Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs.

Universalism 1 Running Head: EXAM 1: CULTURAL RELATIVISM VS UNIVERSALISM

Exam 1: Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism in Marriage Ashish Chand San Jose State University

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 2 Abstract Cultural relativism is the idea that an individuals culture is a sufficient source of moral values and human rights. At the opposite end of the spectrum, universalism says that cultural values can make little or no significant contributions to human rights. In the middle of the spectrum, there is intermingling of the two schools of thought, leaning in either direction. Strong universalism, with weak cultural relativism is selected as the preferred concept for human rights implementation. The human right to marriage with free consent of spouses is examined as a case study for this. Keywords: cultural relativism, universalism, strong universalism, weak cultural relativism, marriage

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 3 Human rights are typically thought of as universal. In an ideal world, every human being is born with the same rights and freedoms. However, as different parts of the world become more and more interconnected, we start to see the mechanisms that exist in cultures around the world for implementing rights for individuals are as various as the cultures themselves. This gives rise to the idea of cultural relativism, which describes systems that use culture as the primary source of human rights. Donnelly (2002) describes two forms: radical cultural relativism and strong cultural relativism. This is in opposition to the idea of universalism, which considers culture to be mostly irrelevant as far as human rights implementation goes (p. 89-90). Universalism holds that human rights are the same everywhere, without the need for cultural specificity. It is difficult to argue against the validity of Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it pertains to individuals, regardless of their cultural associations. As a first generation Indian-American, I have seen the dichotomy between the two schools of thought. Having struggled with both, in recent years, I have come to accept that a strong universalist position on human rights is broader and more encompassing of human rights than cultural relativism, as it allows for cultural variations that dont infringe on individuals rights to well being. Cultural relativism takes two forms: radical cultural relativism and strong cultural relativism. With radical cultural relativism, culture is the only source of moral authority and human rights (Donnelly, 2002, p. 89). This is the extreme form that is frequently seen in developing countries. These cultures are often heavily influenced by the dominant religion of the region and are often xenophobic in nature, hostile and resistant

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 4 to the influence of outsiders. This is the case in some Middle Eastern and East Asian countries, where cultural relativism is used as a tool by the state to deny people of human rights (Blackburn, 2011). With strong cultural relativism, culture is the primary source of moral authority and human rights. Strong cultural relativism differs from radical relativism in that strong relativism allows for external influences in shaping moral values. (Donnelly, 2002, p.90). This circumstance is seen in states that are culturally diverse and mostly tolerant of that diversity. At the other end of the continuum, radical universalism states that culture has no place in determining the rights of individuals. Human rights are basic and universal, applying to every human being, and cultural differences contribute nothing significant to those basic rights (Donnelly, 2002, p. 90). Strong universalism takes a mostly universal approach to implementing human rights, but concedes that different cultures can create variations in how human rights can be implemented around the world. Human rights are basic and universal to individuals, but the methods in which they are implemented can vary cross-culturally (Donnelly, 2002, p. 90). Being raised in a household and community with Indian cultural values in America has granted me the opportunity to witness the four cases presented by Donnelly, firsthand. Cultural values mean different things to people within those cultures. The differences become highlighted when placed against the backdrop of another culture. Some immigrants see their culture as a reminder of the way they and their ancestors

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 5 have approached their lives, which provides comfort and shelter from a strange new land. Others, when exposed to a different culture for the first time, see their own culture as being repressive and backwards, and reject it for what they perceive to be free and forward thinking. Some people seek a middle ground, realizing that they left the home of their cultural ancestors due to some understanding that their circumstances were not working for them. Strong universalism falls somewhere in this middle ground, and it presents the best case for human rights implementation. Donnelly mentions the right to marry and start a family with free consent of spouses, as is listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Donnelly, 2002, p. 96). This is often a hotly contested issue within the Indian culture. Marriage in Indian culture is often a negotiation between two families, arranged by the parents of the married couple. Oftentimes the wishes of the individuals getting married are not even considered, as concerns perceived to be larger than their interests are at stake. Issues of love and compatibility are not taken into account, and they can become problems for both individuals later on in the relationship. When this is compared to the way marriage is conducted in American culture, it could be considered as oppressive by some, a violation of the human right to marry a partner of an individuals choosing. It is easy to see why a rejection of this cultural tradition would occur when exposed to marriage traditions in America. American culture views marriage as a union of two individuals intending to start a family of their own. Familial approval is secondary, if it is even considered at all. This idea is appealing to people who feel oppressed by the marriage options presented to them by their culture.

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 6 Ive known several people who have experienced various degrees of cultural relativism with regards to marriage, all of them from immigrant families. Families which had recently immigrated to America, bringing children born in other countries, tended to have the most radical views. They did not approve of the idea of dating, and would only accept suitors for their children who came from families of which they approved. Two Afghan females I know both had to end relationships due to being prodded into marriages with family approved suitors. Families which have resided in America for a generation or two tended to lean towards more universalist views of marriage, letting their children choose their own partners, while retaining familial involvement. Some people want the structure of arranged marriage. It works for some people and does not work for others. This does not make the concept of arranged marriage a violation of human rights, until it is forcibly presented as the only option available to a person. However, family ties are important to individuals as well. The familial bonds created by marriage are invaluable and helpful to the overall success of a marriage. But, ultimately, marriage is a union of two individuals, not a negotiation between two families. People who are more culturally evolved tend to take this view and attempt to adapt their cultural traditions within the framework of another culture. This is merely one example of a cultural tradition that can be strengthened by a strong universalist view.

Exam 1 Cultural Relativism vs. Universalism 7 References: Donnelly, J. (2002) Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (2nd edition). New York, New York. Cornell University Press. Blackburn, R.L. (2011) Cultural Relativism in the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council. ICIP Working Papers 2011/03. International Catalan Institute for Peace. Barcelona, Spain.