"Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?" --Pontius Pilate to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ Superstar
THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALISM AND RELATIVISM IN HUMAN RIGHTS
Dr. Nikolas K. Gvosdev
By its very name, "human rights" imply universality, for these are rights that are sited in the human being by virtue of being human, not bound by geography, culture, locality, or time. A human right is held to be operative at all times that a human being is in existence, regardless of occupation, gender, class, or nationality, and held to be "eternal" in the sense that the right has existed for as long as humanity, even if governments and states and societies were slow to recognize their existence.
This is what makes "human rights" problematic. The American "Bill of Rights", by contrast, is limited to "citizens" and "residents" of the United States of America, enforceable within the boundaries of the United States by functioning courts of law. Moreover, for much of the nation's history, it was accepted that American rights were limited to America--a sense that the United States was that "city on a hill", a unique state. President Madison drew distinctions between the forms of government existing in the Old and New Worlds, positing that there were quantitative differences between them. The theme inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty is that people come from elsewhere to the United States to be free. Therefore, for some Americans, the spread of American rights to other parts of the world could only occur as other parts of the world became more Americanized.
This leads into the problem of the universal nature of rights since the expression of rights is inextricably bound up with a nation's political culture. Since different political cultures exist, there are different expressions of rights and differences in application. In dealing with these differences, one can approach the problem from several different angles:
This presupposes that there is such a thing as a universal human right, and that it is desirable to ensure conformity with a single standard. All nations, states, and institutions must be judged accordingly, and should bring their practices into line with that standard as rapidly as possible. Differences among nations can only be explained as deviations from the one standard. The world is thus divided into camps of "right" and "wrong." This can in turn pose several problems: it can cause serious tensions in international affairs, and it can open up charges of hypocrisy if standards are not consistently upheld in all places at all times. Moreover, finding agreement on a single standard can prove difficult. One of the current problems in international affairs with regard to human rights is the charge that the current human rights regime is largely Western in its orientation and reflects not absolute values but is an attempt to enshrine Western extreme individualism as opposed to more collectivist views in other parts of the world during a period of Western political and economic hegemony.
This allows for differences in standards and practices around the world but at the same time makes it difficult to render any sort of qualitative judgments. This is especially dangerous when different societies come up with different standards of humanity. The Nazi regime defined human in narrowly ethnic terms; communist states often used class as a way to discriminate.
Relativism creates impotence in world affairs. The damage that is done can be seen in recent reports that incoming freshmen in the United States are reluctant to condemn the atrocities of the Nazi regime on the grounds that they lack the capacity to make judgments on the essential right-ness or wrong-ness of others' actions. Relativism also means that corrupt and oppressive governments can claim that inhumane or brutal treatment of their own citizens is a cultural matter.
This provides for a recognition of universal rights but also recognizes that the form that these rights take in different societies and under different conditions can vary. It also provides for a recognition that the hierarchy of rights--in other words, which rights take precedence over other rights--might change as circumstances change.
However, this still leaves problems with implementation and judgment. Lacking any international body with both the capability to judge and the capacity to act in the area of human rights, however, the global community continues to depend upon some sort of consensus with regard to the lee-way in which human rights treaties and pledges are implemented. There also remains the real problem as to which sets of priorities take precedence. Some argue that civil and political rights must take a back seat to economic and social guarantees, while others point out that if civil and political rights are lacking in a society, that there can be no long-term economic security and no way to ever ensure social and political liberty. There can also be problems in determining the degree to which individual rights conflict with collective ones. To what extent is the individual free to disagree with the collective and to what extent can such deviations be tolerated?
One must also call attention to a growing split within national communities between two classes of people: cosmopolitans and "sons of the soil." "Cosmopolitans" are those who by education and economic status are able to interact with others on the global scene (business, travel, etc.) and have the capacity to some extent to move from their surroundings--they are both economically as well as geographically mobile. What also marks cosmopolitans is their ability to interact with fellow cosmopolitans from other countries, which enhances their tendency towards universal values and globalism. "Sons of the soil" are those more bound to a particular locality, lacking mobility. Cosmopolitans may be more inclined to speak a common political and cultural language and place a greater stress on universal theory; "sons of the soil", in contrast, will generally focus on more concrete and tangible rights that deal with actual conditions and be more protective of local customs and traditions. In many countries and societies, these two groups may find it difficult to communicate with each other even though they share a common citizenship or culture. These differences can become especially pronounced when abstract theories conflict with practical needs, or theoretical pronouncements disturb community cohesion (e. g. the right to own land and be an absentee landlord versus community development; school prayer in a small town versus the right of a lone dissenter to object, etc.) "Sons of the soil" are likely to place a much greater value on community cohesion over abstract theoretical principles.