Endangering human rights: The pitfalls of cultural relativism and critical race theory - opinion

Philosopher Bernard Williams once said that “we all have a good idea of what human rights are,” echoing Saint Vincent’s Catholic notion of “what everyone, always and by everyone is believed.” However, in a world where people can justify, and even celebrate human butchery in the name of justice, resistance, and liberation, any such standardized “good idea” of human rights has been perverted – overly subjectified and relativized.

In the words of Iranian human rights advocate, lawyer, and former judge Shirin Ebadi: “The idea of cultural relativism (the view that ethical and social standards reflect the cultural context from which they are derived) is nothing but an excuse to avoid human rights.”

Cultural relativism’s empty notions of justice, rights, and welfare have defeated objective truths brought by realism in political argument. 

While cultural distinctions must be considered in shaping global decisions, a minimalistic and realistic attitude toward human rights is imperative to upholding global order and civility.

Philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously stated that, “before politics can secure anything else, it must first secure order, protection, safety, trust, and the conditions of cooperation.” With no order, protection and safety, no trust or condition of cooperation can develop. Most important for Hobbes is the right to life, which marks the transition between the state of nature and civil society.

Legitimation narratives, such as cries for “decolonization” and “resistance,” are often used to justify violence and spark disputes between who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Such narratives should rest upon facts and context – and take right to life into account. 

The unbridled use of critical theory and cultural relativism to justify a cause “by any means necessary” has overstepped its bounds to infringe upon human rights, to our collective detriment.

What does critical race theory do?

Critical race theory aims to debunk an elitist theory of human rights: that human rights are guaranteed for the West but not for the rest. Makau Mutua, a Kenyan-American attorney and professor, uses this theory in his postcolonial critique of human rights and international law. 

He believes that current international law and human rights foundations enable Western nations like the United States to “legitimize, reproduce, and sustain the plunder and subordination of the Third World,” and are thus illegitimate because they are not equitable, and legitimate code(s) of global governance.”

THEORISTS LIKE Mutua would likely champion third world legitimation narratives of resistance and liberation no matter the human rights breaches on other individuals with the same right to life. 

This narrative posits that terrorism perpetrated toward a Western society is acceptable in the name of resistance, liberation, and justice. Such a mindset foments polarization and revenge, rather than healing, empathy, compromise, and collaboration securing basic freedoms.

Mutua’s anti-hierarchical approach aims to balance power dynamics due to past or present circumstances. While the tragic legacies of white supremacy, imperialism, and colonization should be corrected, the binary characterization of pinning sole blame on the “oppressor” often deprives third-world nations from examining the internal situations that may contribute to their oppression.

Such a notion describes the disastrous linkage between the Hamas terrorist organization and the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people. Its corrupt leadership has exploited the Gazan population for its own self-enrichment, misappropriating international aid, using its civilians as human shields, and indoctrinating children to wage jihad. 

This sinister agenda manifests itself in the West as supposed pro-Palestinian protesters burn Israeli and American flags, and college students chant “We love Hamas,” or point to Jewish students while holding a sign while holding a sign that reads “Al-Qasam’s next targets” – ignoring that such messages align with the Iranian regime’s mission to establish an Islamic world caliphate that strips individuals of all basic rights and freedoms under the pretense of freeing Palestine.

The popularity of critical race theory has contributed to a subversion of human rights standards. For instance, the United Nations was established to secure a moral universal notion of human rights. 

However, the fate of antisemitism infiltrating institutions was realized in the sacred UN halls, as witnessed in the exposure of the UNRWA’s complicity in the October 7th attacks and subsequent allegations of Israel committing genocide. 

This is a prime example of what happens when cultural relativism replaces standards of basic good and evil.

What is cultural relativism?

Cultural relativism – the notion that “persons, depending on their cultural attachments, ought to do different things and have different rights” – implies that any community, based on their culture or what it deems central to collective identity can legitimize any action. 

Compounded by the Critical Theory principle, in which “the acceptance of a justification does not count if the acceptance itself is produced by the coercive power which is supposedly being justified,” Israel or any other Western country – the so-called oppressor – has no right to defend itself from terrorism.

INDIVIDUALS OR communities – notably those in dire circumstances – cannot pursue any tangible notion of justice without a universal standard of human rights or guiding moral principles toward development. 

Such societies have often been dominated by corrupt leaders who prize Max Weber’s ethic of ultimate ends, violence as an end in itself rather than a means to establishing a better society for its people. This leads to collateral damage.

Human rights should prioritize “rights to life, physical integrity, fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of association and prohibition against discrimination universal across borders while helping improve conditions in the third world,” as philosopher Charles Taylor remarked. 

Those at the end of the list are only possible with a global commitment to uproot cultures of hate from our world societies.

Bridges can be built with respect for each other’s existence and acknowledgment of inherent dignity – which can begin upon realizing benefits from mutual interests; then, the moral commitment to uplift and collaborate with one another can take shape. 

Programs like the Atlantic Council’s N7 initiative that aim to broaden and deepen regional integration between Israel and Arab countries, Israeli-Palestinian peace-building NGOs like the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and The Heart of a Nation organization, can facilitate collaboration between individuals, leaders, and their communities in the Middle East and in the United States.

People-to-people relationships matter most, as mutual understandings of each other’s cultures can spearhead enforcement of security and civil norms and keep the horizon of peace alive.

Achieving a human rights consensus requires removing the “human rights conspiracy” from the minds of the historically marginalized or third-world. Skepticism of any universal doctrine or powerful entity is healthy, however, the popular idea that all human rights advocacy is moral imperialism and its contemporary systems fuel racism and dehumanization induces resentment and distrust that thwarts long-term progress.

Critical race theory intellectuals like Mutua must step out of insular echo chambers, and instead, focus on cross-cultural collaboration with diverse thinkers and Western leaders to devise mutually beneficial solutions bridging understanding culture and past and present circumstances, while forging realistic pathways to securing common freedoms.

The writer is a senior at George Washington University.