Pochinski 1
Brian Pochinski
Anthropology 447
Dr. Bornstein
April 26, 2012
Questions of Cultural Norms: Implications for Human Rights Discourse
Cultural variation seems to lead to conflict when discussing important questions of
human rights discourse. The attempt at universal human rights is desirable, but rights do not
appear to be cross-culturally universal. The inability to reach concurrent thought has led to
objections and conflicts. Indigenous cultures forced into a globalized society lose their land to
capitalist markets which prevents them from participating in indigenous cultural practices that
require land. Does a dominant culture really deserve the right to strip indigenous people of their
indigenous culture? Similarly, does a dominant culture have the right to promote their cultural
norms throughout the world? These two questions have created tension and conflict in debates
regarding human rights. Cultural superiority has been called into question regarding women’s
rights, reparations, migrants’ rights, and international rights law. Cultural relativism seems to be
a difficult if not impossible task to achieve in human rights discourse. The inability of different
cultures coming to a consensus on important rights questions only furthers the tensions that arise
in human rights discourse.
Indigenous peoples are at a major disadvantage in a globalized world. Many indigenous
people are forced to leave their traditional lifestyle and pursue work in the capitalist market
economy. Two-thirds of the land of the Omaheke is owned by commercial cattle ranchers and
almost two-thirds of the San in the Omaheke work on the commercial farms where they face
racism and unfair wages (Sylvain, 2002:1077). The San cannot practice their traditional
subsistence pattern of hunting and gathering if their land no longer belongs to them. Cultural
dynamics of the San are at least in part shaped by external socioeconomic forces. Sylvain (2002)
Pochinski 2
goes on to argue that ideas of what makes people indigenous cannot be restricted to people
practicing their traditional relationships with the land such as hunting and gathering. The San
represent a people that have lost their indigenous lifestyle due do to the restrictions the real world
has placed on them. Globalization brings disputes over land which leads to the loss of land which
leads to the inability to engage in traditional cultural practices. Traditional subsistence patterns
are no longer feasible for the San, but the forced takeover of San land does not make the San less
indigenous.
Cultural differences can be romanticized to create interest in things that are viewed
exotic, but cultural differences can also create resentment for different conceptions of
relationships and also call into question whether or not certain conceptions of a moral culture
take precedence over others creating moral superiority of certain cultures. The relationships
between men and women highlight the difficulties that can arise between different cultures.
Women have made substantial increases in civil rights over the last couple centuries in America
and Europe which has led to “Western elites treating women’s status as a key indicator a
people’s civilization” (Ticktin, 2011:148). The inequalities women face in Muslim culture has
sparked the idea of Orientalist fantasies which involve cunning western males “coming to the
rescue of oppressed, veiled women” (Ticktin, 2011:145). Western ideals regarding women’s
rights create a contentious debate over the issue of women’s rights. The Saudi Arabian
delegation objected to Article 16 of The Universal Declaration of Humans Rights because the
article relates to the relationship between males and females which made the Saudi delegation
believe it promoted the ideals of one civilization over another civilization (Ignatieff, 2003:5859). A document to protect human rights is crucial to ensure rights will be protected, but a
Pochinski 3
document that cannot create equality and consensus across all cultures and cultural practices in
the world will lead to more debates over cultural superiority.
Reparations are difficult to debate after a nation or group of individuals has been harmed
in some way by another nation or group of individuals. It is difficult for one party to accept
giving reparations to another party because giving reparations shows the admittance of guilt
(Slyomovics, 2009:96). No county wants to admit committing serious wrongs and the same can
be said about individuals in a given culture. The same sense of cultural superiority that has been
criticized by those who have not adopted the women’s rights movement can affect the
reparations process. The UN Security Council voted 94-3 for the U.S. to pay reparations to
Nicaragua for the United States involvement in the Contra War, but the U.S. ignored the U.N.
Security Council and remained involved in the Contra War (Philips, 2009:67). A dominant
culture has the ability to avoid culpability for its actions. International law is helpless to enforce
reparations if the guilty party is not forced to comply. Adequate discourse of rights to reparations
requires the acceptance of equality in cultural practices and requires a forced obligation to
culpability even if the guilty party has military strength and economic resources.
Immigrants have a particularly difficult time ensuring their human rights are protected.
Immigrants can have a hard time gaining legal citizenship as well as public services such as
health care. France has attempted to pass universal legislation that transcends cultural
backgrounds in order to provide immigrants in need access to health care (Ticktin, 2011:126).
Ticktin (2011:89-90) criticizes the universal legislation referring to it as the illness clause which
not only allows for assistance to immigrants with serious pathologies, but the illness clause also
leaves room for individuals to use the clause to obtain assistance and legal citizenship in France.
Many of the immigrants that try to qualify share a sociocultural history of experiencing poverty
Pochinski 4
and being victimized by colonialism (Ticktin, 2011:119). The legislation that transcends cultural
background is therefore most beneficial for individuals coming from cultures that have endured
the greatest hardships. The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 pushed European Union members to minimize
the refugees they accept for political asylum which has led to a sharp rise in immigrants seeking
citizenship under the illness clause (Ticktin, 2011:94). Culturally disenfranchised individuals
whom are forced to leave their homeland in search of some place better place to live are losing
their ability to seek asylum and are left with no choice except seeking illness. Sick and disabled
immigrants benefiting from their ailment has led to the “suffering body becoming the most
legitimate vehicle in with which to do politics” (Ticktin, 2011:127). The only remedy for the
suffering cultures seems to be enhancing the suffering that has been placed on impoverished
cultures.
Cultural differences create difficulty in drafting universal human rights legislation. Laws
regarding the protection of women are among the most disputed laws regarding human rights and
cultural freedom. Documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) see culture as a barrier for women’s rights (Merry,
2003:60). The Vienna Declaration of 1993 sought to eradicate conflicts stemming from
traditional practices and cultural prejudice (Merry, 2003:61). Cultural relativism is a staple of
anthropological thought, but foreign ideals regarding the treatment of women have been rejected
to allow for an attempt at equality between men and women. Female genital cutting is a wellknown contentious issue in the realm of women’s rights. The issue of female genital cutting has
been seen as a battle against “harmful traditional cultural practices”, but on emphasis on this
battle has resulted in ignoring other important human rights issues such as the “access to
education and jobs, to clean water and adequate food, and to divorce (Merry, 2003:58). The
Pochinski 5
disregard for other important human rights issues demonstrates the idea of “Western elites
treating women’s status as a key indicator a people’s civilization” (Ticktin, 2011:148). Once
again the question of what cultural practices should take precedence and obtain superior status
comes into play. Cultural equality is something to strive for, but if too much emphasis is put on
cultural equality in one particular realm of human rights the overall effect of international human
rights law will be hampered and rights laws will be unable to create effective and holistic human
rights laws.
Questions pertaining to culture and superiority will continue to raise contentious debate
in human rights discourse. Globalization has led to the encroachment of indigenous land and the
loss indigenous practices which has led to questioning people’s indigenous status. Superiority in
cultural practices and beliefs seems to be where the most important questions in human rights
discourse arise. The promotion Western superiority has been called into question and sparked
fierce debate in the realm of women’s rights, rights to reparation, immigrants’ rights and
international human rights law. Ethnocentrism will never bring consensus among the cultures of
the world, but cultural relativism seems impossible judging from the conflicts that arise from
differences in culture.
Pochinski 6
Works Cited
Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2001. Print.
Johnston, Barbara R., and Slyomovics, Susan, eds. Waging War, Making Peace: Reparations
and Human Rights. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2009. Print.
Johnston, Barbara R. “Waging War, Making Peace: The Anthropology of Reparations.” Johnston
and Slyomovics 11-28.
Merry, Sally E. Human Rights Law and the Demonization of Culture (And Anthropology along
the Way). PoLAR. 26(1): 55-76.American Anthropological Association. 2003. Print.
Philips, James. “When Governments Fail: Reparation, Solidarity, and Community in Nicaragua.”
Johnston and Slyomovics 57-72.
Slyomovics, Susan. “Reparations in Morocco: The Symbolic Dirham.” Johnson and Slyomovics
95-114.
Sylvain, Renee. “Land, Water, and Truth”: San Identity and Global Indigenism. American
Anthropologist. 104(4): 1075-1085. American Anthropological Association. 2002. Print.
Ticktin, Miriam. Casualties of Care: Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism in
France. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Print.