Introduction
The earliest conceptualization of human rights is credited to ideas about natural rights emanating from natural law. In the 17th century John Locke, English philosopher, discussed the natural rights in his work, and identified them as being life, liberty, and estate. In later history, 19th century, human rights became a central concern in the issue of slavery, whereas the Slave Trade Act 1807 and Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was created. In the 20th century, with the World Wars, the development of modern human rights instruments began. This along with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Hence, more conventions with rights for women, children, and handicaps have been made. The position of human rights is an absolute one, arguing that everyone has certain rights by virtue being a human being, irrespective of their origin or cultural community (Drejer,2016).
Universalism and cultural relativism
The public discourse concerning international law and human rights, is growing increasingly. For decades, the debate about the universalism versus cultural relativism has existed in legal scholarship. This is an ongoing discussion, with many different situational aspects, which influence the definition of what human rights truly is (Drejer,2016). Hence the moral, ethical, and religious standards as well as the understanding of gender equality are some of the aspects, directing the discourse’s concerning human rights and its complexity.
The classical definition of human rights, is a right, which is universal and held by all persons: “A human right by definition is a universal moral right, something which all men, everywhere, at all times ought to have, something of which no one may be deprived without a grave affront to justice, something which is owing to every human being, simply because he is a human” (Renteln, 1988:47).
The theoretical basis of universal human rights argues how the universal concept of human rights is inalienable, self-evident and applicable to all human beings (Lower,2013). Western philosophers, such as John Locke, share this understanding of the all human beings as individual and free. The universal human right concept hold values which, in its opinion, should be adopted by states worldwide. The conception notice how human rights, shares a legal universalism that indicates how all human beings are equal no matter gender, ethic, culture, or religion (Lower,2013).
In opposition to the above view on human rights is the concept of cultural relativism. It indicates that all ethical truth is relative to a specified culture. Cultural relativists advocate the importance of cultural dependency, and how no moral principles can be made to apply to all cultures. A universal and general assumption on human rights is therefore not to be found, because of the emphasis on moral autonomy and communal self-determination (Donnelly,1984). One of the arguments from the cultural relativists is, that universalism is an attempt to extend a Western ideal to the rest of the world (Renteln,1988:350). Instead cultural relativists are generally supportive of a more traditional or local approach to justice, as they believe these will contribute more to post-conflict reconciliation (Donnelly,1984).
Discussion of universalism versus cultural relativism
A number of discussions, to do with the two different concepts of human rights, has appeared in the history. In this passage, I choose to discuss the two concepts out of the views on cultural universal assimilation, cultural and moral differences and cultural imperialism.
The West’s universal norms in human rights as non-applicable in Eastern cultures
The universal collective rights, in its core, can be argued as being unrepresentative of the entire world (Renteln,1988:350). For instance, from the Third World perspective, in addition to ‘Article 21: “Universalize Western-style elections”, it can be told that monarchies, dictatorships, single-party rules and so on, are still not a non-existing election styles in the world today, since each country act out of their own set of beliefs, and moral standards (Renteln,1988:350). Therefore, the universal perspective on human rights, can have tendency to use an ethnocentric approach, because of the view on all human beings as equal and responsible of their own lives. A weakness, therefore, is to neglect the diverse cultural understanding of human beings (Renteln, 1988:350). According a cultural relativist, this assumption on the ethnocentric approach on universal rights can lead to assimilation. This to be understood because of the dominant doctrine of human rights, as universal, and thereby not working to integrate different beliefs within a variety of cultures. Instead it is understood as an “disintegration of human rights (…) demoralization of human personality” (Somer & Roberts,2008:394).
Hence, to find correlation and reconciliation between the two concepts is rather complicated because of the argument that the West is imposing human rights principles on cultures in Asia, Africa and elsewhere (Sjoberg,2001:13). However, Sen (1999) argues that this is not to be the whole story, because the Eastern cultures already embrace a number of the moral patterns ascribed to the West (Sjoberg,2011:13).
Cultural and moral differences
Cultural diversity raises a significant complexity because of the different assumptions in universalistic and relativistic understandings. It is not possible to conclude, how all cultures share the same concept of human rights, on the basis of evidence currently available (Renteln,1988:358). These cultural differences can lead to problems between countries as well as continents. Therefore, to create one common presumption of human rights is utopian because of the culture’s different impact. Also, the universal perspective on human rights begins to stagger, when it is being confronted with divergent interpretations of humanitarian standards (Renteln,1988:358). An example of this can be found in Alison Renteln’s paper on “The Concept of Human Rights”, where she argues the complexity of cultural and moral differences, in the context of Female genital mutilation. The Western rights theories do not share the same perspective on moral grounds as the African countries. The custom of circumcision, as a part of the moral belief, occurs to be different and in discrepancy with The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In most African countries, justifications of female circumcision are happening on moral grounds. The performing of circumcision rites is of course to keep women faithful (Renteln,1988:359). The complexity, is to be found in the acceptance of the moral system by the members of the culture, because the society acts in the practice of ostracising the women who are not being circumcised.
In addition to this, I argue and interpret how the women, who are preforming the practice, are then acting out of a ‘Moral Blindness’, which Hannah Arendt’s (Somers & Roberts,2008) describes as a term explaining when a person is acting out of a belief that the person does not see as morally wrong (Somers & Romers,2008). Furthermore, Renteln argues that it is not possible to presume that all moral codes contain the same or similar values. Hence, the cultural diversity is crucial to understand the relativistic perspective. In connection to Female genital mutilation, Niezen writes about Anna’s story in: “The Origins of Indigenism: Human Rights and the Politics of Identity”. Annas’s case for the suppression of female genital mutilation, illustrates a girl’s resistance of the cultural practice, and explains, that only through sustained pressure upon governments that the power of international embarrassment can lead to meaningful reform (Niezen,2003:114).
The concept of universalism as a cultural imperialism
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights appeared in 1948, critique surfaced expressing how the universal system of ethics, did not truly represent all human expressions of social good and rightful conduct. The state government, particularly from Asia, examined the democratic development, among others, as imperialistic arrogance toward the countries that are non-western (Niezen,2003:96). Furthermore, some Anthropologies with a cultural relativistic perspective denied how the proposed Declaration was applicable to all human beings. “(…) a statement of rights conceived only in terms of the values prevalent in the countries of Western Europe and America (…) over whom hegemony had been established” (Somer & Roberts,2008:394) would align to their ideology and argumentation.
However, the discourse still lives today. Article 17, in The Universal Declaration of Human rights communicates: how everyone has the right to own property alone as well in association with others. Zvobgo, a commentator, argues how this article “seeks to impose free enterprise and capitalism on the rest of the world” (Renteln,1988:350). Hence, a cultural imperialism can occur, because of the expectancy from the universal perspective, how all equal human beings are in the position of land ownership. However, this is not at all the reality in countries all over the world. In the perspective of cultural relativism, it cannot be concluded as a human right. Countries with women oppression do not allow women the right to own a property, without the approval of their husband. This is shown in the article “10 Examples of Gender Inequality in the World”, more specifically in passage 9: “Restricted Land Ownership” (Case assignment,2017). It describes how women, in North Sudan, Tanzania, and Lesotho, are at disadvantage because of their gender, and therefore cannot own their own property. A Woman is not allocated land without the approval of her husband (Case assignment,2017).
Universalism and cultural relativism on a continuum
To summarize the two concepts of respectively universalism and relativism, it is complicated to advocate for one of them only. The ideologies, that each of them possess indicate both weak and strong points. The weakness in universalism is the absence of cultural understanding and the ability to understand each culture out of its own set of norms, moral and religious beliefs. Thus, to make human rights universal I argue for the necessity of allowing compatibility with cultural differences. Likewise, the concept of cultural relativism carries a weakness, if indigenous traditions becomes too extreme and leads to moral blindness. The strength however, is that it allows us to hold fast to our moral institutions. Hence, I want to emphasise how the concept of universalism ought to work together with cultural relativism, on a continuum, trying to use the best of both concepts, with a sensibility toward the specific context.
Evaluation on women’s rights in the Middle East and North Africa
The Middle East and North African countries (MENA), have over the last decades shown progress in certain human rights categories, while the gender equity still lags behind. This leads to consequences within the societies, through gender-based violent practice like: honor killings and female genital mutilation (Kulczycki & Windle,2012).
In this chapter of my thesis I want to evaluate women’s rights in the Middle East, in addition to religion, Shari’a, as the legal system. In this I utilize studies from Freedom House, founded in 1941, which is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion freedom and democracy around the world (Freedomhouse,2017). Freedom House conducted a comprehensive study of women’s rights in the MENA-region from 2010 that I use to argue in this passage.
The religious influence of women’s rights in the Middle East
The concept of universal human rights, as presented earlier in the thesis, attempts to achieve a morality beyond culture and religion, based on a system of knowledge. Therefore, it has no place for saints, prophets, or revolutionaries (Niezen,2003:96). The cultural relativism is therefore a concept, which helps us to examine why the indigenous belief and custom are different from other secularized Western countries. For instance, in Saudi-Arabia, the legal system is based on Shari’a which means the basic law of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not guarantee gender equality (Freedomhouse,2017). In contrary, to other Western countries, gender inequality is built into Saudi-Arabia’s governmental and social structures. This meaning how it is integral to the country’s state supported interpretation of Islam, which is interpreted from a literal reading of the Koran and Sunna (ibid.). Furthermore, the religious opinions are stated by an ‘ulema’ – religious scholars – who determines the social agenda. Through the ulema’s opinion the Saudi citizens ascribe to the understanding of gender inequalities as not being discrimination (ibid.). Regarding to family law in Shari’a, women are considered legal minors under the control of their ‘mahram’ – closest male relative -, which also leaves them in a position where they cannot act as an individual and free human being. Hence, I argue how women’s rights is an issue in the Middle East, more specific in Saudi-Arabia, because of the religious point of view on men and women as unequal. This understanding goes against the universal human rights declaration (UDHR), and leaves women inferior to their male counterparts. However, Saudi Arabia has over the last decades develop better conditions for women in terms of education (ibid.)
Honor killing in the MENA countries
Every year around the world an increasing number of women are reported having been killed in the name of “honor”. Studies from United Nations Population Fund in 2000, estimate that as many as 5,000 women and girls are murdered every year (Amnestyusa,2017). However, it is reported in the MENA region, that the primary reasons for honor killings are viewed as acceptable in the patriarchal and patrilineal societies because of their mechanism for maintaining strict control over women, their productive power, and designated familial power structures (Kulczycki & Windle,2012:1455). Thereby, the honor killings remove the women who from the system, who would potentially show an aberrant behavior, and provide an example for other women, and families, who might deviate from the norm (Kulczycki & Windle,2012:1455). As I have argued earlier, this moral standard, and custom of practice, is acceptable according the legal Islamic system, Shari’a. However, it still contradicts with the Universal Declaration of Human rights, because of the universal right that every human being as free and independent, which is stated in Article 2 in the declaration (Amnestyusa,2017). Furthermore, the violence, as well as the killing, is a crime against the universal rights of justice. However, it is complicated because UDHR cannot enact a law within a country that has its own legal rights system. Many NGO’s as well as political organisations to advocate and urge states, within the countries, to have tougher laws regarding honor killings and punish perpetrators, which is improving, but it is still a big problem.