The Argument of Cultural Relativism

Many of the same governments argue that members of their cultures prefer consensus to political competition-an orderly, if controlled, society, to the diverse and vibrant civil society that emerges when freedom of expression and association are respected. The same asserted cultural preferences, often wrapped in a religious veneer, are cited to justify restrictions on the rights of women. To respond to these supposed sentiments, some governments press for international human rights standards that vary with local cultural desires.

This argument, usually made by those in positions of power, smacks of self-justification and convenience. Restrictions on free expression and association facilitate the suppression of dissenting views, and a lack of equal rights for women perpetuates male dominance. In the absence of an opportunity to hear freely from those forced to relinquish their freedom and equality, the assertions of cultural or religious preference usually go untested.

In 1993, however, opportunities did arise to hear from the supposedly willing victims of culturally and religiously based restrictions on their rights. Asian nongovernmental organizations met in Bangkok, and women's rights activists from around the world met in Vienna; they offered anything but assentto a this restricted view of rights. Indeed, even the world's governments assembled in Vienna offered strong affirmation of the universality of human rights. While noting that "the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind," they reiterated "the duty of states, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms." A similar affirmation of universality can be found in the broad ratification of the leading human rights instruments by governments from all regional, cultural and religious traditions.

Respect for human rights is important, in part, to permit different cultures and religions to flourish, through the free choices of individuals. The rights to equality and to free expression and association-indeed, the right to practice one's culture or religion freely-permit all citizens of the world to select their personal way of life. But suppressing freedom and equality in the name of culture or religion is a corruption of the concept of rights. Rights should serve as a check on collective action, even when that action is embraced by a majority. To view rights as varying with governmental interpretations of culture or religion is to eviscerate the power of rights.