cultural relativism abuse of individual

7/27/2019 Cultural Relativism Abuse of Individual

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cultural-relativism-abuse-of-individual 1/30

In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual

Author(s): Elizabeth M. ZechenterSource: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 53, No. 3, Universal Human Rights versusCultural Relativity (Autumn, 1997), pp. 319-347Published by: University of New MexicoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630957 .

Accessed: 09/01/2011 11:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630957?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630957?origin=JSTOR-pdf




IN THE NAMEOF CULTURE:CULTURALRELATIVISMAND THE ABUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL

ElizabethM.Zechenter

Morgan,ewis&Bockius, LP,CounselorstLaw, 000OneLogan quare,Philadelphia,A19103

The modern ystemof international umanrightstreaties s basedon theconcept funiversalismwhichholds that there s an underlying umanunitywhichentitlesall

individuals,egardlessf theircultural rregional ntecedents,o certainbasicminimal

rights,knownas humanrights.Theinfluence f cultural elativism,multiculturalism,andpostmodernisms slowlyundermininghese deals.Manyagree hatuniversal u-manrightsnorms implydo notconformwiththeextreme iversity f cultural nd reli-

giouspracticesoundaround he worldand thatuniversal ights houldbemodifiedoconformwith ocalcultural nd religiousnorms.Others uestionhetheoreticalalidityand intellectualoherencef universalism.This is an importantebate,he outcome fwhichwill havepracticalconsequencesor millionsof peoplearound he world.Thisarticleexamines heconcepts f cultural elativism nd universalism,heirtheoretical

strength,heir ocialand ethicalusefulness,nd their ntellectualoherence,speciallys

they nfluencenternationalesponsesogender-basedbusesperpetratedgainstwomenand otherdisenfranchisedndividualsivingin non-Westernocieties.

I am humanandnothing uman s alien to me.

Terence,163 B.C.Myowngroupaside,everythinguman s alien tome.

RenatoRosaldo,984

UNTILHE ECONDORLDAR,he protection of humanrights of individualswas

seen as a sovereignprerogativefthestate and hereforeas a domestic atherthanan international oncern.The atrocitiesof the SecondWorldWarpro-vided the impetusto changethat statusquo.In the discussion hatensued,most scholarsandpoliticians greedthat individuals re far toovulnerablef

left at the mercyof domestic egal systems and thatindividuals eed moreprotectionagainstabusessufferedat the handof the state. This agreementwasmostfullyexpressed n the creationofthe UnitedNationsand he enact-ment of the complexinternationalegimeof universalhumanrights.Thisnew internationalegalregimewas grounded s muchin the empirical vi-dence of widespread buses as in the following thicalandphilosophicale-liefs:(1) no state can be entrustedwithanabsolutepowerover its own citi-zens because of the tendency of states to abuse absolutepower; (2) aninternationalegimeofhuman ightsprotections neededto protect ndividu-

als againststates and other supralevelorganizations;3) all individuals reentitled,by virtueof theircommonhumanity,o a basicmodicum f human

dignity; (4) certain human rights are universal, fundamental,and inalienable,and thus they cannot and should not be overriddenby cultural and religious

(Journal of AnthropologicalResearch,vol. 53, 1997)

319



320 JOURNAL FANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCH

traditions;nd(5)the accidentofbirth nto aparticularocialgrouporcultureis not an ethicallyrelevantcircumstanceandthus has no bearingon thatindividual'sntrinsichumanworthandher or his entitlement o be treatedasa humanbeing (Buergenthal 988;Donnelly1989).The modernsystem ofinternational uman ights reaties-which havebeen ratified yallnations-reflects these universalistnotions.For example, he Charterof the UnitedNations reaffirmsa "faith n fundamental umanrights, in the dignityandworthof the humanperson, n the equalrightsof men and women" UnitedNationsCharter,Preamble,1945)and states thatthe goalof the UnitedNa-tionsis to promoteuniversal espectfor and observance f human ightsandfundamentalreedoms or all withoutdistinctionsof race, sex, language,or

religion UnitedNationsCharter,Articles

1(3)and55).Both

UNCovenants-

the International ovenanton Economic,Socialand CulturalRightsand theInternationalCovenanton Civil andPoliticalRights-state that "equalandinalienableightsof all membersof the human amily are] he foundationf

freedom,usticeandpeacein the world" ndproclaimhathuman ightshavetheirorigin nthe "inherent ignityof thehumanperson" CPCovenant, re-

amble,1976;ESCCovenant,Preamble,1976).Universalism,hus,is at the root of modernhuman ightslaw.Simplyput,

universalism oldsthat there is anunderlying umanunitywhichentitles all

individuals,egardlessof their cultural rregionalantecedents,o certainba-sic minimal ights,knownas human ights.Traditionally,niversalistshave

basedtheirsupportor universalhuman ightson threemajorurisprudentialtheories-the naturalawtheory, he theoryofrationalism,ndthe theoryof

positivism(Dworkin1978).Morerecently,other theories such as, for ex-

ample,the humancapabilities heoryhave been proposed o providephilo-sophical oundations or the universalityof humanrights (Nussbaum1993;Sen 1993;Rawls1971).

Naturalaw has its rootsin the ancientStoicphilosophyutwas morefully

developedby ThomasAquinas.The naturalawtheoryemphasizes thicaldi-mensionsofthe law.It assertsthat ndividualsavecertain nalienableightsof

the highestordergrantedo all individualsy Godor Providence ndthathu-man-madeaws arejust onlyinsofaras they do not conflictwith the eternalnaturalawsgoverninghe universe Weinreb 987).The naturalawphiloso-phy s well illustratednAntigone, classicalGreek ragedy y Sophocles.When

Antigonewasprevented ythe localpolis awfromburying erbrother,he didso anyway, laiminghat her actionswere in accordance ith a higher,albeit

unwritten,aw andthatthis unwrittennaturalawsupersededhe man-made

polis aw.Unfortunately,t is difficultojustifyuniversal uman ightsbasedonthe naturalaw heoryna worldwithaprofoundultural ndreligious iversity,with ittle, fany,agreement mongmajor ulturesandreligions bout heveryexistence of a higher order law and its mandates, and in a world plagued bydoubts aboutthe existence of any universalmoralor ethical norms.

Rationalism,a closely related concept, is a theory of universal laws based

on a belief in the universal human capacity to reason and think rationally



CULTURALELATIVISMNDTHEABUSEOFTHEINDIVIDUAL 321

(Donnelly1989).Rationalismeplaces he divineoriginsof universalhuman

rights oundnthe naturalawtheorywiththe ideathathuman ightsare held

by each humanbeing,in an individualapacity,due to the universal apacityof all humans o thinkrationally.Both rationalism ndnatural awtheoryareoften combinedn the modem humanrightsdiscourseand take the form of

claimsthat universalhumanrightsexist independent f culture, deology,orvaluesystems.Inthis view,universalhuman ightsarea classofrightseachindividual ossesses by virtueof beinga human.Theyare the rightsof final

resort,typicallynvokedwhen all else has been triedandhas failed,andaretherefore moral and ethical rights of the highest order. They are alsoextraculturalndare meant o challengeandchange he existingnorms,prac-tices,and nstitutionsnd o subvert

oppressiveustoms

Donnelly989,1990).

Both rationalism ndnaturalawidealsareexpressed n the AmericanDecla-rationof Independence,whichproclaims: [w]eholdthese truthsto be self-

evident,that all men are createdequal, hatthey are endowedby their Cre-ator with certainunalienableRights, among hese are Life,LibertyandthePursuitofHappiness"DeclarationfIndependence, ara.1 U.S.1776).Vari-ous schools of thought, includingculturalrelativism,deconstructionism,

interpretivism,ndpostmodernism, ispute he validityof the rationalist p-proachby arguing hat rationalisms merelya reflectionof Westernculture

and t therefore ails to reflect the diversityof humanexperience.Positivism,on the otherhand, ustifiesthe existence of universalhuman

rights by notingthe worldwideacceptanceandratification f humanrightsinstruments.Accordingopositivists,universal uman ightsnormshavebeencreatedbyandare embodiednthe internationalreatiesandcustomarynter-national aw(Higgins1994).Positivistsobservethat culturaldifferencesnot-

withstanding,ll Westernandnon-Western ationshave signedand ratifiedthe vast majority f humanrightstreatiesandagreements,a factwhich at-tests to the worldwide cceptance f the human ightsprinciples et forth n

these treatiesandagreements.Thisuniformworldwide cceptanceprovides,therefore,a legitimatebasisforadherence o suchuniversalhuman ightsandother standardsunderlying hese treaties andagreements.Positivists alsoobservethat the source of humanrightslies not in individual ulturesbutratherin internationalaw whichgave rise to the idea of universalrights.Consequently,positivistsclaim that humanrightscannotbe withdrawn y

anydomestic egal systemand must takepriorityoverthe conflicting ormsof differentdomesticsystems. Althoughpositivismprovidesa soundlegaljustificationoruniversality f human ights, t does so primarilyorindividu-

als livingin modernnation-states.Unfortunately, ositivism ails to justifyuniversalrightsfor indigenouspeoples,manyof whom were forcefullyan-nexed intomodern tates andmanyofwhomdenythatmodern tates have a

moral or legal authorityto represent them in the international arena.

The capabilities theory and related approacheslook at the qualityof life of

various groups and individuals and ask whether individuals n a given culture

live as decent a life as they are capable of living (Sen 1993). This approach




focuseson the questionof what it meansto be human. t evaluatesvarious

subgroupswithin he societyandcompareshemagainsteach otherin order

to detect structuralnequalities.The capabilitiesheorists ook for common-

alitiesamongcultures,religions,andphilosophicalraditions, s well as com-monalitiesamongmen andwomen,and use those commonalitieso arguethat all individualsmust have at least some minimum ightsnecessaryfor

human unctioningNussbaum 993).Althoughhe capabilitiesheoryrepre-sents a very thoughtful ttemptatjustifyinguniversalhuman ights,its pri-

maryweakness ies inits failure o adequatelyccountorthe factthatcertain

significant ifferences mongculturesustcannotbe reconciled y looking or

commonalitiesr pointsof agreementsamong hese cultures.

Sincemostattempts

oprovide

olidphilosophical

oundationsor the uni-

versalityof humanrightshave not been entirelysuccessful,the universal

foundationsf internationaluman ightsare subject o numerous mpiricaland heoretical ttacks,primarilyrom he variousproponents fcultural ela-

tivism. Untilrecently,the internationalegalcommunityhas uniformlyub-

scribed o the view that human ightsshouldbe universalandthat the inter-

nationalhumanrightsregimecreatedby the UnitedNations,as well as byotherregionalhuman ightssystems,shouldbe enforced venhandedly,rre-

spectiveof differencesn cultural ustomsandreligions. fhuman ightswere

to have differentmeaning o Westernand non-Westernountries, he wholesystem of human ightslaw wouldbe renderedmeaningless.Consequently,the internationalommunityhas shownreluctance o deferto "culture"n

cases of conflictbetweeninternationalumanrightsandculturalvalues.In

fact,international umanrights law mandates hat the states must combat

culture-basediolence,especiallyf such violence s beingdisguisedas a reli-

giousor acultural ractice UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommission 989).The current nternationalawembodies, herefore,a collectiveaffirmationythe worldcommunity f the fundamentalnityof the human ace.

Althoughhe universality f human ightsis stillwidelyacceptedby manynations, the influence of cultural relativism and multiculturalist and

postmodernistdeasis slowly undermininghe entiresystemof international

human ightstreaties(Sullivan 994).Thisgrowingdebateabout he validityof the universalistassumptionsunderlyinghe humanrightsregimeis, to

some degree,inevitablen a worldwith ever-increasingnterconnectednessandglobalization.umanights nstitutions re ncreasinglyxposed o agrow-ing varietyof norms,values,andbeliefs,andto competingclaimsof legiti-macy romvariousculturesandsubcultures.To human ightsrelativists,uni-

versalhuman ightsnormsareimpossibleo defend n sucha richlydiverseworldand are no more than a "Western onceptwith limitedapplicability"(PollisandSchwab 979:1).Armedwithrelativist rguments, umerous roupshavemounted ormidablehallenges o the ideal of universalhumanrights,including such constituencies as (1) Asian and Islamic governments which,

despite their ratificationof all majorinternationalhuman rights instruments,

outrightly reject human rights universalism, particularlyas it pertains to hu-




manrightsof womenliving n theirjurisdictions;2) numerousThirdWorld

regimeswhichwishto avoid ntense nternationalcrutiny f the domestic reat-

mentof theircitizens; 3) representatives f the newly organizedndigenousgroupswho crave egitimacyor themselvesand heircultures; 4)many ocialscientistsandphilosophersngagedn a search or sounder heoreticalustifi-cationof human ightsuniversalism nd its principles;5) personswhovalue

human"diversity"ndwho view human ightsas an extensionof theWestern

sphereofinfluence; nd(6)those who fearthathuman ightsuniversalism n-

couragesuncalled-fornterferencewith othercultures.Most of the above-men-

tionedgroupsor individualsrguethat the promulgationf universalhuman

rights awssimplydoes notconformwith the extremediversity fcultural nd

religiouspracticesoundaround he worldandthat universal

ightsshouldbe

subsidiaryo localcultural ndreligiousnorms.Othersquestionhetheoretical

validityand ntellectualoherenceof various heoriesunderlyingnternational

human ightslaw.Clearly,his is an important ebate, he outcomeof which

will havepracticalonsequencesormillionsofpeoplearoundhe world.

This articleexamines he applicabilityf cultural elativism o the interna-tionalhuman ightsregime,especiallyas it shapes he internationalesponsesto gender-basedbusesperpetrated gainstwomenandotherdisenfranchised

individualsiving nnon-Westernocieties.The firstpartbrieflyoutlinesvari-

ousformulationsfcultural elativism.The secondpart ocusesonmajorheo-reticalandpracticalweaknessesof cultural elativism s appliedo the human

rightsarena.It arguesthat the culture-relativistritiqueof the modernhu-

manrights aw s largelynvalid ndhascorruptingffectson the human ights

regime,and t concludes hathuman ightsuniversalism, espiteall its flaws,is still the betterapproach.

CULTURALRELATIVISMAS A SOCIALSCIENCETHEORY

Variants f CulturalRelativismCulturalelativismainedprominencen the secondpartof the twentieth en-

turyand s considered ymany o be a hallmarkfmodern nthropologicalnd

social cientifichoughtBidney 968).Stated riefly,ulturalelativismsatheorywhichasserts hat here s no absoluteruth,be it ethical,moral, rcultural,nd

that here s nomeaningfulaytojudgedifferentultures ecauseall udgmentsareethnocentricGellner 985). npractice,t is rathermeaninglesso speakof

the heoryf culturalelativismoday, incethereare severaldifferent ariants f

the theory,rangingromdescriptiveelativismalsoknownas weakrelativism;

amountingoacommonsensebservationhatcultures ary),hrough ormativerelativismorstrongelativism;ositinghatsinceallstandardsreculture-bound,therecanbenotransculturaloral r ethical tandards),ptothemostextreme

formofrelativism,nownas epistemologicalelativismorextremeelativism),x-

emplifiedby Geertz and his followers (claimingthat humansare shapedexclu-

sively by theirculture and thereforethere exist no unifyingcross-culturalhuman

characteristics) Jarvie1983;Spiro1984, 1986).




The earlyformof culturalrelativismwas a reactionto the ethnocentric

assumptions f nineteenth-centurycience whichglorifiedWesternsocietiesanddiminished he achievementsof non-Western ultures.Nineteenth-cen-

turyscientistssaw human volutionas a processofprogressive hange romtheprimitiveo theadvancedSpencer1904).Althoughheyunderstood,moreorless correctly,hebasicschemeof socioeconomic volutionof human oci-eties (which s, in fact,characterizedy the gradual hange romforagingo

adoption f agriculturendthe emergenceof chiefdoms ndstates),theyer-

roneously ncorporatedxtraneousvaluejudgments nto that scheme. De-

scriptiverelativistsbecameskepticalof broadgeneralizations bouthuman

beingsandchallengedhe notionof the natural uperiority f Westerncivili-

zation Boas1894, 1901;Benedict1934;Mead1928, 1963).Instead heyem-phasized he seeminglyendless humandiversityand were able to demon-strate thateven culturesplacedat the bottomof the evolutionarycalewereadvanced ndsophisticatedt least in someaspectsof their culturaldevelop-ment. In fact,descriptive elativists ocusedso muchon exposingseeminglyvast culturaldifferences,hey tendedto disregard atashowinga significantdegreeof patterned imilarities monghuman ultures Edgerton1992).

Normative elativistswere convinced hatin additiono being highlyvari-

able,cultures nculcated heirmemberswithmoralandethicalrulesthrough

involuntaryocialization nd enculturation nd that few, if any, individualswereconsciously wareofthearbitraryharacterf beliefs hatwereingrainedinto them (Herskovits1958, 1973;Fernandez1990).Consequently, orma-tive relativistsfelt that there couldbe no extraculturaltandards y whichotherculturescan bejudged, husforcing elativists o acceptandtolerateall

practicesengagedby others. Benedictobserved, or example, hatmorality"differsneverysociety,and s a convenient ermofsociallyapprovedights";consequentlyheviewedallcultures s"equallyalidpatterns f ife" Benedict1934:278).

This formulationf relativismhas been characterizedy some scholarsas"intellectuallyrresponsible."Kluckhohn,orexample,observed hatethicalrelativisms flawedbecause"ifone followsoutliterally rlogicallyheimplica-tions of Benedict'swords,one is compelledo acceptanyculturalpatternasvindicatedreciselybyits culturaltatus: lavery, annibalism,azism, r Com-munismmaynot be congenialo ChristiansrtocontemporaryWestern ociet-

ies, butmoralcriticismof the culturalpatternsof otherpeople s precluded"(Kluckhohn955:266).Despite hecriticism,elativists rgue hatasapracticalmatterrelativismmustbe coupledwithabsolute olerance fotherculturesor

it would ose its teeth. Consequently,hey believe thatany attempt o makecross-culturaludgmentsor to createuniversal tandardsendersrelativismineffectiveor trivial Hatch1973,1983).Furthermore,manyanthropologistsprefer o avoid udgments ltogether ecause heyfearthat criticism f othercultures andpracticescouldbecome a theoretical andpoliticalminefieldfor the

discipline(Downingand Kushner 1988). Some believe that anthropologymustbe objectiveandethicallyneutralin orderto be scientificandconcludethat true




scholarships incompatibleithanyformof evaluationSteward 948;Hastrupand Elsass1990).Others eel that criticism f anycultural ractice,no matterhowinhumane,would

eopardizeheirfieldwork ndacademic areers Down-

ing 1988).To be sure,anthropologistsoing ieldwork re oftenfacedwith anethicalconflictwhenthey observeculture-sanctionedbuses of individuals.f

anthropologistshooseto support nindigenous ociety n its struggleagainsthuman ightsabusespropagated y an oppressive tate or some otherlargemultinationalntity,state officialsmayretaliateagainst he whistle-blowersanddenypermissiono conduct ieldwork.fanthropologistshooseto supportastatepolicyaimedateradicatingumanightsabusesperpetratedyan ndige-nous society against ts ownmembers, hatsociety mayrefuse to cooperate

withanthropologists,husmaking ieldwork ifficult r impossible.Finally,fanthropologistsecide to helpa dissenting ndividualr groupwhichrebels

againstdehumanizingustomsof its ownculture,ackofcooperationrom hat

societymaymake he fieldworkqually mpossible.Given hehighcost offield-work and the largeempirical,heoretical, nd financialnvestment hatgoesinto fieldprojects,ew anthropologistsave beeneagerto get involvedn hu-manrights ssues.Manyanthropologistswillingly,f somewhatunconsciously,embrace he self-serving llusionof neutrality ndobjectivityo resolve themoraldissonance ausedby observingnjusticeandtake solacein leaving he

balance fpowerunaltered ytheirpresence nthe societiesthey study.How-ever,asJohnStuartMillobserved,"apersonmaycauseevil to othersnotonlybyhis actionsbutbyhis inaction, nd n eithercase he is justlyaccountableothemfor the injury"Mill1952[1859]:272).

Inthe 1970s the most radical ersionof cultural elativism,knownas epis-temological elativism, merged.Epistemologicalelativistsargued hat not

onlydo there exist no extraculturaltandardsgainstwhichcultural ractices

maybe judgedas acceptable r unacceptableecause all culturesare mutu-

ally incomprehensible-asRosaldoput it, "myowngroupaside,everything

humans alien to me"(Rosaldo1984:188)-they alsoargued hat there is nosuchthingas objectivereality, ruth,or reason(Geertz1973, 1984;Clifford

andMarcus1986;Marcus ndFisher1986).Accordingoepistemologicalela-

tivists,allknowledge ndmorality reexclusivelyculture-bound,ndrational

thinking nd he scientificmethodareno morethanaculturally ound ormof

Westernethnoscience. n thatview, science is not a logicallycoherentsys-tem of verificationnd alsification,utrathera culturally iasedwayof think-

ingthat s no differentrommagicor witchcraftGeertz1973, 1984).The riseof epistemologicalrelativism coincidedwith the emergence of manynew

schoolsofthoughthatrose toprominencet that ime suchas deconstruction-ism,postmodernism,ndMarxism, ll ofwhichhave attackedhe veryideaof

scientific,rational,or ethicalreasoning.Marxism, or example,emphasizesthe inevitability of class consciousness in shaping individuals' viewpoints

(Kolakowski 1978). Deconstructionism andpostmodernism profess that there

is no way of knowing anythingbeyond one's direct experience and reject the

very concept of reality (Jameson 1991). All these schools repudiate the con-




cept of objectivity ndconsequentlyhe universality f basic humanrights.To many anthropologists teeped in those theories,any attemptto defineeven the most basicschemeofuniversal uman

ightss

meaninglessb initio.

As a result ofthe confluence f the theoretical ndpragmaticoncernsde-scribedabove,manyof which are indeedvalid,anthropologys a disciplinehas largelyfailed to examineculture-andgroup-sanctionedbuses of indi-vidualhumanbeings(AmericanAnthropologicalssociationExecutiveBoard

1947;Messer,thisissue).Moreover, y adoptingulturalelativism, roclaim-ing unqualifiedoleranceof allcultures,andby takinga group-centered er-spective,anthropology as left little roomfor rationaldiscussionaboutthe

rightsof individuals,articularlyn non-Westernocieties.

Reactions gainstCulturalRelativism

Obviouslynot all anthropologists accept cultural relativism and the

antiexplanatoryndantiscientificparticularismf its variants.Manyrejectrelativismn favorof an evolutionary nalysisby observing hatsocieties doindeedchange heir customsby developingmorehumanehabits n conjunc-tionwiththe growthof theireconomic, echnological,nd scientificcapabili-ties. They emphasize he commondenominatorsmongcultures,suggestingthatit is proper o speakof the commonhumanity fpeopleas the basis for

cross-culturalmoralityand ethicsthatarenot completely ulturallyelative.Redfield1953,1957)andKroeber1935,1948, 1952), orexample,have triedto developanobjective chemebywhichone could udgeother cultures' us-toms. Kroeber 1948,1952)suggestedthat there is an observableprogressfromnonstratifiedo stratified ultures.He saw cultural volutionas an in-creasein technologicalraitsaccompanied yincreased ationalism nda cor-

responding ecline n magic,superstition,orture,mutilations,ndotherreli-

giouslymotivatedbrutalities.In the 1960s,Sahlins 1960)demonstratedhatcultural volution s more

usefullyviewed as a combination f two simultaneous rocessesof specificandgeneralevolution.Specificevolution nvolvesadaptationo variouseco-

logicalconditions,whereasgeneralevolution s progressive nsofaras more

complex ormsreplacesimplerones.Sahlinsobserved hatspecificandgen-eralevolutionarenot different ealities,but ratheraspectsof the samepro-cess. Specificevolutionaccounts or localvariationsn ecologyandaccidentsofhistory; hus it lends itself to therelativistpointofview. General volution,however, s aprogressive hange hatallowsus to makecomparisons,o rankvariouscultures,andactuallyo demonstrateulturalprogress.Accordingo

Sahlins,generalevolutions characterizedythe increased bilityofculturesto harnessenergy; ncreasedcomplexityn socialorganizationsromsimpleforaging ands,hroughribes,chiefdoms, nd inallyo states;and hegreateryear-roundadaptabilityo physical environment.There is a wealth ofarchaeo-

logical and ethnographicdatathat confirmsbeyond doubtthe basic evolution-

ary characterof humanculture (Flannery1972; Sanders, Parsons, andSantley1979; A. Johnson and Earle 1987; Service 1975; Steward 1955). Reflecting a




majordepartureromSpencerian volutionism,modemanthropologyiewsevolutionas changecausedby a combination f mountingpopulation res-sure,greater nterculturalontact,and ncreasingechnological evelopment,rather hansimplyas progress.In fact,evolutionary hange s costly,and its

benefits,such as increased oodsecurity,increasedprotection rompreda-tors,andgrowth n scientificand medicinalknowledge, re oftencounterbal-

anced,althoughnot entirelyoffset,by the costs of evolution,which includeincreased aborcosts, increasedworktime, decliningmarginal roductivity,increasedwarfare,and the decline of individualiberty or all, especially or

women, hataccompanyhe emergenceofsocialstratificationBoserup1965;Cohen1977;A.JohnsonandEarle1987).

Feministscholarsarealsodeeply

roubledy

the factthatrelativism, ost-modernism,rdeconstructionismarginalizeender-basediolenceandavoid

the realityof systemic powerimbalances etween the sexes (Gordon1993;Moore1988).Moreover,heyare concernedhat argenumbers fnondominant

groupsand ndividualsromvarious ocietiesareroutinely isregardedndex-cluded romcultural elativists' nalysesas if theymeritednoattention.

Others, ike Gellner 1985),question he cultural elativistassertionaboutthe inherent ncomparabilityf different ulturesby observing hatalthoughnumerous ocialscientists have conductedieldworkn seeminglyalien cul-

tures,andnumerous ndividuals avetraveledand ivedin aliencultures,noone has everencountered culture hatwasso vastlydifferent s to be whollyincomprehensibler uninterpretableo outsiders.Similarly, o languagehasever beenfound hat was not capable f beingunderstood,ranslated,ndac-

quiredby outsiders. n fact,modern esearch ndicates hatlanguage cquisi-tion is largelygenetically ontrolledPinker1994).Moreover,he factthatnu-merous ndividualsavebeen ablesuccessfullyo switchcultures,migratentoothercultures, radoptormodifyheirowncustomsandbeliefsbeliesthe ideathathumans re so exclusivelyhapedbytheirnativeculture s tobeincapable

of comprehendingr adopting therculturesor thatculturesvaryso signifi-cantlyas to be entirelyunintelligibleo outsiders.Gellner'snsightshavebeen

strengthenedby modernresearch n evolutionary sychology, ociobiology,primatology, sychiatry,modern ognitive ciences,andneurosciences,whichshows rather onvincinglyhatthere s sucha thingas universal umannature,lendingcredence o the universalist elief that there is anunderlying uman

unitywhichallowsus to devise minimum niversal tandardspplicableo allhumanbeingsregardless f theirculture Barkow,Cosmides, ndTooby1992;ToobyandCosmides1990;DalyandWilson1983, 1988).

WHAT IS WRONGWITHRELATIVISM N THE AREAOF HUMANRIGHTS?

Cultural relativism has many flaws. Most formulationsof it are contradic-

tory; others are tautological.As a whole, relativism is based on a static con-

ception of culture. It shows a bias toward functionalismand tends to justify




the dysfunctionalbeliefs and customs of non-Western cultures while

marginalizingondominantoices withinthose societies.It overemphasizesthe

rightsof a

groupover the

rightsof individuals.t forcesus to abandon

nymeaningful iscussionaboutother cultures.However, he mosttroubling s-

pect of cultural elativism s its applicationo the internationaluman ights

legal regimebecauseof its potential onsequences.At a minimum,f relativ-

ism were to underminehe universalist oundationsf modern nternationalhumanrightslaw,allmeaningful ialogueabouthuman ightsabuses would

end.Instead,all sorts of culturallyanctioned iolationsof individualswould

be legitimized, nd ndividualswouldbe left unprotected gainstrulers,gov-ernments,and others in power.Beforetakingup the argument n favorof

human ightsuniversalism,et us consider wo real-life ases anduse themasa springboardor ouranalysis.

Case :IndianSati

In1987,RoopKanwar,neighteen-year-oldajput irl,was burned live

onherhusband'suneralpyre.Shewas married yherparents hroughanarrangedmarriage t the ageof sixteen andwasa university tudent

whenherhusband iedof cancer. t is not clearwhethershe committed

sati voluntarily r underpressurefromher in-laws.It is said that sheappeared o be heavilydruggedon the dayof her burning.The case

causedquitea stir in India.Women's roupsorganizedmarchesn pro-test of thepractice.Manyof theRajputs, owever,bothmenandwomen,defendedhe practiceon the basisofcultural elativism tating hatsati

is an ancientRajputradition.Theyclaimed he rightto commit ati as

partoftheirethniccultureanderecteda shrine nhonorofRoopKanwar,who becamea symbol or a groupof Rajput xtremists.Indianhuman

rightsactivistswere branded ythem as Western mperialistsmposing

theirviews on ancientIndianculture.The Indian eminist movementwas discreditedordenigratingheirnational ulture, or its lackof na-

tionalpride,and fortarnishinghe imageof Indiaabroad.Althoughhe

Indiangovernmenthas repeatedlypassedlaws prohibitingati, these

laws are difficulto enforcebecausefederalprosecutorsare often un-

able to gatherevidenceagainstthe offenders rom a communityhat

protectsthem.(extractedromCoomaraswamy994:39-57)

Considera few hypothetical uestions:

Would t matterandshould t matterwhetherRoopKanwar ommitted atiwillingly?Wouldt bejustifiableultural racticef she committedati volun-

tarily?Would t matter f she objected o her death?Does she have the rightto

reject the culturalpractices of her culture or her ethnic subgroup,or is she

bound, through the accident of her birth, by these practices no matter how

unfairthey are?




Wouldati bejustifiablef it weresupported ya majorityfa group?Would

justificationsfsati hold he same egitimacyf thevastmajorityf satisupport-ers were menwhile100percentofthevictimswerewomen? s it relevant hat

thereneverwas a satiburningnwhich he victimwas awidowedmanand hatmostsupportersf sati find he ideaof malesati totallyridiculous?

What f sati supporterswere politicalopportunists sing sati as a way to

rallypolitical upport nd o divide he Indian ociety alongethnicsubgroups?What fwomenwhosupportati were mothers-in-lawf sati victims?Does

it matter hatgiventhe land nheritance ystem in India,a widowedwomanhas a legal rightto inherither deceasedhusband'sand?Does it matter hatthe in-lawsof a widowedwomanhave a significantconomic ncentive o dis-

poseof herin order o retain

ownershipf the land,which s their

primary,f

not only,asset?Is an invocation f anancientcustomsufficiento legitimizethe practice?

Does the age of a sati victimmatter?What f she is fullycontrolled y the

familyof her in-laws?What f she is a child?What f she is an olderwomanwhohasalreadyived most of her life and s considered n economicburden

on herchildren?Does it matterwhether he woman s pregnant r not?Howfaralongdoes she haveto be inherpregnancy eforeher deathbysati wouldbe unjustified?And if a pregnantwoman s to be spared,does she become

eligible or sati afterthe childbirth?Is satilegitimatefthe woman onsents o her ownburning? anherconsentever be legitimate?Canherconsentever be informed?fshe lived her wholelife in a smallvillageandknewofno otherrolemodels orwomen,would he beconsidered apable f rendering n informed ndvoluntaryonsent?

Is it relevantwhether he sati victim s a childbride, hroughan arrangedmarriage,ivingsinceherearlypubertyn her in-laws'house withno incomeor decision-making owerof her own? Is it relevantwhethershe has anypractical ptionsother than"voluntary"eathby sati? Does it matter hatif

she were to refuse to die, she wouldbe ostracizedbythe village,her in-lawswould hrowher out of the house,andshe wouldhave noplaceto go?

Is it wrongfor Indian eministsand humanrightsactivists to invoke theuniversalhuman ightsideals n theirfightagainst ati andotherpracticesoftortureor violenceagainst ndianwomen?Are these Indian eministsbetray-ingtheir nationalheritageby doingso?Arethese IndianeministsandIndianhumanrightsactivistsmindlessvictims of Westernculturalmperialism?stheirjudgment f Indian ultural eritage ess legitimate hanthat of the sup-portersof sati?

Whatof the long-standing, luralistic, nd rationalisticraditions f Indiawhicharesimilaro thoseespousedbyWesternuniversalismNussbaum ndSen 1989)?Do these traditions, onsiderablylderthan the adventof sati in

Rajasthan,provide the needed cultural legitimacy to the position of Indian

feminists and human rights activists?

To most rational people familiar with the facts of Roop Kanwar's case,

whether they live in India or abroad,no doctrine or philosophical theory, in-




cludingcultural elativism,s sufficient o justifyher death. Cultural elativ-

ism, no matterhownuanced,nevitablyprovides he logical ustificationor

such inhumane ractices. ronically,he cultural-relativistefense of sati hasthe detrimental ffectofdisregardinghewell-demonstratedluralitynd diver-

sityofIndiantraditionsn favorof adopting neviewas representative f In-dianculture,nthis casethe view ofsati supporters. ucha cultural-relativistconstruction f Indian ustoms and traditionsmerelyserves those whopickandchoose ancientcustomsat will and hose who resurrect ustoms o servetheir ownpolitical genda inthis case, Rajput xtremists)or their own eco-nomicneeds (inthis case, RoopKanwar'sn-laws).

CaseI:AlgerianHoly

Warriors

In 1996,twoteenageAlgerian irlswerefirstrapedand hen murderedin frontof the entirevillageby the followersof fundamentalistslamicleaderSherifKosami,who issued an edict thatall women who attend

schools,in violationof the tradition f Islam,shall be rapedand mur-dered. naddition,he motherofthetwogirlswasslaughteredwhen she

attemptedo shieldherdaughters.The murdered irlswere fifteenandsixteenyearsold andattendedhighschool n the hopeofbecoming i-

ther nursesor doctors.Both were religious,both woreveils, and bothstudied he Korandaily.Accordingo the girls'father, he girlswantedto practicemedicine n smallvillageswherethere are no womendoc-tors and where villagewomen are deprivedof basic medicalhelp be-cause Islamprohibitswomenfromundressingn frontof male doctors.SherifKosami,religiousleaderof the fundamentalistArmedIslamic

Group,does not approveof women's educationbecause,in his view,educationorruptsMuslimgirls.Kosamihas issued an edict nwhichhe

proclaimshat womenattending chools shouldbe punishedby death.

Moreover,Kosamibelieves that the "holywarriors" f Allah, .e., hisfollowers,havea moralandreligiousrightto rapetheirvictims,or asKosamiputs it, they have a license "forenjoymentof marriage." he

newspaperseport hatat least112schoolgirls r women eacherswere

raped ndmurderednAlgerianthefirstfewmonthsof 1996.(extractedfromBhatia1996:C11)

Again,considera few question n this case:Does it matter hatbothparentsof the slaingirlsbelievedthat education

wasappropriatendnecessary ortheirMuslimdaughters? retheirviews aslegitimate s those ofKosami?And fyes, whyis it thatmanycultural elativ-ists wouldargue hatKosami's ctionsareculturallyanctioned?Correspond-ingly, why are the less popularviews in a culture not considered to be worthyof protection?

What if Kosami and his policies were overwhelmingly supported by Alge-rian women? What if many Muslim women have so deeply internalized the




inferiorstatus affordedo them by Muslimclerics thatthey frequently n-dorsetheirsecond-class tatusas natural nda partofthe God-given rderof

things?How should he internationalommunity eal withthis situation?Can an individual spouse ideas that are outside the mainstreamof her

cultureor embracenovel ideasin order o change he nativeculture? fnot,how couldanycultureeverchange?Does thejobofdecidingwhetheranideaor practice s typicalof a culture(and, therefore,blessed as legitimatebycultural elativists) lwaysrest with the group?Given hatvariousgroupsandindividualswithinAlgeriaholddifferent iews as to whatconstitutesIslamicorAlgerian ulture,whatare the criteriaordecidingwhichsubgroup ctuallyrepresents he trueAlgerian ulture?Whoseviewpoint hallthe international

community cceptas

legitimateand

why?Whyshouldn'the internationalommunitynsistthat allcultures,nomat-ter what theirbeliefs,be boundby universalhumanrightsthatprohibitor-ture andmurder? s it not,infact,better hat nsteadofengagingnjudgmentsas to whichsubgroup epresents he trueculture,we guaranteensteadcer-tainminimum ights,suchas the rightto life, to all individualsn everycul-

ture,as the international uman ights awcurrentlydoes, so that ndividualscan decide orthemselves o whichsubgroupheywish tobelongand o whichbeliefstheywish to subscribe?

In thinkingaboutthese issues, let us keep the following actsin mind.Atypicalratioof malesto femalesat birthrangesbetween106:100 o 104:100

(Sen 1990).Incontrast, slamic ountrieshave the lowest ratiosoffemales omales in the world,dippingas low as 48:100in the United ArabEmirates,60:100in Qatar,and 84:100in SaudiArabia Nussbaum1995:90).Sen hascalculatedhat as manyas one hundredmillionwomen worldwideare cur-

rently "missing" ndthat a "greatmanymore thana hundredmillionwomenare simplynot there becausewomen are neglectedcomparedo men" andthereforeare not given medicalcare or nutritioncomparableo theirmale

counterpartsSen 1990:66). n manytraditionalultures,disproportionatelyfewer femalechildren urvivechildhood,nd he survivorsdisproportionatelysuffer frommalnutrition, iseases, andbeatingsand are routinelyrefusedmedicalcareandeducation esulting n womenhavinga significantlyowerlife expectancyhanwomen n other cultures.Given hese facts,whichdem-onstratea long historyof abysmal reatmentof womenlivingin traditional

societies,anyinvocation ftradition ojustifybrutalities gainstwomenmustbe treatedwithagreatdealofskepticism ndbe subjectedo thehighest evelof internationalcrutiny.The cases of RoopKanwar ndthe Algeriangirls

are, in manyways, "easy"becausein bothsituations, he victims lost theirlives in the name of "culture."Whataboutcustoms that "merely" estrict

women o home,or veil them,or mutilatehem,orprevent hem fromobtain-

ing education, or deny them salariedjobs, etc.? Most culturalpractices that

restrict women are not benign, and many have grave if not outright morbid

consequences. Whichculturalpractices are internationallysanctioned and al-

lowed to exist is therefore a matter of enormous consequence. In the follow-




ing section, I will try to pointout why it is imperative hat we retainand

uphold he universalnatureof human ights law.

Contradictionsf CulturalRelativism

Logical crutiny eveals that mostapplicationsf cultural elativism o hu-manrightsare self-contradictory. nthe one hand,relativistssubscribe othepropositionhatthere arenouniversal aws orprinciples, et on the otherhandthey also insist that one must be tolerantof the culturalpracticesof

others,thusmaking olerancea defactouniversalprinciple. f it is true thatthere are nouniversal ules,be theyethicalormoral, hen cultural elativistscommitan errorby demandinghat,as a matterorprinciple, o cultural rac-tice shouldever be

judgedbyotherculturesor

byoutsiders.So

longas we

recognizeat least one universalprinciple,we shouldcarefully onsiderwhich

principles eserveto be applied niversally ndwhichdo not.Agoodcase canbe made thatothervalues,such as justiceand fundamentalairness,are farmoreworthyofbeingpromoted s universal ather han he principle ftoler-ancewhere olerance s definednot asavoidance fhasty udgments utratheras an avoidance f anyextraculturaludgment rrespectiveof circumstances.

Cultural elativists end to employ he conceptof cultureas a ready-made,all-purposexplanationfhumanbehavior.Whydidthepractice fsati evolve

amongstRajputs?WhydidtheRajputs bandonhepractice f sati ata certainpoint n time?Whyare somepeople rying o resurrect t? Culturalelativismoffersnomeaningful xplanationso anyof the abovequestionsandpreventsus froma rationaldiscussionof any opportunisticses andmisuses of tradi-tion. Appeals o selectivelychosen ancient customs or religionsshouldbemoreproperly nalyzed sattemptsolegitimizehepolitical rreligious gen-das ofvarious actionswithina society.Correspondingly,t is questionableoassume that the views of the individuals pposing raditional racticesaresomehow nauthentic r notreflectiveof their culture.These individuals re

no less membersof theirsocietythanvarious undamentalists hoclaimtouphold"the tradition."The father of the slain girls voiced that concern

poignantlywhenhe toldthe reporters,"my daughtersdied as martyrs. ..These madmenwho took the lives ofmywife anddaughters re the enemiesof Islam" Bhatia1996:C11).

StaticConceptionf CultureCultural elativisms basedon a staticconception f culture.By emphasiz-

ing stabilityandcultural ontinuity f customsortraditions,elativismdisre-

gardsor minimizes he importance f socialchange.In fact,it ignorestheinevitabilityof changein every society anddismisses the thornyfact thatsome traditions ersistwhileothersareselectivelydiscontinued. llformsofcultural relativism fundamentally ail to recognize culture as an ongoing his-

toric andinstitutionalprocess where the existence of a given custom does not

mean that the custom is either adaptive, optimal,or consented to by a major-

ity of its adherents. Culture is far more effectively characterized as an ongo-




ingadaptationo a changing nvironmentather hanas a staticsupraorganicentity.In a changingenvironment, ulturalpracticesroutinelyoutlive their

usefulness,andcultural alueschangeeitherthroughnternaldialoguewithin

the cultural roupor through ross-culturalnfluences.Anycontactbetweencultures s likelyto cause at least some modificationn the customs of the

contactingulturesorat least to induceareinterpretationfthese customs. t

is thisconstant einterpretation,einvention, ndmodificationfcustoms hatallowscultures o surviveandbe viableover time.

Culturecan also be viewedas an uneasy compromise etweenconflictingneedsandwants of variousgroupsand classeswithin he society,wherethedominant roup ends to maintain erceptions ndinterpretationsf culturalvalues and normsthat are supportive f its owninterests,proclaiminghem

to be the onlyvalidview of that culture.Forexample, thnographicxamplesindicate hatmen,who as agroupdominate hepowerstructure f most strati-fiedsocieties,havediscarded ncientcustoms that are inconvenient o thembut haveselectivelyretained hose customsthattend to subordinatenddis-

advantage omen Butegwa1993).Although iolenceagainstwomenhasbeen

documentedn practically ll types of societies,the distribution f suchvio-

lence andgender-based ominance ariessignificantly. orexample,women

livingin foraginggroupsenjoya high degree of freedomandequality Lee

1979,1984;Lee and DeVore

1968;Leacock

1978;Kaplan,Hill,and Hurtado

1990).Similarly,womenlivingin simplehorticulturalmatriarchalocieties

havea higherdegreeof participationn theircultureandare farbetterpro-tectedagainstgroup-basediolence thanwomenliving n patriarchalroups(0. Johnson1978).In contrast,women born into stratified ocieties endure

highlevels of physicalviolence,rape,spousalabuse,unequalaccess to diet,restrictionson movement,and female nfanticideEdgerton1992).The divi-

sion of labor s also not equitable n most societies (A.Johnsonand Earle

1987).Time allocation tudiesrevealthatwomenwork ypicallyongerhours

thanmenand hatthisdifferences mostpronouncednnonegalitarianociet-ies (A.Johnson 975,1987). n most stratifiedocieties,women erve as beasts

ofburden, arry oadsofwaterandfirewood, ngage n dailysubsistenceand

child-caringctivities,and even have beendocumented o engage n hunting,warfare, nddiving or food.Furthermore,utritionaltudiesshow that even

if some societies can ensure an adequatediet for all their members,they

selectivelyfailto do so in the case of womenandfemalechildren,deprivingevenpregnant r lactatingwomen(P.Johnson1981).Suchfailure s maladap-tive and has detrimental ffects on the longevityandqualityof life of such

societies(Edgerton 992).At the same ime, nmoststratified ocietieswomenare excluded rompublicaffairs,and men dominate he social,religious,and

politicalagendas Edgerton1992;Sahlins1968,1972;Boulware-Miller985;

Dwyer 1991). In many regions, the low status of women was further reduced

at the time of colonization with the imposition of new political, social, and

cultural orders (Etienne and Leacock 1980; Leacock 1978). In recent years,

this process of marginalizationof women was againreinforcedby well-mean-




ing economicprogramsnstitutedby multilateralnstitutions,uchas, forex-

ample, he structuraldjustmentrogramsnstituted ytheWorldBankor the

lendingpractices f the International onetary und JointConsultative roupon Policy1991).By emphasizing tability, ultural elativismdisregards ndminimizeshesystemicaspectsof women's ubordination,uchof which eemsto be correlated ith he socioeconomicevel ofdevelopmentf agivensociety,rather hanbeingsome immutable haracteristicf human ife.

Itis alsosignificanthatwomen rommany tratified ocietiesseek tochangethe restrictiveandoutdated ocialcustoms n order o survive.Forexample,manyAlgeriansdeploreKosamiandhis extremistviews.Newspapers eportthat more than a hundred housandAlgerianwomendemonstratedn 1996

againstvariousreligious undamentalists ho want to resort to the mostre-strictiveof traditionalMuslim ustoms norder ogainevengreatercontrolofwomen.As oneAlgerianwomanput t,"Women erearetheleadersofchangein society.... Algerianwomenhave a longtradition ffighting o thatfunda-mentalistsconsider hemenemy"(Bhatia1996:C11). uchactionsare oftendescribedby theiropponents s foreign-motivatedmplants.A moreaccurateview wouldbe to recognize hat Muslimwomen are engaged n a socioeco-nomicandpolitical trugglewithreligious undamentalists, homanipulatereligiousandculturaldeologyo theirownadvantagendwhodisregardther,more

liberalstrandsof Muslim deology.Discreditingof indigenousaspira-tions for socialchangeas nothingmore thanWesterncontaminationr as anaberrantoreignmport,merelybecause heseaspirationsuncounter o someentrenched ultural racticesof the majorityn power,seems to showsingu-larlybad udgment.

Insteadof usingcultureas the so-called xplanationnd ustificationor all

behaviors,t is farmorefruitfulo analyze1)whose interestsarebeingserved

by the "traditional"ustomsandwhose areinfringed y them, (2) whysomecustomsareabandoned hileothersaremaintainedrresurrectedndbywhom,

(3)whobenefits romchangencultural ractices ersuswhogains rommain-taininghe statusquo,(4)who is influencinghe direction nd he internaldy-namics fculturalhange ndwhether uchculturalhangesmightead ogenu-ine equalityandimprovement f life to currentlymarginalizedubgroups rindividualsr to a furtherdisenfranchisementf the voiceless,and(5)what sthe best wayin whichthe universaldeals of human ightscouldbe used toeffectchange n the natureanddynamics fnativepowerrelationsn order o

producemoreequitable esults. It wouldseem onlyappropriatehat the cul-tural elativistswhoderidehuman ightsuniversalismssuperficialhouldbear

the burden fenumeratingomesort ofcriteria ywhich heinternationalom-munitymay udgewhichgroupsorindividuals ithina givenculture houldbeclassified s legitimate epresentativesf thatculture.Without uchcriteria,t

is impossibleto decide what is and what is not partof a given culture andwhy.The modern internationalhumanrights regime, in contrast to the relativistic

proposals,represents a thoughtfulattemptto balancecompetingclaims for the

legitimacyof various groups and societies, while protectingthose most at risk.




Functionalism

Manyrelativistsprovide acitor even explicit ustifications f cannibalism,infanticide,enitalmutilation,orture,violence,brutality gainstwomen and

children,ortureofanimals, ndotherpractices hatarerepugnant fthe ide-als of international uman ights(Benedict1934;Edgerton1992).Harris, he

leadingproponentof culturalmaterialism, as long argued hatvirtuallyallcultural ractices readaptive,ven if thepeoplewhoengage nthem havenoconsciousunderstandingf these customs andpractices Harris1971, 1977,1985).Anthropologicalatashow, however,that manysocieties engageincustoms andpractices hat are either inefficient r inhumane r areactuallymaladaptiven thatthey endangerhumanhealth, happiness,biological, ndeven cultural urvival

Edgerton 992).In

fact,persistenceofa

givencustom

doesnotmeanthat it is adaptive, ptimal, r consented o bya majority f itsadherentsCavalli-SforzandFeldman 981;BoydandRicherson 985).Boydand Richerson 1985)have shownthatmaladaptiveracticescanspread n a

population ue to indirectbias even undernatural election and in the pres-ence of better-adaptedariants.Consequently, eliefs andpractices hatare

harmful,nefficient, rneutral rom he evolutionary ointof viewcan anddo

persistoverlongperiodsof time.Relativistsand functionalistsresume hat culturesshouldnot be tinkered

with, est theyshouldbeirreparablyamagedrdestroyed.Theyare concernedthatchange,whethereffectedbyinternal rexternal actors-such as the uni-versalhuman ights aws-could lead o destruction fcultures,or fapartof acultures modified r takenaway, hen thewholeculturemightcollapse.Con-

sequently, unctionalistsocusonjustificationsf traditionalustoms,forget-tingthatcultureshave beencontinuously hanging ndremakinghemselves

throughouthe historyof humanevolution. t is highlyunlikely,orexample,that the millennia-oldndian ulturewill suddenlydisappearr be damagedf

we were to eliminatebrutalpractices uch as the burning fwidowsand f we

were to insist on theprotection ftheright o lifeofwomen ikeRoopKanwar.In fact,Indiahas demonstrated,atherconclusively,hatfundamental eliefscanbe changedn arelatively apidmannerwithouta correspondingollapseof

society.Forexample,ndiahas madeenormous trides nmitigatingheimpor-tance of the caste system,a systemof beliefsthatappearso be farmorein-

grainednthe Indian sychethan he customof sati ever was.Inpractice, ul-turalchange s inevitablef culturesare to surviveand thrive n the changingworld.Blindadherence o old customs hathavelongoutlived heirusefulnessis nothingbutcounterproductive.n addition, ot all culturalpracticesare of

equal mportancenthe overall ultureofthegroup,andsome canbe modifiedmoreeasilythanothers.It is erroneouso assume hata reductionnculturallysanctifiediolence, uchassati,would omehowunderminendian ulture.And

yet numerous nthropologists,eholden o cultural elativism,ustify he cul-turalandreligious beliefs of other societies, even if those justificationsare far-

fetched andfranklyquite unconvincing,rather than examine their rational,ethi-

cal, and adaptive qualities (Edgerton 1992).




TheMisconceptionbout heExistence f TraditionalCultureCulturalelativism dmonishesus to respecttraditional ulturesbuttends

to gloss over the factthateven in the most egalitarian nd nonstratified f

societies,there is no suchthingas one culture.Instead,all culturesalwayshave consistedof groupsandindividualswithconflicting gendas,andtheircustoms have reflected he interestsof the dominant lasses.

It is exceedinglyhard o determinehow one shouldgo aboutdecidingwhichcustomsarerepresentative f a givenculture.Shallwe, forexample,assumethatif 100percentof the individualswithin he culturepracticea givencus-

tom,then suchcustom s legitimate?Orcanwejust accepta simplemajority'sview as to what heir ypical ultural eliefsandpractices re?Andwhat f this

majorityenefits fromthe

givenpracticeat the

expenseof the

minority?s

sucha practice till legitimateandrepresentative f that culture? udgmentsas to what are the boundaries f a givencultureandwhatareits representa-tive customsand traditions re inevitableandcannotbe avoided ust by em-

bracing ultural elativism,although uch an avoidance f judgmentappearsto be one ofmanyreasons hatculturalelativism emains o attractive.Giventhe long-standing istoryof Western mperialism,manyscholarsandpoliti-cians areappropriatelyesitant o judgeforeigncultures, est they standac-cusedofethnocentrism nd ackofsensibilityo others.Consideringhe enor-

mousdifficultynvolved nmaking ny udgments, speciallywiseandbalancedjudgments,t is easyto understandhe reluctance o make hem.Although oone candenythat even the best judgmentsand soundreasoning an be andhave been usedin an ethnocentricmanner,making udgmentss not synony-mouswithethnocentrism erse. Cultural elativistsare correct n pointingout thatby endorsing rrejecting foreign ustom,onerisksanimposition f

one'sowncultural rejudices n others.Theyare alsocorrect nemphasizingthatupbringingndeducation ringwith them inherentbiases. But the beliefthatjudgmentsof otherculturesmust be avoidedaltogether,becausethey

maybe ethnocentric,s illusory.Onesimplycannotavoidmaking udgmentswhen faced with oppressionandbrutalitymasqueradingnderthe guise ofcultural radition.Such a nonjudgmentaloleranceof brutalitys actuallyanultimate ormofethnocentrism,f not anoutright thical urrender.ThefatesofRoopKanwar nd heAlgerian irlscallformoralandethicaldecisionmak-

ing. By withholdingudgmentn eithersituation,we are perpetratingunda-mentalinjusticesagainstthose who lack the voice andability o speakforthemselves.Culturalelativism, espite tspretenses o thecontrary,nvolves

makingudgments nd, nthe process,endsupcondoning busesperpetrated

against he voiceless anddisenfranchised.

Emphasis n theGroup t theExpense ftheIndividual nd the

Misunderstandingf Self-DeterminationUnlikeanthropologists,who often tend to emphasizethe importanceof

groups,mostuniversalists akethe position hatthe locus of human ights smostproperly ituated n an individual. niversalists ecognizeanindividual




as the unitofcultural volutionandselection.Theyalsorecognize hatrightsof groupsare best protectedby attending irst to individualights.For ex-

ample, hebestwaytoprotect herightsofanycultural roup o practiceheircustomsandreligion s to guaranteereedomofreligionandexpression o alltheir members.Thatway, anybodywishing o practicemaydoso,while those

wishing o abstain,orwhatever eason,havetheirrightsprotected s well.In

contrast, f one were to grantsucha rightto the group, he individualswho

disagreewiththe views of the majoritywouldhave no recourse.Historyhasshown over and over thatgroupsand culturesshow a proclivityoward he

exploitation f individuals r entire classes of individuals,uch as women or

children, nd hatwithout heproper egalconstraints, roupswillabusetheir

powersn a manner hat

gutsthe

veryideaofhuman

ights.In contrast,proponents f cultural elativismadopta group-centerediewof the worldanddisregardhe factthatmanysocietiesplaceseveralrestric-tionsonmanyof their membersandespecially heir women.Manyproposalscalling orthe establishment f grouprightsarebasedon research hatdoesnotadequatelyeflectsuch intraculturaliversity.Whatmaybe advantageousfor the group,or forreligiousorpolitical lites within hatgroup,mayormaynot be in the interests of individuals elonging o thatgroupor even in theinterestsof the entiregroup.Far too manyethnographiesrovideittle or no

informationbout ntraculturaliversityand reatwomenandotherdisadvan-taged groupsas essentiallymarginal nd irrelevantby failing o reflecttheir

opinions,beliefs,andthe degreeof theiracquiescenceo the dominant ul-turalpractices Geertz1968).

Thedegreeof individualreedom endsto varywiththe degreeof socioeco-nomicorganizationf aculture A.Johnson ndEarle1987). ndividualsivingn

nonstratifiedommunitarianocietieshave a relatively ighdegreeofindepen-dencefrom hegroup.Althoughherightsof individualsnthese societiesmaybe contingent n gender,age,or kinship tatus of the individual,he informal

structure fthese societiesallows ndividualso negotiatea reasonable egreeof independencend hus to escapemost of the group-sanctionedbuses(Lee1979, 1984;Lee and DeVore1968;Flanagan 989).The morecomplexandmore stratifiedhe society,the morepronouncedre differences etween heinterestsof thegroupand he individualsA.Johnson ndEarle1987).For ex-

ample, he more stratifiedhe society, he less freedoms affordedo women.

Many tratified ocietiespractice ypergyny,.e.,the familiesryto ensure hattheirdaughtersmarryup into familieswitha higherstandinghan their own

(Edgerton1992).To maketheirdaughtersmarketable,amilieswatch them

vigilantlyo ensure heirvirginity, hroughphysical eclusionofgirls,whetherbyveilingorpurdah,hroughhepractice f footbinding,emalegenitalmutila-

tion,andotherphysicalonstraintshataredesignedo decreasewomen's rotic

desiresand nsure heirfidelity o a futurehusbandKerr1993;Mathieu 989,1990; Patel 1986). Such gender-basedexploitationserves the purpose of fami-

lies,but it doesso at a heavycost to girlsandwomen,wholose theirfreedomand whose qualityof life is diminisheddrastically.




Yet mostrelativists ubscribe o the view thatallgroupsof peoplehavea

rightto create theirownformof government ndculture,no matterhowre-

pressiveor reprehensiblet maybe either to outsidersor to the minorityof

individualsivingwithin that culture.Accordingo this interpretation,elf-determinationmeanssomethingquitedifferent rom the legal definitionofself-determinationwhichbasically tates thatno statemayimposea culturalor political ystemon peoplelivingbeyond ts borders) Higgins1994).Fur-

thermore,hisinterpretationfself-determinationeadsto the conclusionhatindividualsivingin oppressiveandinhumane egimesshouldbe left at the

mercyof these regimesand cultures.In this vein,manyrelativistshavear-

gued that even the most brutalcustomswhich are groundedn culturalor

religiousprescriptionshouldbe

exemptfrom the

prohibitionf tortureor

other human ightsstandards.Buthistoryshows that ethicalandmoral tan-dards anbe andhavebeen raised hroughouthe worlddueto theadoption fa universalapproacho human ights.Abolition f slavery s one exampleofsuchglobalelevationof humandignity Donnelly1989).Although laverywas

acceptedby virtually ll traditionaleligionsandnumerous ultures, t is now

generallyagreedthatslavery s not compatiblewith the inherentdignityofthe humanbeing,regardlessof religiousand other cultural ustifications fthepractice.Therefore,t is not unreasonableo argue hat n order o ensure

basicdignity orall individuals,ultural-relativisticlaims shouldat least besubject o the minimumtandards f universalhuman ights aw.

TheAbdicationfEthicalResponsibility;elf-Serving sesof Cultural

Relativism;UnsustainabilityThe self-imposed traitjacket f absoluterespectfor all forms of cultural

behavior recludes elativists rommaking ross-culturaludgments nd rom

engagingn meaningful omparisons.Manygovernments, specially hose ofthe ThirdWorld ountries,have realized he politicalusefulnessofrelativism

and have erectedupon t the position hatgovernments re free to suppressandsuspend he human ightsof their citizens n the name of cultural over-

eignty.In recentyears, several ThirdWorldcountrieshave challenged he

very principleof the universality f internationalaw (Cook1990;Hannum

1990).The problemwiththeirchallenges thattheyaremostly, f not exclu-

sively,self-serving.Those who defendculturallyanctioned iolenceagainstwomen do so, not in order o upholdabstract ncientculturalprinciples, ut

typicallyo advance heir ownself-interest,be thateconomic, ocial,orpoliti-cal.Theirclaimsthatuniversalhuman ightsare nothingmore than a West-

ern importation esignedto perpetuateWestern mperialism nd to impairthe economicand culturaldevelopmentof ThirdWorldcultures are thinlyveiledattempts o strengthen heir ownpowerbase.Religious undamental-ists such as Kosami routinely denounce the excessive individualismof uni-

versal human rights and object to the imposition of Western values, which

they claim are embedded in universal human rights law. Such self-servingrhetoric was also embracedby most of the former governments of the Soviet




bloccountries,and t was onlyabandoned fterthe fallof Communism. ven

though he Soviet blocgovernments atified he vastmajority f internationalhuman ights nstruments,heycontinuedo denouncehe so-called apitalistnatureof humanrightslawand insisted that the treatmentof their own na-tionalswasapurelydomesticmatter.Theyalsoarguedhatanygrantofrightsmustbe contingentuponan individual'serformancef his or her duties tothe societyandthat the needs of a communitymustalwayscomebeforethe

rightsof individuals.n spite of this rhetoric, he citizensof the Soviet blocembraced he idealsof the UniversalDeclaration f HumanRightsand otherhumanrightsinstrumentsn theirstruggleagainstCommunism.t was onlyafter hefallof Communismhatthe cynicalnatureof the Communisthetoricwas

fullyexposed.Unfortunately,uchrhetorics still

prevalent mongmanyregimesparticularlyn Asia andAfrica.

Historyhas shown hat t is unwise o acceptat facevalueanyofficial laimsthat the systematicdiscriminationrpresenceofcruelcustoms s partof theculturalheritageof a society.The only meaningful efense of abusivecus-toms that wouldbe consistentwiththe principlesof humandignityandau-

tonomywouldbe a bona ide showing hat eachsubjugatedndabused ndi-vidualconsented o such a practiceand that such consent was knowingandinformed.npractice,mostindividualsiving ntraditionalnd ndigenous o-

cieties havefew,if any,economicor otheroptionsandareincapablef givingan informed onsentto harmful rbrutalizingustoms.The growingconflictsbetweenrightsof individuals ndgroup-sanctioned

violenceareonly ikelyto intensifynthe near uture. nparticular,he impactof cultureandtradition n the treatmentof women must be carefully valu-atedby analyzingwho benefits rom he tradition ersus who bears he cost ofthe tradition ndby lookingat class andpowerdistributionn the society,aswell as thepoliticsof the so-called raditions.nternationaluman ightsnormsoffera useful frameworkorresolvingconflictsbetweenwomen'srightsand

traditionalustoms hatharmanddehumanize omen.Universal uman ightsstandardsact as limits on the excesses of culture- andreligion-based io-lence.Theyensure that culture s not used as anexcuse to limit andimpairwomen'sdejure andde acto rights. Ultimately,he rightsof individuals nd

groupsmust be balanced y evaluatinghe natureandsignificance f cultural

practices,heir effectson the weakest membersof the society,the degreeto

whichthe conflicting ightsinterferewith eachother,the cumulative ffectsof potentialrestrictionson either'srights,and the proportionalityf the re-striction Sullivan 992).The extent to whichwomenwill be ableto exercise

theirrightswithinvariousculturesand succeedin minimizing iolence andgender-basednequalitieswillbe ultimatelyinked o these women'sabilitiesto share n the interpretationf their cultural raditions.

The assertion, often made by relativists, that indigenous women are indif-

ferent to, or offendedby, Western notions of humanrights is factuallyerrone-

ous. The criticism of feminism as nothing more than a Western imperialist

ideology fails to explain the ever-growing women's movements across the




globe Cobbah987;Dwyer1991;Kerr1993;Legesse1980;PetersandWolper1995).Forexample,Africanwomenhaveorganized ducationalampaignsocombat he brutalsexualsurgeryof clitoridectomy.ManyMuslim eministsare fightingagainstconservativeMuslimclerics,such as Kosami,by recog-nizingthatreligiousfundamentalisms nothingmore than"patriarchaltti-tudes andcultural raditions isguisedas religiousnorms" Mernissi1991:ix;see also Patel1986;Dwyer1991;Weaver1994).As oneprominentMoroccan

feminist,FatimaMernissi,sees it, trueIslamallowsfor"dignity, emocracy,and human ights."Accordingo Mernissi,"ifwomen'srightsare a problemfor some modernMuslimmen, it is neitherbecause of the Korannor the

Prophet,nor the Islamic radition,but simplybecause those rightsconflictwith the

interestof

a male elite"(Mernissi1991:ix).Peasantwomen n Indiahaveorganizedhemselves opreventdowry-relatedurning fyoungwomen

(Jayawardena986).The FourthWorldConferenceof Women,whichtook

place nSeptember f1995 nBeijing,was attended y argenumbers f womenfromtraditionalocieties.All those developmentsbelie the relativists'viewthat universalhuman ightsareexcessivelyWesternandnotdesiredbynon-Western individuals.Manysuch non-Westernndividuals ot only supportandembrace he universal tandards;hey use them as a tool in the internalculturaldialoguehatis ongoingn manysocietiestoday.

Fromapractical erspective,elativisms unsustainablenthemodemworld.Even the mostremoteindigenous roupshavebeen substantiallyntegratedinto the globaleconomyandare subject o ever-growingxternal nfluences

(Cultural urvival1993).It is preciselythese peopleswhodesperatelyneedthe protectionof their humanrights,andironically,t is often the dictators,the fundamentalists,nd the multinationalompanieswho chantthe mantraofculturalelativismortheirownbenefit.Byrefusing o engage nthe evalu-ationof otherculturesandtheirpractices,cultural elativistsare unable o

analyze he true natureof such politicallymotivated laims andare unwit-

tingly lendinga helpinghand o those whobenefitfromresurrecting, ppro-priating, r inventingwhatevercustomstheysee fit.

CONCLUSION

Culturalelativism,nitsvariousorms,hasentered hedebateabouthuman

rightsand hasbeen steadilygainingpopularitymongmanygroupsandindi-viduals.Perhapshis is so becausesomescholarsbelievethatcultural elativ-ism is the onlyalternativeo the dangersof ethnocentrism ndmoralabsolut-

ism (Hatch1983;Jarvie1983).Ormaybe his is due to its intuitiveappeal omanypoliticiansndactivistswhouse it to advance heirownagendas.Orper-hapsbecauseof the political xpediencyhat cultural elativism ffers o gov-ernments and those in power, the ideas of cultural relativismcontinue to ex-

pand well beyond academe. Whatever the reason, culturalrelativism has the

potential of underminingthe modern humanrights law developed duringthe

last fifty years. In fact, some major nternationalhumanrights treaties, such as




the Conventionnthe EliminationfAllFormsofDiscriminationgainstWomen,arebeingrewritten ndamended o accommodatearious ultural ndreligiousdifferencesn the nameof culturalelativism,utting n the process he whole

ideathatwomendeservebasichuman ightsprotectionsCook1990).

Contraryo the assertions nd earsofrelativists, uman ightsuniversalismdoesnottakeawaydecision-makingowers rom ndividualultures,nor doesit havedemoralizingndhomogenizingffects.Noris thereanyevidencetoshowthatuniversalisms merelya formof uncriticalthnocentricWestern on-

spiracydesigned o undermine on-Westernultures. t maywell be that uni-versalhuman ights dealswere firstrecognizednddevelopedntheWest,butthatdoes not mean suchideals are aliento non-Westernultures.Similarly,while the

developmentf internationaluman

ightsaw

duringhe last

fortyyearswasprimarilypearheadedyWesternnations,t doesnotmean hatthe

resultingnternationaluman ightsregime s ethnocentric ndunjust.The mainobjectiveof the existinguniversalhuman ightsregime s not to

imposeajacketof arbitraryndhomogenizingniformitymongdiverse cul-tural traditions. nstead, he goal of universalism s to create a floor below

which no societycanstoopin the treatmentof its citizens.Conversely,uni-

versalismhas neveraspired o establishanupperceilingof what the idealormaximumevel of humanrightsshouldbe, leavingsuch improvements nd

enhancementso each individual ulture naccordancewith its resourcesandabilities.Allmajornternationalnstruments ndtreaties,such as the United

NationsCharter,he UniversalDeclaration f HumanRights,togetherwith

its twobindingCovenants, ndallmajornternationalonventions uch as the

conventionagainst orture,slavery,andgenocide,areattemptsat universal-

izingonlythe minimum tandards f treatmentof all individuals.

Due to a minimalist pproacho standardetting,modem nternationalu-

manrightslawis fullycompatiblewith culturaldiversityand moraldiversityfoundaround he world.Underuniversalism, achstate andcultureretains

sovereignpowerover its own culturaldevelopment lbeit withinthe limitsdelineatedby internationalaw.Althoughhe limitationsmposedby interna-tionalhuman aw are minimal, hey provide mportant rotections or indi-

vidualswho wouldotherwisebe entirelyat themercyof the state or thegroupin power.These protectionsncludesuch basicrightsas the rightto bodily

integrity;heright o be freefrom ortureandphysical ndpsychologicalbuse;the rightto be free fromarbitraryourts, mprisonment,ndpolicecoercion;the rightto be free fromslaveryandgenocide; he rightto free speech;and

the rightto choose to be associatedwith,or be free of,anyreligion,culture,

ethnicity,andlanguage.Althoughhuman ightsuniversalism as its flaws,universalism ftenpro-

videsthe onlyavenueavailableo individualsn their ntraculturaltruggle or

fairness, justice, and equality. Consequently, the abandonmentof universal-

ism in favor of culturalrelativism would have profound mplicationsfor those

brutalizedin the name of culture or religion. Even the critics of humanrights

universalism admitthat the internationalsanctionprovided by universalism is




conducive o the preservationof internaldialoguewithinmanytotalitariansocieties andthusprovides he needed everage o improvehe human ightssituationwithin hose countries

An-Na'im 992).The tensionbetween the rightsof groups o maintain heirtraditionalul-tureandthe rightsof individualso rejectthatculture,eitherin whole or in

part, s only likelyto increase n the future.Wemuststrivetherefore o de-

velopcriteria orbalancinghe needs of bothby findingnew ways in whichuniversal dealscanbe internalizednd egitimizednvariouscultures.Therearemanyasyet unanswered uestions, uchashowto determinewhichrightsare more fundamental han others, which rights should be considered

nonderogable,nd whichrightscan be recognizedas moreculturally epen-

dent. Is it possibleto developan internationalonsensus as to the criteriawhichcouldbe used tocriticallyvaluate ultural ustomsand ojudge hem?How shallwe engagein a comparisonf cultures?How can we most effec-

tively legitimize he claimthat certainethicalandmoralconsiderations reabsolute n a sense thatthey shouldnot be violatedor deferredunderanycircumstances? uchanswers haveyet to be completelyarticulated, ut inorder o achievefurtherprogress n this area, t is necessary o abandonheuncritical luralism ostulatedby cultural elativism. ndeed,anthropologistsare in the uniqueposition o promote he observance f human ightsamong

the societiestheywork nbyresearchinghe congruence etween ocal radi-tionsand heuniversal orms. nall ikelihood,heobservance fhuman ightsin all societieswillbe significantlymprovedf those rightsareperceivedas

legitimateandfitting ntothe localtraditionAn-Na'im 992).There exist genuinedifferencesamongcultures,and not all such differ-

ences caneasilybe reconciled.Theuniversalhuman ights awrepresentsan

attempt o strikea properbalancebetween the rightsof eachindividual ul-ture to create ts own moralandethicalnormsand he needsofindividualsobe protectedagainstarbitraryndbrutalcustoms andculturalpractices.As

such,humanrightsuniversalisms worthyof protection gainst he culturalrelativistic ssault.Despiteallits flaws,human ightsuniversalismtill offersthe best hopeof dignifiedife to the world'spopulation.

REFERENCES CITED

Americannthropologicalssociationxecutive oardAAA),947,StatementnHumanRights submittedo the UnitedNationsCommissionnHumanRights).Americannthropologistn.s.)49(4):539-43.

An-Na'im,.A., d., 1992,Human ightsnCross-Culturalerspectives:QuestforConsensus.hiladelphia:niversityfPennsylvaniaress.Barkow,.H.,L.Cosmides,ndJ.Tooby, ds.,1992,AdaptedMind: volutionary

Psychologynd heGenerationfCulture. ewYork:Oxford niversityress.Benedict, .,1934,Patterns fCulture. oston:Houghton ifflin.Bhatia,.,1996,Algerian irlsSlain fTheyAttend chool.Atlantaournal/Atlanta

Constitution,8February,.C11.Bidney,D., 1968,Culturalelativism.p.543-47 nInternationalncyclopediaf



CULTURALELATIVISMNDTHEABUSE FTHE NDIVIDUAL 343

the SocialSciences,vol. 3 (ed.by D.L.Sills).New York:Macmillan.

Boas,F., 1894,HumanFacultyas Determined y Race.Proceedings f the Ameri-

can Associationorthe Advancementf Science 43:301-27.

Boas,F., 1901,The Mindof PrimitiveMan.Journal f AmericanFolklore14:1-11.Boserup,E., 1965, The Conditionsof AgriculturalGrowth.Chicago:Aldine de

Gruyter.Boulware-Miller, ., 1985,FemaleCircumcision: hallengeso the Practicesas a

HumanRightsViolation.HarvardWomen'sLawJournal :155-77.

Boyd,R.,andP. Richerson, 985,Cultureand the Evolutionaryrocess.Chicago:

Universityof ChicagoPress.

Buergenthal,T., 1988,International umanRights n a Nutshell.St. Paul,Minn.:West PublishingCompany.

Butegwa,F., 1993,The

Challengef

PromotingWomen's

Rightsn AfricanCoun-

tries.Pp.40-42 in Oursby Right:Women'sRightsas HumanRights ed.byJ. Kerr).London:Zed Books.

Cavalli-Sforza, .L.,and M.W.Feldman,1981, CultureTransmission ndEvolu-tion: A Quantitative pproach. rinceton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Clifford,., and G.E.Marcus, ds., 1986,WritingCulture:The Poetics andPoliticsof Ethnography. erkeley:Universityof California ress.

Cobbah, ., 1987,AfricanValuesand the HumanRightsDebate:An AfricanPer-

spective.HumanRightsQuarterly :309-31.

Cohen,M.N., 1977,The FoodCrisis n Prehistory:Overpopulationndthe Origins

of Agriculture. ew Haven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress.Cook,R.J.,1990,Reservationso the Conventionnthe EliminationfAllFormsof

DiscriminationgainstWomen.Virginia ournal f Internationalaw30:643-709.

Coomaraswamy,., 1994,To Bellow Like a Cow:Women,Ethnicity nd the Dis-courseof Rights.Pp.39-57 in HumanRightsof Women ed.by R.J.Cook).Philadel-

phia:Universityof Pennsylvania ress.

Cultural urvival,1993,State of the Peoples:A GlobalHumanRightsReportonSocietiesin Danger M.S.Miller,projectdirector).Boston:BeaconPress.

Daly,M.,andM.Wilson,1983,Sex,Evolution ndBehavior. nded. Boston:WillardGrant.

Daly,M.,andM.Wilson,1988,Homicide.New York:Aldinede Gruyter.Donnelly,J., 1989,UniversalHumanRights n TheoryandPractice. thaca,N.Y.:

CornellUniversityPress.

Donnelly, .,1990,HumanRights, ndividual ightsandCollectiveRights.Pp.39-62in HumanRights n a PluralistWorld: ndividuals ndCollectivitiesed.byJ. Berting,P.R.Baehr,J.H.Burger,C.Flinterman, . de Klerk,R. Kroes,C.A.vanMinnen,andK. vanderWal).Westport,Conn.:Meckler.

Downing,T.E., 1988,HumanRightsResearch:The ChallengeorAnthropologists.Pp.9-20 in HumanRightsandAnthropology.ultural urvivalReport 4. Cambridge,

Mass.: Cultural urvival.Downing,T.E.,andG.Kushner, 988,AnthropologyndHumanRights:A Selected

Biography. p. 125-93 in HumanRightsandAnthropology. ultural urvivalReport24. Cambridge,Mass.: Cultural urvival.

Dworkin,R., 1978,TakingRightsSeriously.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.

Dwyer,K., 1991,ArabVoices:The HumanRightsDebate n the MiddleEast. Ber-

keley:Universityof California ress.



344 JOURNALFANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCH

Edgerton,R.B.,1992,Sick Societies:Challenginghe Mythof PrimitiveHarmony.New York:The Free Press.

Etienne, M., andE. Leacock,eds., 1980, Womenand Colonization.New York:

Praeger.Fernandez,.W.,1990,Tolerance n a RepugnantWorld ndOtherDilemmasn the

CulturalRelativism f MelvilleJ. Herskovits.Ethos 18(2):140-64.

Flanagan,.G.,1989,HierarchynSimple"Egalitarian"ocieties.AnnualReviewof

Anthropology8:245-66.

Flannery,K., 1972,The Cultural volution f Civilizations. nnualReviewof Ecol-

ogy andSystematics3:399-426.

Geertz,C., 1968,IslamObserved.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Geertz,C., 1973,Interpretationf Cultures.New York:Basic Books.

Geertz,C., 1984,DistinguishedLecture:Anti Anti-Relativism. mericanAnthro-

pologist86:263-78.

Gellner,E., 1985,Relativism ndSocialSciences.NewYork:Cambridge niversityPress.

Gordon,D.A., 1993,TheUnhappyRelationshipf Feminism ndPostmodernismn

Anthropology. nthropological uarterly 6(3):109-17.

Hannum,H., 1990,Autonomy, overeignty, nd Self-Determination:he Accomt

modation f ConflictingRights.Philadelphia: niversityof Pennsylvania ress.

Harris,M.,1971,Culture,Man,andNature:AnIntroductiono CulturalAnthropol-

ogy.New York:Crowell.

Harris,M., 1977,CannibalsndKings:TheOrigins f Cultures.New York:RandomHouse.

Harris,M., 1985,Good o Eat:Riddlesof FoodandCulture.New York:Simonand

Schuster.

Hastrup,K., andP. Elsass, 1990,Anthropological dvocacy:A Contradictionn

Terms?CurrentAnthropology1(3):301-11.Hatch,E.J.,1973,Theoriesof Manand Culture.New York:ColumbiaUniversity

Press.

Hatch,E., 1983,CultureandMorality:The Relativityof Values n Anthropology.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Herskovits,M.J.,1958,SomeFurtherComments n CulturalRelativism.American

Anthropologist0:266-73.

Herskovits,M.J.,1973, CulturalRelativism:Perspectives n CulturalPluralism.New York:VintageBooks.

Higgins,R., 1994,ProblemsandProcess:International awandHow to Use It.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Jameson,F., 1991,Postmodernism,r the CulturalLogicof LateCapitalism.Min-

neapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.

Jarvie, .C.,1983,RationalityndRelativism. ritish ournal fSociology 4(1):44-60.

Jayawardena,., 1986,FeminismandNationalismn the Third

World.London:Zed

Books.

Johnson,A., 1975, Time Allocation n a MachiguengaCommunity.Ethnology14:301-10.

Johnson,A.,ed.,1987,Cross-CulturaltudiesnTimeAllocation. ewHaven,Conn.:HumanRelationsAreaFiles.

Johnson,A.,andT. Earle,1987,TheEvolution f the HumanSociety:FromForag-ing Group o Agrarian tate.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.




Johnson,0., 1978,DomesticOrganizationndInterpersonalRelationsamong he

Machiguengandiansof the PeruvianAmazon.Ph.D.diss., ColumbiaUniversity.

Johnson,P., 1981,WhenDyingIs BetterThanLiving.Ethnology 0(4):325-34.

JointConsultativeGroupon Policy,1991,WomenandStructuralAdjustment. ewYork:UnitedNationsPopulation und.

Kaplan,H.,K.Hill,andA.M.Hurtado,990,Risk,Foraging,ndFoodSharing mongthe Ache.Pp.107-43in RiskandUncertaintyn Tribal ndPeasantEconomies ed.byE. Cashdan).Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress.

Kerr,J., ed., 1993,Oursby Right:Women'sRightsas HumanRights.Ottawa:ZedBooks.

Kluckhohn, .,1955,EthicalRelativity: ic et Non.Journal fPhilosophy2:663-77.

Kolakowski, ., 1978,MainCurrents f Marxism. vols. Oxford:Clarendon ress.

Kroeber,A.L.,1935,HistoryandSciencein Anthropology. mericanAnthropolo-gist 37:539-69.

Kroeber,A.L., 1948,Anthropology: ulturePatternsandProcesses. New York:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

Kroeber,A.L.,1952,The Natureof Culture.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.

Leacock,E., 1978,Women'sStatus in Egalitarian ociety:ImplicationsorSocialEvolution.CurrentAnthropology9(2):247-75.

Lee,R., 1979,The !KungSan:Men,Women, ndWork na Foraging ociety.Cam-

bridge,Eng.: Cambridge niversityPress.

Lee, R., 1984,The Dobe !Kung.New York:Holt,Rhinehart ndWinston.

Lee, R.,andI. DeVore,eds., 1968,Man he Hunter.Chicago:Aldine.Legesse, A., 1980,HumanRights n AfricanPoliticalCulture.Pp. 123-38 in The

Moral mperativesfHumanRights:AWorld urvey ed.byK.W.Thompson). anham,Md.:UniversityPress of America.

Marcus,G.E.,andM.M.J.Fischer, 1986,Anthropology s CulturalCritique:An

ExperimentalMoment n the HumanSciences.Chicago:University f ChicagoPress.

Mathieu,N-C., 1989,WhenYieldingsNotConsenting, art1.Pp.3-49 inFeministIssues (Fall).

Mathieu,N-C., 1990,WhenYieldings Not Consenting, art2. Pp.51-90 in Femi-nist Issues (Spring).

Mead,M., 1928,Coming f Age in Samoa.New York:Morrow.Mead,M., 1963,Socialization nd Enculturation. urrentAnthropology:184-88.

Mernissi,F., 1991,The Veiland he MaleElite:AFeminist nterpretationf Women's

Rights n Islam trans.byM.J.Lakeland). eading,Mass.:Addison-Wesley ublishingCompany.

Mill,J.S.,1952[1859],OnLiberty.Pp.261-323 nGreatBooksof theWesternWorld,vol. 43 (ed.by R.M.Hutchins).Chicago:Encyclopaediaritannica,nc.

Moore,H., 1988,FeminismandAnthropology.Minneapolis: niversityof Minne-sota Press.

Nussbaum,M.C.,1993,Non-Relative irtues:AnAristotelian

pproach. p.242-69

in TheQuality fLife(ed.byM.C.Nussbaum ndA. Sen).NewYork:OxfordUniver-

sity Press.

Nussbaum,M.C., 1995,HumanCapabilities, emale HumanBeing. Pp.61-104 in

Women,CultureandDevelopment:A Study of HumanCapabilities ed. by M.C.Nussbaum ndJ. Glover).New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Nussbaum,M.C.,andA. Sen, 1989,InternalCriticism ndIndianRationalist radi-

tions.Pp.299-325in Relativism:nterpretationndConfrontationed.byM.Krausz).



346 JOURNALFANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCH

NotreDame,Ind.:NotreDameUniversityPress.

Patel, R., 1986,Pakistan:MuslimWomenandthe Law.Pp. 110-15 in Empower-mentand he Law:Strategiesof ThirdWorldWomen ed.byM.Schuler).New York:

OEF International.Peters,J.,andA.Wolper, ds., 1995,Women'sRights,HumanRights: nternational

FeministPerspectives.New York:Routledge.Pinker,S., 1994,TheLanguagenstinct.NewYork:WilliamMorrow ndCompany.Pollis, A., and P. Schwab,1979,HumanRights:A WesternConceptwith Limited

Applicability.p.1-18 in HumanRights:CulturalndIdeological erspectives ed.byA. Pollis andP. Schwab).New York:Praeger.

Rawls,J., 1971,TheoryofJustice.Oxford:Clarendon ress.

Redfield,R.,1953,The PrimitiveWorld nd ts Transformations.thaca,N.Y.:Cornell

UniversityPress.Redfield,R., 1957,TheUniversallyHuman ndCulturally ariable.ournal f Gen-

eral Education 0:150-60.

Rosaldo,R., 1984,Griefanda Headhunter's age:Onthe Cultural orceof Emo-

tions.Pp. 178-95 in Text, Play,andStory:The Construction ndReconstructionf

SelfandSociety(ed.by E.M.Bruner).Proceedings f the AmericanEthnologicalo-

ciety 1983.ProspectHeights,Ill.:Waveland ress.

Sahlins,M.D.,1960,Evolution:Specificand General.Pp. 12-44 in Evolutionand

Culture ed. by M.D. Sahlinsand E.R.Service).Ann Arbor:Universityof MichiganPress.

Sahlins,M.D., 1968,Tribesman.EngelwoodCliffs,NJ.: PrenticeHall.Sahlins,M.D.,1972,StoneAge Economics.New York:Aldine.

Sanders,W.T.,J. Parsons,andR. Santley,1979,The Basinof Mexico:EcologicalProcessesin the Evolution f Civilization. ew York:AcademicPress.

Sen, A., 1990,MoreThan 100 MillionWomenAre Missing.New YorkReview of

Books,20 December,pp.60-66.

Sen, A., 1993,CapabilityndWellBeing.Pp.30-61 in The Quality f Life(ed.byM.C.Nussbaum ndA. Sen).New York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Service,E.R., 1975,Originsof the State andCivilization: he Process of Cultural

Evolution.New York:W.W.NortonandCompany.

Spencer,H., 1904,Progress:Its Law and Cause.Reprintedn Essays,Scientific,Political ndSpeculativebyH. Spencer).New York:Appleton.

Spiro,M.E., 1984,SomeReflections n CulturalDeterminism ndRelativismwith

SpecialReference o Emotionand Reason.Pp.323-46 in CultureTheory:Essayson

Mind,Self and Emotion ed. by R.A.Shwederand R.A.LeVine).New York:Cam-

bridgeUniversityPress.

Spiro,M.E., 1986,CulturalRelativismand the Futureof Anthropology. ultural

Anthropology:259-86.

Steward, .H.,1948,Comments n the Statementon HumanRights.AmericanAn-

thropologist 0:351-52.Steward, .H., 1955,Theoryof CultureChange:The Methodology f MultilinearEvolution.Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress.

Sullivan,D.J.,1992,GenderEquality ndReligiousFreedom:Toward Frameworkfor ConflictResolution.NewYorkUniversity ournal fInternationalawandPolitics24:795.

Sullivan,D.J.,1994,Women'sHumanRightsandthe 1993WorldConference n

HumanRights.American ournal f International aw88(1):152-67.




Tooby,J., andL. Cosmides,1990,Onthe Universality f HumanNatureandthe

Uniquenessof the Individual.ournal f Personality 8:17-67.

UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommission, 989,Considerationf ReportSubmit-

ted by StatePartiesunderArticle40 of the Covenant. econdPeriodicReport1985.U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/37/Add.3.

Weaver,M.A.,1994,Letter romBangladesh: Fugitiverom njustice.NewYorker,

12 September, p.48-60.

Weinreb,L.L.,1987,NaturalLawandJustice.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-

sity Press.

cultural relativism abuse of individual

Documents