Human Rights and Cultural Relativism — 2020 Paper I

Approach

• Demand of Question: Explain the tension between universal human rights and cultural relativism and present an anthropologically balanced position on cultural diversity and individual dignity.
• Structuring the Response: Define cultural relativism and universal human rights, explain the anthropological debate, examine the strengths and dangers of each position, and conclude with a critical or moderate relativist approach.
• Key Dimensions to Cover: Franz Boas, Melville Herskovits, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ethnocentrism, universality, cultural context, harmful practices, internal diversity, dignity and critical cultural relativism.

Model Answer

Introduction

Cultural relativism holds that beliefs and practices should be understood within their own cultural contexts rather than evaluated solely through external standards. Emerging strongly from the Boasian tradition, it challenged ethnocentrism. Human rights, conversely, assert certain universal entitlements based on human dignity regardless of cultural background.

Cultural relativist position

Franz Boas emphasized the historical particularity of cultures, while Melville Herskovits strongly defended respect for cultural difference.

Relativism contributes by:

• challenging ethnocentric judgments;
• respecting indigenous institutions;
• recognizing multiple moral systems;
• preventing imposition of dominant cultural standards.

Herskovits and other anthropologists raised concerns that supposedly universal standards could reflect particular Western historical experiences.

Human-rights perspective

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 emphasizes universal principles such as:

• equality;
• dignity;
• freedom;
• bodily integrity;
• protection from discrimination.

An absolute relativist position creates difficulties where cultural justification is invoked for practices causing coercion, violence or severe inequality.

Central dilemma

Universalism without context → Cultural imperialism

but

Absolute relativism → Possible justification of oppression

Cultures are also internally diverse; women, lower-status groups, minorities and younger generations may contest practices defended as “traditional.”

Anthropological reconciliation

A critical cultural relativist approach seeks intercultural dialogue while retaining basic protections of human dignity. Human rights can therefore be interpreted through local cultural institutions without abandoning their fundamental purpose.

Conclusion

Anthropology must balance respect for cultural diversity with protection of human dignity, avoiding both ethnocentric universalism and uncritical cultural relativism.