures (the modern west) and cannot, therefore, be genuinely universal • Multiculturalism and human rights • Effective national implementation of human rights will mean different rights for different people according to their membership of different sub-national groups, eg Sikhs and motorcycle helmets 2. 1. Arguments for the universality of human rights • People are biologically/psychologically the same everywhere • Individual human needs, particularly suffering, are universal and common to all cultures • Human reason is universal and only individuals can exercise it. • Reason is the only universal guide to universal values because intuition, sentiment and revelation are all highly culture-specific • Human rights are universal in form but may diverge in application according to culturally specific factors • eg universal right to life under ECHR but abortion laws differ significantly between European states. 2. 2. Arguments that human rights are relative only to western culture • All value systems derive from specific cultures: both are highly variable • eg compare Viking with Buddhist values • The individual, as bearer universal rights, is an ideal not a fact of nature nor a universal of human experience • endorsed by only one of the world’s cultures – western modernity • ‘universalized’ in contemporary world only as result of military, economic and political power of west • Apart from western liberal-democracy, most, if not all, other cultures prioritise social obligations over individual rights. Human rights are relative (continued) • Even if every individual has same basic physical and psychological needs this does not settle the question of how these needs should be satisfied, eg • what kinds of distribution of resources? • what kinds of punishment? • what kinds of restriction on pursuit of self interest? Throughout human history these questions have been answered in very different ways often involving systematic and enduring denial of universal satisfaction of universal human needs, eg slavery • Equality of respect for individuals requires equality of respect for the diverse cultures which frame individual identities in very different ways • religious cultures typically encourage surrender of ego/individuality to divine • Application of ‘universals’ must be mediated/interpreted by specific cultures • eg in Europe capital punishment seen as violation of right to life, while in USA capital punishment seen as affirmation of right to life 2. 3. Universalist arguments against the cultural relativity of human rights • Cultures are abstractions and are rarely monolithic and impermeable • what counts as a specific ‘culture’ is often unclear • eg what is contemporary ‘English’ culture as compared with ‘Scottish’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Irish’, ‘British’, ‘European’, ‘western’? • Cultures are mediated by individuals. • Without those who experience and transmit them, cultures only exist as dead, historical relics • People typically live in many overlapping cultures • determining which is/ought to be deemed primary is often difficult, even for members themselves • eg gay daughter born in Glasgow to Urdu-speaking Muslim parents from northern India. • Norms of a given dominant culture may be contested as much by ‘insiders’ as by ‘outsiders’ • eg whether active homosexuality is consistent with Christianity Universalist arguments against cultural relativity of human rights (continued) • Neither ‘tradition’ or ‘culture’ is a self-evident justification for anything, eg slavery. • ‘Cultural’ objections to human rights are often merely excuses for domination by national elites, created (ironically) by modernization, decolonization etc • Affirming the relativity of cultures is itself a universal claim • The only cultural universal is that all cultures are equally valid sources of values! • To respect all cultures equally is self contradictory because it involves respecting those (eg Nazi’s) which have no respect for other cultures. • Globalization is producing world’s first genuinely global (universal) culture. 3. 1. ‘Monoculturalism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ as concepts • Factual (descriptive/sociological) senses • ‘Monocultural societies’ are those which, as a matter of fact, have a single culture/language/religion/ethnicity/value system to which all, or vast majority, of members subscribe • ‘Multicultural societies’ are those which, as a matter of fact, have many languages, religions, ethnicities, cultures etc • Normative senses (ie what ought to be the case) • Monoculturalism: in interests of social cohesion all societies need/ought to have a single dominant culture/value system even if they are multicultural as a matter of fact • Multiculturalism: societies which are multicultural as a matter of fact ought to recognise different rights/duties for those who belong to minority cultures/religions etc 3. 2. Historical background: to 2nd World War • Monoculturalism and multiculturalism have each been part of human experience since dawn of history, • eg cities of ancient empires (eg Rome) were often highly cosmopolitan • island societies - highly monocultural until modernity, eg Polynesia. • European nationalism, 19th and 20th centuries • goal of 19th century European nationalists: to secure monocultural nation states for every nation. • Result – 1st World War. • Post-1st World War: • minority treaties seek to protect national minorities in ‘host’ state through collective complaints mechanisms with ‘kin’ states given protector status • Result – 2nd World War. 3. 3. Historical background: aftermath of 2nd World War • Decisive shift away from minority rights to individual rights: • ‘Cultural rights’ now seen as rights of individuals to participate in culture (both majority and minority) not rights of cultural groups as such • Art. 27(1) UDHR:‘Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ • Art. 27 ICCPR: ‘In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religions, or to use their own language’. • ‘Multiculturalism’ not mentioned as such in international human rights law 3. 3. Historical background: aftermath of 2nd World War (continued) • Anti-discrimination provisions of international human rights law: • Art. 26 ICCPR: ‘All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’ • International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination 1966: negative and positive obligations on states to tackle discrimination on basis of race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin (but not religion or language). 3. 4. Historical background: mid- late 20th century • Increasing international recognition of distinct minority rights/multiculturalism prompted by immigration from south to north in post-2nd World War economic boom • decolonization and state formation • decline, in west, of class-based politics/‘politics of ideology’ & rise of ‘politics of identity’ • Results in expansion of protection to language and religion • UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities 1992: positive and negative obligations on states to protect such minorities as groups and to encourage conditions for promotion of that identity and also rights of persons belonging to these groups. • UN Draft Declaration on Rights Indigenous Peoples 1994 • European Framework Convention for Protection of National Minorities 1995 3. 4. Historical background: mid- late 20th century (continued) • Turn of new millennium: multiculturalism increasingly taken for granted by some human rights activists/scholars as paradigm for realising human rights in culturally diverse societies • eg wariness of criticism of Islam: ‘Islamophobia’ • Simultaneously increasingly criticised by others • Immigration: increasingly problematic for west • What to do with illiberal minority cultures which do no