Following the movement of a pendulum: between universalism and relativism

Abstract

Universalism and relativism are often presented as two opposite and irreconcilable moral (or epistemological) positions as regards human rights. Most often, the debate is phrased as if one should embrace either one or the other position. This chapter argues that these two positions cannot be considered independently of each other. Each is untenable by itself and needs to accommodate the other to be sustainable. The position I advocate, which encompasses both the universalist and the relativist stances, is not a middle position that would constitute a happy compromise, putting at rest, once and for all, the debate concerning the respective strengths of universalism and relativism. Rather it is a position which makes sense of the fact that a moral agent is inevitably drawn into a pendulum motion. Thus, as one accepts being drawn towards relativism, there is a moment when, getting as it were too close to it, one is compelled to revert towards universalism ± and vice versa. My image of the pendulum indicates that the in-between position I advocate is unstable. That my position is characterized by instability does not imply that one should abandon striving to`get things right', for example by drafting human rights legislation, but that one should pursue political struggles in awareness of the limitations that any achievement in this ®eld, however remarkable, entail.True law is right reason on agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely . . . And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens . . . but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is God, over us all, for us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge.

The Family in Question : Immigrant and Ethnic Minorities in Multicultural Europe

“…Specific laws prohibiting the practice exist in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, while general criminal and/or child protection laws have been applied to female circumcision in Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and New Zealand (Rahman & Toubia 2000). All of these countries have large immigrant communities and have been compelled to address female circumcision as it is seen as a threat not only to the 'victims' of the practice, but also the cultural integrity of the individual countries (Dembour 2001). In 1999 the largest ever case against female circumcision was made as French courts convicted Hawa Greou, an exciseuse (woman who performs circumcisions) from Mali, of 'voluntary bodily injury causing mutilation or permanent disability' against a girl who had been circumcised at the age of eight.…”

“…1 A total of 23 mothers and three fathers received prison or suspended prison sentences. The initial complainant's mother was sentenced to two years' imprisonment (Reproductive Freedom News 1999;Dembour 2001).…”

“…7 Given the difficulty in implementing the Female Mutilation Act 2003, and the lack of prosecutions in the UK since the first legislation was passed in 1985, it is conceivable that girls like Aminata may choose to return to Sierra Leone to initiate their daughters. Although present, the risk of prosecution in the UK is slight (for a discussion of European implementation of female genital mutilation legislation, see Dembour (2001) One of the less researched but fundamental aspects of the settlement and accommodation of immigrants in receiving countries is the relationship between migration and life course, particularly with respect to family and household dynamics in migration and marriage and family formation in the host country. This relationship includes processes of endogamy and exogamy (i.e.…”

Human Rights

“…However, their silence on this question in the intervening years after the 1947 statement amounted to a rejection of that possibility and was characterized less by their embarrassment (Engle 2001) than their neglect of the topic itself (Goodale 2009b: 18-39 (Dembour 2001;Goodale 2009b: 40-64). As an anthropologist associated with the teachings of Franz Boas, an advocate of 'cultural particularism' in American anthropology, Herskovits is too easily given the epithet 'relativist' (Simpson 1973).…”

Anthropology, the indigenous and human rights: Which billiard balls matter most?

“…Second, what commentators have termed 'the impasse of human rights and culture' (Preis 1996: 291), and others the 'opposition of rights versus culture' (Cowan et al 2001: 4), that is, the conflict between cultural relativism and human rights, has not gone away (cf. Dembour 2001). Third, that the rights of indigenous peoples are collective rights has not gone unnoted, if unappreciated.…”