Pochinski 1
Brian Pochinski
Anthropology 447
Dr. Bornstein
March 6, 2012
Conflict and Values: The Struggle between Individuals, Cultures, and Human Rights
Defining human rights is one the more difficult challenges humanity has faced thus far in
history. A universal set of human rights is desirable and advantageous, but defining universal
rights applicable to all cultures and individuals may not be a reality. Protecting cultural values
puts individuals at risk having their human rights violated. Focusing on protecting the rights of
individuals can lead to disregarding cultural values. Reality seems to force people to choose to
put more emphasis on either protecting the individuals of the world or protecting the differing
cultures of the world. How can human rights theorists reconcile protecting the rights of
individuals without looking at certain culture’s practices as subordinate to other culture’s
practices? All people are shaped by their culture. A culture can either shape individual members
to have respect for the rights of all individuals or only to have respect for select individuals.
Respecting only select people causes other people to be subordinate to the select people. Cultures
that make any of their members subordinate do not deserve the right to claim injustice because of
the cultural superiority of other cultures in the realm of human rights theories, because those
cultures are themselves guilty of producing superior and subordinate groups of people.
Definitions of human rights cannot accept all of the cultural practices in the world in order to
protect the human rights of all individuals in the world.
Thomas Paine dichotomized human rights into natural rights and civil rights in the 18th
century. Natural rights include freedom of thought and the right to happiness (Paine 1792:134).
Civil rights stem from natural rights and include the right to security and protection. The
freedoms granted in natural rights are not without limitations. Paine (1792:135) stipulates that
Pochinski 2
implementation of natural rights “cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are
retained in the individual.” People retain the ability to think any way they like, but those thoughts
cannot lead to a violation of another individual’s natural rights. By imposing limitations on
rights, Paine provides a crucial advantage in ensuring the rights obtained by all individuals are
equally distributed. One person’s thoughts cannot lead to the deprivation of anyone’s of
happiness, security, or protection. Rights have two separate categories, but they still form a
symbiotic relationship that allows for the protection of individuals.
Paine provides equal rights for all individuals, but some cultures will have certain
rights stripped away from them because they violate an individual’s rights. Saudi Arabia
provides an interesting example on how cultural relativity is rejected in order to better secure the
rights of individuals. Females in Saudi Arabia do not have free choice in marriage in order to
protect their system of patriarchal property relations (Ignatieff 2001:59). To reject the restrictions
placed upon female marriage choice would better ensure no individuals were deprived of a right
that does not infringe on any other individual’s rights. The right people have to choose their own
property relations in this instance, does however infringe on the freedom the women have to
choose whom they want to marry. An unfortunate outcome of protecting the rights of the women
is cultural relativism is abandoned. Saudi’s have even charged that human rights movements
promoting free marriage support “the superiority of one civilization over all others” (Ignatieff
2001:59). It is hard to contest the superiority claim, but the need to protect the individual rights
of the women cannot be dismissed. Selective infringement on certain rights of individuals is still
a violation of rights and cannot be tolerated if one wishes to protect the rights of individuals.
Female marriage choice in the lens of human rights also brings out the issue of
conformity. Even if the women arrive at the free thought of accepting their chosen marriage, the
Pochinski 3
societal pressures pushing them toward conformity cannot be overlooked. People conform to
their settings all of the time. Regardless of situation, an individual will adjust their behavior to
what is expected of them whether situation is at school, home or work. Individuals choosing not
to conform to their situation will face consequences. The holocaust depended on the German
people conforming to their situation helping to illustrate the pressures conformity can have on an
individual’s actions. Human rights regarding freedom of thought must be concerned will the
consequences of choosing a particular free thought. Thought that leads to negative consequences
in one’s culture is not free thought, and is therefore thought that is violated of the natural rights
retained by individuals.
Paine’s theory on rights seems to lack the cultural sensitivity that is a staple of more
recent anthropological thought. The American Anthropological Association (1947:539) suggests
a declaration concerning human rights must respect the personality of an individual and maintain
respect for different cultures. Unlike the 18th century, “rights of Man in the 20th century cannot
be circumscribed by the standards of any single culture” (American Anthropological Association
1947:543). Furthermore, the personality of an individual can only be developed to its fullest in
terms of the culture of that individual (American Anthropological Association 1947:540). 20th
century ideas on human rights have progressed in a sense of cultural sensitivity, but it can hard to
determine how far to take cultural sensitivity. An extreme case of cultural relativism would
accept conforming to and supporting the Nazi movement as attempting to develop ones
personality to its fullest in Germany during WWII. Accepting Nazi culture subsequently accepts
gross atrocities on countless individuals. The respect for both cultural practices and an
individual’s personality can create a paradoxical scenario that was avoided in earlier human
rights notions that accepted a lack of cultural relativism in certain situations.
Pochinski 4
Rights of differing cultures and the rights of individuals that make up the different
cultures in the world seem to be at odds with each other. It is impossible to maintain complete
respect for both cultures and individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human rights had to
juggle with this delicate balance between the respect for individuals and the respect for cultures,
but it appears that the respect for the rights individuals maintained more consideration and
protection. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1947) states that “marriage shall be
entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses” in article 16. Consent in
marriage however, contrasts with the cultural practice in Saudi Arabia restricting female
marriage choice in order to protect patriarchal property relations. The Saudi delegation has
refused to ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights due article 16 and article 18 which
promotes freedom of religion (Ignatieff 2001:59). Islamic beliefs conflict with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights because “universalizing rights discourse implies a sovereign and
discrete individual, which is blasphemous from the perspective of the Holy Koran” (Ignatieff
2001:60). People are free to choose their religion and their marital practice, but that freedom is
conditional in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cultural freedom is sacrificed in order
to secure the freedom of the individuals in that culture.
Definitions of human rights must acknowledge and accept the conflict between the rights
retained by cultures and the rights retained by individuals. The removal of cultural sensitivity
makes it easy to protect the rights of individuals, but it has the consequence of deeming certain
cultural practices superior to others. Cultural relativism helps people to appreciate the fact that
alternatives can be as equally valid their own ideas and practices. Unlimited acceptance of a
culture allows the acceptance of genocide because a particular culture deems it necessary or
justified. Governments across the world must realize that protecting the rights of individuals may
Pochinski 5
mean rejecting certain cultural practices due to a violation of human rights that should be
retained by all individuals. A culture that is itself guilty of creating inferior individuals cannot go
on to claim injustice through cultural hierarchy and superiority. A culture must respect the rights
of all individuals in order to guarantee that the culture will be respected by other cultures in the
world.
Pochinski 6
Works Cited
Executive Board, American Anthropological Association. “Statement on Human Rights.”
American Anthropologist, New Series 49.4(1947): 539-543. Print.
Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
2001. Print.
Paine, Thomas. “The Rights of Man.” The Human Rights Reader: Major Political Writings,
Essays, Speeches, and Documents From the bible to the Present. Ed. Ishay, Micheline.
New York: Routledge, 1997. 134-138. Print.
United Nations. Human Rights Division. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1998. 1 Mar.
2012. Web.