Arts & Culture
Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Human Rights: Anthropological Debates
Quick fact
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was drafted with input from diverse nations but has been criticized as culturally biased, and anthropological studies often reveal that many practices condemned as human rights violations have complex social functions and meanings.
Why this is interesting
You may believe that some rights are simply universal, but anthropologists often argue that morality is deeply tied to culture. What happens when a cultural practice clashes with a universal right?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Human Rights: Anthropological Debates
Cultural relativism is the idea that a person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture, rather than being judged against the criteria of another culture. It emerged in anthropology as a reaction against ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one's own culture as superior. Anthropologists like Franz Boas and his students emphasized that all cultures have their own internal logic and that we should suspend judgment to understand them. Universal human rights, on the other hand, are a set of moral norms that are meant to apply equally to all people, regardless of culture. They are enshrined in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and include rights to life, freedom from torture, and freedom of expression. The debate arises because these two perspectives can conflict: if a cultural practice, like female genital mutilation, is considered a human rights violation, an extreme cultural relativist would say we cannot judge it, while a universalist would say we must intervene.
A deeper explanation
The debate between cultural relativism and universal human rights is not just an academic exercise; it has real-world implications for how anthropologists conduct fieldwork and how international bodies like the UN intervene in local practices. Historically, cultural relativism was a progressive force in anthropology, pushing back against the colonial era's assumption of European superiority. However, by the late 20th century, critics pointed out that extreme relativism can excuse oppressive practices within cultures, particularly those harming women and minorities. Universal human rights, meanwhile, have been criticized as a Western construct that ignores cultural differences and imposes a particular worldview. The theoretical mechanism underlying the debate is the tension between descriptive relativism, which observes that moral codes vary across cultures, and normative relativism, which claims that no culture's morality is objectively better. Anthropologists today often adopt a 'critical relativism' or 'focused relativism' that respects cultural context but does not shy away from ethical judgments, especially when physical harm is involved. This reflects a growing consensus that cultural relativism should be used as a method of understanding, not a moral principle of approval. The debate remains unresolved, but it has led to more culturally sensitive approaches to human rights activism, such as working with local communities to reinterpret rights in their own terms.