Are Human Rights Ethnocentric?
Primary tabs
Are Human Rights Ethnocentric?
The question of human rights is currently and always seems to have been a highly debatable subject especially since the advent of mass interconnectivity. A prime aspect of the question of human rights is whether or not they are ethnocentric, which can be defined by the Webster’s New World Dictionary of American Language (1974 edition) as the emotional attitude that one’s ethnic group, nation, or culture is superior to all others. In this paper I will claim that human rights, or the standards of a system, which dictate what is right and what is wrong are ethnically based, which in turn bring a certain standard of rights upon the world. The actual enforcement of these rights is another question, which is also debatable, which will also be slightly touched upon here. Human rights have always seemed to develop in the community, however with the modern advances of globalization and its affect upon culture, collective identity, the decline of the nation-state, and the new global institutions that form and mold power human rights have become highly Western liberally minded. The idea that the “West is better than the rest†especially in the area of ‘rights’ has spurned many movements, in the defense of Western liberal minded human rights across the globe, but in order to truly have success when working towards a better world one must take into mind that what they deem as normal and moral might not necessarily be the normal and moral way of that particular society in question, thus one must strive to make their views less ethnocentric and begin to place themselves in “Others†shoes.
One area to start looking at the ideas behind human rights is that which is brought out by Michel Foucault and the ideas he brought forth in regards to the power to regulate human beings, thus creating a normalizing force. It is believed that by creating regulatory powers, the power to regulate, you create standards of what people find as acceptable ways to behave or interact in society, which in terms of human rights has been highly a liberal Western based standard of ideals. History has created the modern world and largely due to the West’s great influence through force and a belief in superiority its ideals have become the normal way for people to treat others. With the regulation of power comes a certain form of accepted knowledge, power and knowledge being involved in a symbiotic style relationship. The fact will always exist if the current system remains, that politics will always produce subjective knowledge, or the type which is formed to suit it best. Thus you have here the creation of a universal form of human rights to help feed the other ideals of the neo-liberal west, especially capitalism. The normalization of life and standardization of human rights creates an atmosphere which is ideal for capitalism to flourish, since it creates a content citizenry centered on the work ethic with a thin moral code to protect them from the “Others,†and feed the belly of capitalism, where everyone can have a job and own a television. In reality I believe that it sedates the citizenry to a point of standardization and that they become controlled by the global institutions who wish to create a Huxley type human being who would never question thinking unconventionally. Foucault stated it differently when he wrote, “It is no longer a matter of bringing death into play in the field of sovereignty, but of distributing the living in the domain of value and utility†(p. 266). Therefore it can be summarized that it isn’t always the humanity of human kind which creates ‘rights’, but rather institutions to extract the productivity laid out by the standardization of global institutions. For example, it is so drilled into people, or internalized that they must work, that rarely doe people ever question the ideal of work leading to a rebellion against it for more than a short period of time until they fall back upon their work.
These ideas of human rights formed by knowledge and power are always in the process of development, changing to suit the proper conditions, however the fact remains that many ideals in regards of ‘rights’ have been taken out of context and implemented in other environments causing problems due to ethnocentrism. Staurt Hall states in Culture, Globalization, and the World System that “the moment a concept disappears through the left hand door, it returns through the right hand window, but not in quite the same place†(p. 47). It is believed that because of this the notion of ideas can be abolished for the identities of people are always in the process of creation. In the current system everything is related with globalization connecting people around the world like never before, with peoples identities becoming globalized along with the ideals associated with human flourishing. Many people call this globalization, Americanization which in some aspects is true, but it isn’t only Americans that are globalizing this world, it is everyone from all cultures, large and small. In turn it must be said though, that because to many people and cultures America seems to have been successful in creating the ideal breeding grounds for life, at least to get rich, thus many other people who desire this success follow the American dream or are forced to follow the American dream in order to survive. As a result the American way or Western liberal minded lifestyles are thought to be ‘superior’ in certain aspects, especially the area of human rights since it is believed they deliver the highest potential of human flourishing.
Globalization is seen as creating a global hegemony, or dominance and influence over others by the globalizing forces, in this way ‘rights’ have been spread across the world, for it is the creation of a combined will, which allows for differences to be examined through differences. This global hegemony has created forces which normalize ways of life. After WWII, with Europe in shambles and the US asserted as a global force not to reckon with institutions were created to help rebuild Europe through the economics of capitalism. Also because of the massive death and destruction, perhaps never seen before on that level doctrines were created that laid the standard for ‘human rights.’ In 1965 there was the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, in 1966 there was the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the international Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, in 1979 there was the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, in 1984 the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and in 1989 the Convention of the Rights of the Child (United Nations Development Program, 2003). Today these doctrines set the standards globally of how people should be treated, but the truth is that not all the people of the world got together and created these doctrines, which in turn can make them highly ethnocentric.
According to Chris Brown in his essay Universal Human Rights: A Critique he states that the idea of people having ‘rights’ is a debated topic which in turn leads to another debate of whether ‘rights’ could be attached to individuals of a common humanity. Thus it is a question of whether ‘rights’ actually exist or not and even if they do if you can universally apply them. It has truly become a problem of the present he argues because of the increased connectivity of the world which relates back to the problems of ‘difference,’ one’s view of ethics, and the context of judgment.
Brown goes on to say that “rights only make sense in the context of a particular kind of society – an ‘ethical community’ “ (p.103). For the most part human rights are liberal Western ideals and the fact remains that it is the duty of the government to protect these ‘rights’ since the people have unconditional non-questionable standards of life. The government protection of rights has lead greatly to ethnocentrism, since governments strive to protect and secure human flourishing frequently disregarding anything that isn’t associated with this. Interrelated with the notion of human rights comes the idea of civilization, therefore meaning that ‘rights’ create civil human beings or beings that can function in a modern day society. In fact Brown states, “The language of rights has facilitated the establishment of some of the freest, safest and most civilized societies known to history†(p. 105). Due to this fact of ‘human flourishing’ Western liberal societies become models for other struggling countries to follow. While an attempt is made to create a universal way of living and rules for which it is acceptable for societies to follow.
It seems that according to Brown there are two distinct forms of law to follow, that of positive law and that of natural law. Positive law is that which is enforced by police, judges and the specific laws of sovereignty. However, these positive laws are difficult to define as human rights, since the laws are in the context of a specific sovereignty. For example in 1215 the Magna Charta stated rights for a certain group of people When it comes to natural laws is when you have standards imposed universally that can be argued as human rights. Natural laws can be defined as the following:
(i) A set of basic practical principals which indicate the basic forms of human
flourishing as goods to be pursued and realized, and which are in one way or
another used by everyone who considers what to do [and] (ii) a set of basic
methodological requirements of practical reason ableness… Which distinguish
sound from unsound practical thinking, and which, when brought to bear
provide the criteria [which enable us] to formulate (iii) a set of general
moral standards. (p. 106)
Here natural rights argue that there is a general moral code associated with human beings that are universal in their applications and directly related back to the ideals of human flourishing. The focus of natural law is that universalism, which seems to be opposed to the local law or sovereignty. The key here is that it is believed that these natural laws have always existed independently of a given sovereignty or particular society, thus they create an ethnocentric way of viewing rights, since here it is believed that these laws are above all others and nullify those which contradict them. Brown states it by saying that, “customs vary considerably and any formula designed to cover all the possibilities is likely to end up devoid of real content†(p. 108). However in contrast to this idea “practical reasoning’ has evolved which involve the simple forms of human flourishing exaimined through the accepted ways of thinking, yet for the most part this “practical reasoning†like all reasoning has a reason behind it which base their ideals through the knowledge of the society they were raised in, which means that unless an effort is taken to encapsulate all walks of life these ideals will be ethnocentric.
One of the main reasons why human rights are thought to be ethnocentric is because of the fact that these natural laws carry a form of absolutism with them, creating a distinction between what rights are thought to be absolute and which ones can be overlooked in the interest of the common good. With absolutism there is always a clash between the public interest and the absolute rights, a prime example being that of Americans and the right to bear arms. Here it is viewed as a Constitutional right to bear arms, yet due to this fact many people have been injured or even worse, therefore though the law was originally designed to protect the common good time has turned it into a dangerous weapon which Americans can freely exercise. In turn these views are instilled in other outside cultures and societies because it is viewed that they were successful in context, yet when you take them out of context and ethnocentrically impose ideas problems tend to arise.
One way to view the relation of human rights and ethnocentrism is through the community, civil society, and the state. The community creates itself through the ideas of what it deems righteous, where civil society acts upon these standards as a whole providing the backdrop for actions, while the state enforces them. With this in mind certain cultures are classified as ethical communities, that provide a moral code for which to mold society around. An ethical community can be described as an environment which adheres to the ethical practices commonly found in that culture. When molding a society these rights created by ‘ethical communities’ are taken into effect and regarded as the proper thing to do in a situation, though because these rights are the product of a certain ‘ethical community’ it isn’t in good judgment to take them out of context and instill them in another society. Even though ‘rights’ are mainly the by product of a civilizations goal for security, it is not acceptable to decontextualize them because truly all societies are distinct in certain manners, no matter how much the roots of humanity can be argued as the same “grass roots.â€
The definition of humanism is key to point out here, which is the quality of being human, which according to Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American language (1974 edition) can be any system of thought or action based on the nature, dignity, interests, and ideals of man; specifically, a modern non-theistic, rationalist movement that holds that human kind is capable of self-fulfillment and ethical conduct without a recourse of supernaturalism. Therefore by inkling that one is human, accepting that fact, it in turn carries a set of standards as to what it is to be a human. Here in the USA these standards are taught from the youngest age up. Human rights can also be directly linked to the doctrine that man’s obligations are limited to the welfare of mankind and that it is possible to perfect this without divine aid. Furthermore it is instilled that one must protect thy neighbors and treat them as human beings. The problem here remains that by viewing life through set standards of one’s own beliefs taught to you since you were born creates an experience of a certain style of living in an environment and in the quest of life these views are followed and instilled in others, in all creating ethnocentric views of the proper way to live.
A possible solution to ethnocentrism in human rights can be found in Culture, Globalization, and the World System by Staurt Hall:
That is the politics of living identity through difference. It is the politics of
recognizing that all of us are composed of multiple social identities, not of one.
That we are all complexly constructed through different catorgies, of different,
antagonisms, and these may have the effect of locating us socially in multiple
positions of marginality and subordination, but which do not yet operate on us in
exactly the same way.
It can be stated with certainty that throughout history practices have produced different results at different times, and that it appears that the idea of universal human rights shouldn’t be implemented everywhere in the same manner as the context they were derived from, which is frequently Western liberally based.
I find that the quote by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Noble Laureate in Economics of 2002 is a great example of the current form and manner of thinking in terms of the economics that are being strived for, which in turn affects globalization and the wide reaching area of human rights. To date the form of human rights which exists as a majority have been developed side by side with history and to not judge this as the appropriate way of thinking or perhaps believe that his ideas are correct to follow all depends on the perspective of the beholder and how they learn in terms of what they already know. Like all ideas and theories it should be assessed and approached in a context that allows for unbiased judgments and fairness to follow promoting true social justice.
The policy issue is not “to globalize or not to globalize†or “to grow or not
to grow.†In some cases it is not even “to liberalize or not to liberalize.â€
Instead the issues are: To liberalize short-term capital accounts and if so,
how? At what pace to liberalize trade, and what policies should accompany it?
Are there pro-poor growth strategies that do more to reduce poverty as they
promote growth? And are there growth strategies that should be shunned?
(United Nations Human Development Report, p. 80, 2003)
On the whole a few ideas can be related which are that mainly throughout history wars have brought great profit from destruction, that welfare systems are ways to normalize life, which both in turn create ideals of what is acceptable and not acceptable, and education acts as a tool to normalize and humanize. Human rights have been and continue to be a liberal Western ideal which the West has frequently tried to impose on the rest, but in order to truly avoid this ethnocentrism of cultures it is necessary to realize that is almost impossible to take these ‘rights’ out of context and impose them on another group in hopes of shedding the same results seen in the original environment. Efforts should be taken world wide to strive for the rights of all life forms (human and animal), yet it should be taken into account that there should be no absolute way of dealing with each community, but rather a most flexible set of standards that are actually standards against the standards to develop a non-ethnocentric way of human rights.
Works Cited
Brown, C. Universal human rights a critique. In T. Dunne, N.J. Wheeler (Eds.)Human rights in global politics (pp. 103-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader: Right of Death and Power Over Life (P. Rabinow, Ed.) New York: Pantheon Books.
United Nations Development Program. (2003). Human development report: 2003
millennium development goals: a compact among nations to end human poverty.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. (1974). New York:
William Collins + World Publishing Co., Inc.