ARE HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSAL

OR AN IMPOSITION OF WESTERN CULTURE?

Enric Senabre Carbonell

"I remember my friend Rania. We were friends since I was a child. We played in the yard, we sat
together in class, we met up after school. I went to her house and her mother was very nice, she
always prepared us snacks that were different from the ones my friend made. mother: sweets with
honey, cakes with strange spices, mint-scented infusions. We were together until second grade,
specifically until after Christmas. When she returned from vacation she was sadder than usual, she
didn't laugh and she didn't speak in class. From that day on we did not stay at her house again and
before the end of the course she and her parents disappeared from the neighborhood.
Years later my mother told me what had happened. Rania and her parents were originally
from a small village in southern Algeria. That Christmas when she was 7 years old, they took her to
town and performed a clitoral ablation on her. This is a ritual practice that consists of cutting the
clitoris of girls so that, according to them, they arrive pure at marriage, but that in the practice
means mutilating them and turning them into people incapable of feeling pleasure with their
genitals. Rania's own grandmother performed it on Rania, with the consent of her mother. When
they returned, her doctor detected the mutilation and reported the case to the social services. That
is why they left the neighborhood, to avoid the legal and administrative consequences that would
condemn them to a more difficult life and even to lose Rania.
Now I am a social worker and I come across some cases like Rania's. I always remember
her and that is why I try to approach the subject as carefully as possible. It is clear that what they
did to my friend was an intolerable aberration and that our action must be aimed at preventing
practices like this from occurring, but it always struck me that her mother, a person who seemed to
me the sweetest person in the world, world, could allow such a thing. I suppose she would believe
that she was doing what was best for Rania; Otherwise, no, I can understand."
What is your opinion of the news that I have told you? Do you think we should respect
Rania's family in their customs or that these types of practices should be totally prohibited? That is
to say, are human rights universal rights that must be respected in all parts of the world and by all
cultures, or are they rights that are only understood and can be demanded in the Western world?
And what do you think of other less aggressive practices but also difficult to reconcile with ours,
such as the obligation to wear the Islamic veil for women, the obligatory rest on Saturday for all
Jews or the prohibition of eating pork among Muslims and Jews? We are going to try to understand
the meaning of human rights, its history and application, and then we will try to answer these
controversial questions.

1
 If we look at history, the truth is that the very idea of inherent rights of people, inviolable
and universal, arises in Western culture. Specifically from modernity and in European countries and
the American colonies. It is in England where the right ofhabeus corpus, which is nothing other
than the presumption of innocence until a trial determines guilt; and in France where thinkers like
Voltaire demand rights for the person that protect them from the despotic power of the absolute
king. These rights encompass a large number of principles. The first to emerge were political and
citizen rights, which were recognized at first, and which include the rights to the presumption of
innocence, freedom of expression and political participation, equality before the law and respect for
life. and safety of people. These rights emerged in the 18th century, thanks to the French Revolution
and the Enlightenment movement. Later, this catalog was expanded to social rights, which cover the
right to work, protection against unemployment, to healthy eating, to the enjoyment of natural,
cultural and social resources. These rights emerged in the 19th century as a result of the push of the
European and North American labor and union movements. With all this, we find that these rights
arise from a Western tradition that had the first in the French [Link] document, with
the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. The revolutionary declaration of rights is the
germ of the Declaration of Human Rights that the UN approved in 1948, already in the 20th
century, and which culminated this process of extending human rights to the entire world as well as
the expansion of the catalog of rights. which now included individual and social aspects. Now,
despite this Western historical origin, the UN assembly that year approved that declaration with the
favorable vote of countries with diverse cultural traditions: Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists,
animists... and a larger number have been joining in. its recognition over the years.
The truth is that the Muslim tradition also has certain elements in its moral code that can
lead us to respect for citizen rights, although it is true that, like all religions that emerged a long
time ago in patriarchal and authoritarian societies, it has certain precepts that are unacceptable
today. today, such as the treatment of women or corporal punishment. But it is impossible to update
Muhammad's precepts from a modern perspective and reconcile them with democratic societies that
respect rights. The same thing happens with the Buddhist religion, a belief with a long pacifist
tradition, although it defended a social structure based on castes, intolerable in our time. And
African animist religions combine helping those in need with blind obedience and punishing those
who fail to comply with their precepts.
By this I mean that human rights are a Western cultural creation, but perfectly reconcilable
through dialogue and interculturality with other cultural triditions. This was the true effort of the
United Nations and the value of the 1948 declaration, which can be a starting point to make a better
world and more respectful of people's rights.
Now, it is no less true that this declaration is just that, a declaration of intentions that is far
from reality. Not even in Western countries, where these rights are supposed to be a reality, is it
fully applied. The survival of dictatorial societies that prevent the free expression of ideas, the
maintenance of disproportionate punishments such as the death penalty or torture or the existence of
situations of extreme poverty, child malnutrition or unmet basic needs, demonstrate that these rights
are often an utopia.
And what is even worse, these countries that raised these rights to the rest of the world were
the ones that, with colonialism and the occupation of the planet, imposed by force and without

2
respecting others, a disrespectful and arrogant power that failed to fulfill its own rights. founding
principles. This basic hypocrisy made the so-called third world countries, former colonies of rich
Europe, look askance at the now imposition of rights that not even their own creators complied
with. Possibly this frustration, the humiliation that European countries put Africa and Asia, above
all, through, generated an attitude of rejection of everything that sounded like Western morality, and
with it, universal human rights.
But of course, imposing by force and without respecting what you want to assert is not
exactly the most appropriate way to spread a philosophy that is based on dialogue. understanding,
the meeting of traditions and coexistence. The way in which they wanted to impose in the 19th and
early 20th centuries principles that only served Europeans, but from which the native population
was left out, who were reduced to second-class citizenship, to servants of the whites, was not the
most correct way to do it.
The attempt was made to universalize Western Christian morality by force, and with it
principles of charity and respect that only involved the occupiers themselves. This universalization
of a model of rationality that conceived the person as dignified and respectable, but that left anyone
who was not white, male and Western outside the concept of person, plunged this model into an
insoluble contradiction.
For this reason, after the Second World War, when the Universal Declaration was signed,
and during the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, many third world
countries saw how, with colonialism over, an economic globalization began that left them out of the
spheres of decision-making and impoverished them even more. This situation in fact motivated that
traditions normally persecuted or directly excluded from political decisions did not believe in the
will of Western countries to enforce these rights for all. Rather, they took it as another imposition to
take advantage of its resources and its inhabitants. And they were right since economic
globalization is promoting labor exploitation, the impoverishment of the peasants and the massive
emigration in intolerable conditions of a good part of its population. What rights are these
Europeans talking about who come to take them away from us in the prtactics? Much of this lies in
the initial rejection of some cultures and religions to the principles of human rights. Some of these
cultures have reacted with a reversal of their traditions towards principles anchored in their past,
others have taken refuge in irrationalisms that are not even inscribed in their written traditions and
others have responded with hatred and clear rejection of everything that sounds Western. , YoEven
with terrorism or armed confrontation towards the occupying powers.
But can these rights really aspire to be universal, despite their historical origin and clearly f
ethnocentric application? I mean, can we defend the right of Rania, the character in our opening
story, to his personal integrity over his cultural traditions? Is there something that overcomes the
moral differences between religions and has a character superior to their particular beliefs? The
moral universalism believes that yes, that there are some minimum ethical precepts that must be
respected above any religious belief and that consist of a series of rights: to life, to integrity and to
the physical and personal security of any human being, wherever they are and profess the religion
you profess, etc. From this point of view, Rania accepts the right to the protection of children, to the
integrity of her person and to respect for her personal freedom. She is also protected by the equality
that as a human being should be recognized, above her status as a woman, Arab ethnicity or tan skin

3
color. In this sense, universalism provides us with a strong and clear framework, a catalog of rights
that allows us to defend the human condition above other discriminatory cultural, moral or
historical considerations.
Now, if this universalism is very clear in extreme cases like the one we have commented on,
what happens with other not so aggressive practices such as the use of the veil among Islamic
women or the prohibition of eating pork or the religious obligation not to eat pork? work during
Ramadan or the Jewish Sabbath? How to impose its prohibition based on the supposed superiority
of Christian tradition or Western secular morality? France has banned the veil in public spaces, and
in many companies anyone who does not work during the established hours is suddenly fired,
without further [Link] or religious tions.
It can may be that a relativist conception of human rights is more effective in dealing with
these cases. The relativistic conception admits that each tradition, culture or religion has its own
moral or religious vision, its own precepts and norms, as respectable as ours, and that in no case can
the actions of human beings be judged from the superiority of a specific tradition, in this case the
Western, Christian or secular. From this point of view, tolerance with the different ways of behaving
must be favored, and moral judgment must be maintained from the very cultural tradition that
exercises it. With this relativistic principle, the use of the veil among women is neither worse nor
better than the Western female custom of depilating the entire body; o The establishment of a work
schedule that is compatible with the Muslim prayer schedule is as respectable as the European
intensive schedule. Relativism requires respect for different traditions and prevents placing some
moral visions above others. Now, how do we respond from relativism to the cutting of the clitoris to
stoning -sentence to death by stoning- in the public square or to the infanticide practiced by some
cultures? Can we remain impassive while women are mutilated or individuals tortured? Relativism
requires respect for different traditions and prevents placing some moral visions above others. Now,
how do we respond from relativism to the cutting of the clitoris to stoning -sentence to death by
stoning- in the public square or to the infanticide practiced by some cultures? Can we remain
impassive while women are mutilated or individuals tortured? Relativism requires respect for
different traditions and prevents placing some moral visions above others. Now, how do we respond
from relativism to the cutting of the clitoris to stoning -sentence to death by stoning- in the public
square or to the infanticide practiced by some cultures? Can we remain impassive while women are
mutilated or individuals tortured?
It is truly difficultIt is easy to maintain the relativist position in these cases, and it sounds
more like indifference than tolerance. Because tolerance does not mean not caring about what others
do as long as it does not affect us, but rather direct involvement in certain events and their
acceptance because we believe that they are worthy and must be respected. And female mutilation is
difficult to respect even if it takes place in our [Link] whose name we find difficult to
pronounce.
In this sense, it would be interesting to defend a more conciliatory position, respectful of
other customs, but inflexible with certain essential minimums. I want to say that, even admitting
that human rights arise from a Western tradition, and therefore Eurocentric, in the end these rights
are a minimum catalog of respect and dignity for any person, whatever their religion and wherever
they live. Of course, force cannot be imposed, because then we only produce concealment,

4
marginalization or more violence, but they can be proposed for dialogue, for discussion about their
meaning and application in different religious and moral traditions, and from this dialogue favor its
voluntary application.
For example, the fight against ablaciclitoral ion, among Central African tribes that practice
it, is carried out through volunteers from the country itself who negotiate with the chiefs of the
different tribes, who reason with them, explain to them and show them the advantages that progress
can bring them in exchange for modify this tradition. When this fight is carried out with the law and
the police, what is achieved is that it continues to be practiced in more unhealthy and secret
conditions. It is about not imposing our growth from the moral superiority of those who believe in
absolute reason, but rather offering our convictions, of which we are reasonably sure, as a starting
point for a better world. And it is quite clear that dignity and respect for people and a society where
coexistence and the peaceful resolution of conflicts are imposed through dialogue and tolerance
provide more happiness. With this vision, any cultural practice that does not directly affect the life
and rights of people must be respected, but all aberrant or disrespectful practices must be prohibited
and attempted to be avoided.

ISSUES

1. Have you experienced it firsthand or have you been told a story similar to Rania's? Which?
What do you think? What do you think can be done with situations like that?
2. Explains the two generations of rights, the first generation or civil and political, and the second
or social. When were they incorporated into the human rights tradition? What does each one
contribute?
3. Ask your history teacher or search the Internet what 19th century colonialism was and what
globalization means today. Do you think it is a good way to relate to cultures and traditions
different from ours?
4. Explain what the universalist position on human rights consists of. Do you think it is an
adequate conception of enforcing these rights? Why? Provide examples that support your
position.
5. Now explain the relativistic conception. Which of the two do you think is more convenient for
cultural coexistence? Because?
6. Essay: can we propose human rights as common minimums of coexistence between all world
cultures?