The Western Construct of Human Rights in a Diverse World - Essay Example

Since the emergence of human rights, the interpretation of as well as the concept of human rights has always been diverse, depending on the part of the globe one hails from. While the western culture advocates for inherent and unconditional rights to every individual, non-western societies may limit human rights especially when they are perceived to be in contradiction to their cultural and traditional values. This essay argues that the concept of human rights is no longer exclusively a creation of the west though its traditions and characteristics have greatly been influenced by the west. The essay will also argue that this great influence on human rights by western values and traditions have an impact on how they are perceived by non-western societies and cultures.

Modern human rights were principally developed in the west and their origin can be attributed to the French and American declarations in the 18th century (Kobila 2003, p.102). The discourse and composition of present day human rights documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have borrowed heavily from these two declarations and are therefore arguably constructs of western culture. For instance, the ideology that human rights are inherent an inalienable as entrenched in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be observed in the 1789 French declaration as well as in the American declaration (National assembly of France, 1789). In the French declaration Article 1, “Men are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The same is also stated in Article 1 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights declaration i.e. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Hunt 2007, pp.17-18). Although these documents may differ in that one awards rights to men while the other awards rights to all humans, they have a similarity in that they all focus primarily on the individual. An-Na’im (1992, p. 23) argues that the modern human rights system can thus be said to be a western phenomenon because western culture featured prominently in the developers of human rights. The UDHR document would later be taken on by the United Nations general assembly following the atrocities witnessed in the Second World War and became the cornerstone of modern human rights (Donnelly, 2013, p.5).

Human rights promoted by the UDHR document were different from those contained in previous documents because they emphasized that all humans are equal and deserve equal treatment. Evidence of this is the inclusion of women rights as well as the rights of indigenous groups (Lauren, 2011, p.54). While some elements of past declarations have been maintained, modern day human rights are more universal in terms of their language and content (Ishay 2004, p. 3). Value for human dignity applicable to all individuals is entrenched in modern human rights. Countries from all over the world have endorsed the UDCR document. The fact that this declaration has so far been translated into more than 370 languages is evidence of the adoption of western construct of human rights by other nations of the world (Thamilmaran 2003, p.148).

Differences in values upheld by different cultures and traditions however present a challenge in the implementation of universal human rights (Fagan, 2009, p.64). The west incorporates in their human rights a secular, individualistic and rationalist approach, which can be attributed to their cultural values. On the other hand, some non-western societies are not individualistic, secular nor are they rationalist and may therefore feel that some human rights isolate them and are in conflict with their traditions, culture and religion (Howard 1995, p. 87). While the French and UDHR documents, which have been adopted on a universal scale are more egalitarian in their approach, some cultures like the Hindu may not hold the same belief. Hindus believe in a caste system in which the society is stratified based on karma and dharma (Brodd 2003, p.48). Furthermore other cultures like African, Islamic and even some European societies do not believe in equality for the two genders and therefore an inherent right for all humans is in conflict with their traditions and culture (Haq 2001, p.249). Human rights for the individual therefore become irrelevant for cultures that are communal and non-individualistic like most African and Arabic cultures. Human rights, being heavily influenced by the western culture, are more individualistic and the individual is allowed to pursue their preferred life at the expense of the larger society therefore challenging communal norms in the process. Howard (1995, p.8) argues that Human rights are meant to protect the individual in circumstances where they might be oppressed by societal beliefs. Non-western countries therefore perceive some human rights irrelevant and inappropriate because they are in contradiction to their indigenous traditional values (Reidy, 2005, p.368).

As stated human rights are universally supported, with numerous states from around the globe having ratified human rights treaties, regardless of the notion that they are heavily influenced by western culture (Pettman 2010, p.133). Indeed, the state is the internationally recognized implementer and enforcer of human rights (Kohen 2007, p.132). As such, human rights exist only if a state is committed to implementing them. A majority of UN member states has ratified various human rights agreements that fight for the rights of minorities (e.g. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination) and women (e.g. Convention on the Elimination of All Forces of Discrimination of Women). This is a demonstration of the cross-cultural acceptance of the concept of human rights as presented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This can be attributed to articles in the UDHR that protect the rights of minority groups, women as well as groups with diverse cultures.

In spite of these provisions that seek to protect cultural rights, human rights as conceptualized by western civilization remain discordant with human rights policies of nations that are indigenous and those that have not embraced the western culture. Such states therefore oppose human rights laws because they perceive them as oppressive and harmful to their own traditional and cultural practices. Treaties on human rights like the ICCPR and the ICESR have not been ratified by many states that oppose the western view of equality for all individuals and equal opportunities for education between girls and boys (Kao 2011, p.94). Many governments in Asia have declined to ratify these treaties because they perceive them to be incompatible with their national values and traditional like community over the individual (Xiarong, 1996). Muslim countries like Iran argue that the UDHR, being a western construct is ignorant of their cultural and religious requirements and the country would therefore have no reservations in violating some of its provisions (Mayer 2007, p. 9). Cultural exclusivity continues to be an impediment in the ratification of international treaties on human rights. The cultural relativism has on one hand been used as a reason for the incompatibility of human rights in some non-western states while on the other being used as a justification by societies and nations that continue to grossly violate the rights of their constituents. As such some scholars like An-Na’im (2005, p.57) argues that an approach to the issue of human rights that considers all cultures might be able to explain the lack of compatibility between theory and practice. Violation of human rights based on culture has been observed in numerous non-western cultures, like for instance the practice of sharia law and practice of female genital mutilation. According to Afshari (2001, p. 255), a feeling that traditional systems of authority are being threatened or challenged by western culture through human rights only makes the cultural relativism argument stronger.

In most third world countries, the western concept of human rights was introduced through colonization and this had an impact on the perception of human rights. Introduction of civilization and religion modelled along the western concept of human rights was top in the agenda of the first explorers (Martin, 2005, p.831). This however ended in rebellions and many indigenous people lost their lives as western civilization tried to enforce their morals as the universal morals. This led to many non-western societies questioning whether their basic human rights had been violated in a forceful introduction of the western construct of human rights. Further rebellious acts are seen to be a result of a perceived political interference in sovereign states by western countries with the pretext of advocating for human rights (Goodhart, 2013, p. 75). An example is the African Charter on Human Rights, a document created by African leaders as they refused to accept western influence on their societies.

According to the western construct of human rights, only individuals have internationally recognized rights and not groups. This therefore changes non-western perception of human rights as their traditional practices emphasize more on communal rights rather than individual rights. Female circumcision, which involves a mutilation of reproductive organs of young girls, is an example of a cultural practice that is in conflict with human rights as conceptualized in the western culture (Rahman and Toubia 2000, p.3). This practice in African societies is an important rite of passage before marriage and an important role for a woman in the community (Fineschi and Turillazzi 2007, p.98). Western women however view female circumcision as an infringement of a woman’s basic rights and as such should not be tolerated in a civilized society. Surprisingly, the practice of female circumcision has also been witnessed in some western countries and this forced authority to ban this act .an example is Germany where this practice is ground for asylum (Boyle 2001, p. 8). In Britain, the parliament outlawed female circumcision despite arguments that it was required in some customs. These two examples demonstrate how the western ideology of human rights where they are applicable to an individual is in contradiction with the African concept of human rights. Traditional African system of human rights advocates for collective rights where an individual has obligations and duties to the community (Ibhawoh 2004, p. 32). This argument of collective rights would however not be compatible to the aforementioned decision reached by the British parliament.

Similarly, within modern human rights, a society’s basic unit is the individual rather than the family or the community (Bell, Nathan and Peleg, 2001, p.7). Therefore, human rights cannot and do not take a collective dimension but are applied only as the rights of an individual. Although some human rights like for instance the right to assemble are exercised collectively, still it is individual rights that are considered and not the rights of the whole group. Through alternative declarations like Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, non-western communities recognize and emphasize on the need for collective rights but these remain meaningless, as international human rights laws do not recognize them (Johnston, 2015, p.142). The need for collective rights may also be observed in religious and ethnic minorities who need to uphold their religion and language (Green, 1991, p.317). Still the western cultural influence on human rights can be observed here because even though these rights maybe collective in nature, they are aimed to ensure that the individual is the main beneficiary. Western culture demands that rights be extended to all individuals without first considering if they fulfil their obligations and duties to their community (Donders, 2010, p. 20). To them, culture can be possessed exclusively by the individual and therefore protection of an individual’s rights translates to a protection of culture. Traditionalists however feel that in ignoring collective rights, western civilization tries to establish their values forcefully on human rights as the universal standard. Most non-western communities argue that the west has no moral right to establish and expect all societies to abide by their concept of moral rights (Milne 1986, p.4).

In sum, even though international human rights law is accepted in most states as seen in the nearly worldwide ratification of human rights treaties, human rights remain a western cultural concept. This has some significant impacts on how human rights are perceived by non-western cultures as seen in the general feeling that some human rights are not compatible with national values and traditions of most of the non-western states. Sharia law has been given as an example of how cultural diversity makes it complex to adopt the western influenced concept of human rights as a universal standard. Female circumcision as an example of a belief in collective rights among traditional communities demonstrates how the western concept of individualistic rights is inapplicable to non-western societies. In addition, the general feeling that the concept of human rights was introduced in to African and oriental societies through colonization, political and cultural interference contributes to a negative perception of the western concept of human rights. Most non-western states therefore come up with their own human rights charters as they feel that the western civilization lacks the moral authority to enforce their concept as the universal standard.