Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism is a theory that asserts a person’s behavior, thoughts, and perceptions are dependent on and relative to the culture in which they live; that values and standards emerge from and are specific to the culture from which they arise; and that no meaningful or universal method exists for judging other cultures. According to this approach, morality is cultural and all judgments are ethnocentric. The theory argues that no absolute values or principles exist by which a society or culture can be judged outside its own values or principles. Therefore, no universally valid moral judgment can be made.

Cultural relativism, in the context of human rights debates, argues that the claim of universal human rights is a new form of cultural imperialism, in which Western of its civilization imposes its own values on non-Western civilizations. In contrast, proponents of universality argue that cultural relativism provides a legitimizing foundation for repressive regimes that violate human rights and undermines the protections offered by the international human rights regime.

Historical Development

Although not conceptually articulated, cultural relativism has appeared in various forms throughout different periods of history. The earliest formulations of this approach can be found in the writings of Herodotus: “If people were invited to choose for themselves among all the customs of the world those they found most suitable, they would examine them all and conclude with a preference for their own: thus becoming convinced that their own customs are superior to all others.”

As a modern theory, cultural relativism emerged in the 19th century as a reaction against scientific approaches that glorified Western societies and dismissed non-Western cultures as inferior. The theory was shaped by Franz Boas and his students Ruth Benedict and Melville Herskovits.

The debate between cultural relativism and the universality of human rights became prominent with the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and the internationalization of human rights. The debate gained concrete ground when the American Anthropological Association (AAA) submitted a statement to the UN in 1947, during its efforts to draft a universal declaration of human rights. This document, titled “Statement on Human Rights” and authored by Melville Herskovits, called for the consideration of cultural differences in the process of formulating a universal human rights declaration. Thus, the “conflict between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism” became historically visible from this point onward.

Theoretical Approaches and Types

Cultural relativism is not a single theory but encompasses various approaches. Within the doctrine, these approaches are generally categorized into three types: descriptive, normative, and epistemological relativism.

Descriptive Cultural Relativism

This approach argues that social and psychological behavior is determined by culture and that, since cultures differ, universal rules of behavior cannot exist. It emphasizes human diversity in opposition to the notion of Western civilization’s natural superiority.

Normative Cultural Relativism

This approach asserts that there are no universal, cross-cultural standards by which to make judgments such as “good-bad” or “normal-abnormal.” According to this view, since no culture-free standard exists to judge other cultures, all practices of other cultures must be tolerated. This emphasis on tolerance has been criticized for potentially preventing moral condemnation of practices such as cannibalism, slavery, and racism.

Epistemological Cultural Relativism

Emerging in the 1970s as the most radical form of cultural relativism, this approach holds that there are no cross-cultural standards by which to judge the acceptability of cultural expressions and therefore mutual understanding between cultures is impossible.

Jack Donnelly, who holds the title of Distinguished University Professor at the University of Denver and works in the fields of international relations and human rights theory, divides cultural relativism into two categories based on the absoluteness of its stance against the universality of human rights:

Strong Cultural Relativism

According to this view, culture is the sole and fundamental source of the validity of morality and law. Human rights and other social norms are determined by culture. This approach holds that no objective truth exists and concludes that every cultural perspective is valid.

Moderate (Weak) Cultural Relativism

According to this view, culture is an important source of the validity of rights and norms but not the only one. This approach contains a weak presupposition of universality. It argues that all cultures contain norms grounded in human dignity and that through reinterpretation, some universal values may emerge across cultures. This approach accepts a comprehensive catalog of human rights while also acknowledging that exceptions may exist depending on cultural contexts.

Contrast with the Universality of Human Rights

The theory of cultural relativism fundamentally opposes the claim of the universality of human rights. Its main arguments are as follows:

Critique of Western Centrism

According to relativists, the human rights claimed to be universal have developed largely under the influence of “Western European culture.” These rights are institutions born and developed within Western civilization and are products of the Enlightenment of its philosophy. Therefore, the claim of the universality of human rights is seen as a reflection of Western efforts to impose and spread its own culture and values upon other cultures. This situation is regarded as a consequence of Eurocentrism.

Individualism versus Community

The Western liberal understanding of human rights stands in contrast to legal systems that prioritize the community. It is argued that documents such as the International Human Rights Declaration emphasize only the individual and neglect the family and social groups, thereby reflecting Western values. It is asserted that the source of values lies in human sociality and therefore a notion beyond sociality cannot be meaningfully discussed.

Rejection of Cultural Diversity

Defenders of relativism claim that the universalist understanding will lead to the extinction of different cultures'. It is argued that each culture finds its moral foundation within itself and that no objective basis exists for one culture to judge another. Therefore, different traditions and ways of life must be preserved and respected.

American Anthropological Association’s 1947 Statement

The most concrete early expression of the cultural relativist thesis in the field of human rights was the statement submitted by the American Anthropological Association to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1947. This statement emphasized that the forthcoming declaration must not be a charter of rights understood solely in terms of values prevalent in Western Europe and America but must be applicable to all human beings. Its main theses are as follows:

• Unity of Individual and Culture: The individual realizes his or her personality through culture; therefore, respect for individual differences requires respect for cultural differences. Personal freedom cannot exist if the community to which the person belongs is not free.

• Absence of a Method to Evaluate Cultures: Respect for cultural differences is supported by the scientific fact that no technique has yet been invented to evaluate cultures in terms of quality.

• Cultural Specificity of Values: Standards and values are specific to the culture from which they arise. Therefore, any effort to formulate propositions derived from a culture’s moral rules will weaken the applicability of a universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This statement has been criticized by figures such as J. Steward and H. G. Barnett. Steward noted that respecting different cultural values does not imply endorsing the caste system in India or racism in the United States. Barnett argued that the statement, while opposing universal values, had unconsciously adopted a universal position itself and had advanced an “absolute in a festival of values.”

IV. Debate and Searches for Consensus

The theoretical opposition between the universality of human rights and cultural relativism has raised the question of whether these two approaches can reach consensus.

Critique of Radical Relativism

The unlimited tolerance advocated by cultural relativism has raised the question of whether practices contrary to human dignity, such as Nazi practices, torture, or slavery, must also be accepted. It has been noted that this approach can be used by repressive regimes as a tool to legitimize human rights violations. For this reason, cultural relativism has been described as “a gift to tyrants.”

Middle Ground and Consensus Models

Various consensus models have been proposed to overcome the dilemma created by this debate:

Relative Universalism

Developed by Jack Donnelly, this approach is also known as “weak cultural relativism.” This theory proposes a strong universality of human rights at the conceptual level but argues that these rights must be designed to allow for cultural relativism both theoretically and in practice. According to this view, fundamental rights such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture are universally accepted, while rights such as freedom of expression and association may be more relative within specific cultural contexts.

Cross-Cultural Values and Dialogue

Some thinkers argue that there are shared values among all cultures in the world and that these “cross-cultural universals” must be identified. It is suggested that the universality of human rights can be achieved through cross-cultural dialogue rather than through declarations or imposition.

The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine

The “margin of appreciation” doctrine, developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), is regarded as a practical manifestation of weak cultural relativism. This doctrine grants member states a degree of discretion in interpreting and applying the rights set forth in the Convention. The Court, particularly in matters concerning morality, religion, or where no European-wide consensus exists, grants states a wider margin of appreciation to take cultural differences into account. While this is seen as an effort to balance universality and cultural relativism, it has been criticized for weakening the universality of human rights and for creating unclear boundaries.