the guardian this weekend poses the question: are you a universalist or relativist?

Are you U or non-U? By which I mean, are you a universalist or a relativist? Forget left and right; the defining political divide of the global era is between those who believe that some moral rights and freedoms ought to be universal and those who argue that each culture to its own. This new frontline of contemporary debate runs across issues as diverse as race, faith, multiculturalism, feminism, gay rights, freedom of speech and foreign policy. In each instance, the argument eventually comes down to whether you have a universalist or relativist view of the world.

Universalists argue that certain rights and protections – freedom of speech, democracy, the rule of law – are common or, at least, should be available to all people. Relativists maintain that different cultures have different values and that it’s impossible to say that one system or idea is better than another and, moreover, it’s racist to try.

it’s an interesting question, and one that will continue to come up with increasing frequency in a world where the most powerful nations profess to respect all faiths and beliefs, yet their political actions often speak volumes to the contrary.

and i don’t think the answer is as simple as one generic classification or another, just as the moral issues involved are not so easily defined. i think these are both extreme ideas at the ends of a very long continuum. certainly my political beliefs do not sit squarely in on camp or the other.

for myself, i believe the ideas of personal freedom and political democracy are lovely ideals to aspire to, but ones which even the most egalitarian societies like the u.s. and the u.k. have yet to fully realise. to hold ourselves up as defenders of the absolute moral great and good is the most egotistical kind of hypocrisy. and if we’ve not yet achieved it, how can we possibly condemn others for their failures.

yet i don’t think all issues of human rights can be viewed through a lens of cultural relativism either. while my westernised thinking finds cannibalism abhorrent, i don’t think it’s *only* because I’ve grown up with the motto of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. i’d like to think that even if i were a member of a cannibalistic society i’d be just as upset to have my mother killed and eaten in the jungle, as if the same thing happened in boston.

i guess the best way to describe my belief would be that there is a spectrum of progress along which all societies must progress. and that they must do so of their own volition. change impose from without is never as lasting as change generated from within – which is why i think that invasion and attack in order to “free” people from oppression and dictatorship is never the preferred option. it is only through struggle and uprising that people learn to cherish and preserve those beliefs and ideals for which they have sacrificed so much. and perhaps that sounds harsh, but i think it’s the only way that real, permanent human rights become inculcated into a society without a sense of cultural disconnect. without the resentment that comes with having another’s ideals proscribed as your own.

i *do* think most people yearn for the freedoms which westernised countries have so neatly claimed as the moral high ground. but i think that each nation, each neighbourhood, each individual, must get there by their own path, in their own time. and to pretend that we’ve somehow perfected the definition and protection of human rights is sheer hubris.

instead, we should concentrate on leading by example. because we all have a long way to go.

Like this post

Unlike

freedoms, universalism, , cultural relativism, human rights, plural monoculturalism