Human Rights Norms and Cultural Arrogance

The discussion for this week (#13) was directed at the concept of the global public sphere. One of the readings, which I don’t think we delved in to, was the article by Thomas Risse and Kathyrn Sikkink discussing the internationalization of human rights norms and how that can lead to behavioral changes. The article itself dealt with the role of transnational advocacy in norm diffusion, but it lead me to think about whether or not this particular view deserves to be perpetuated.

            The view of “human rights” such as it exists in the 20^th and 21^st century world, is primarily one derived from the dominant western cultures. My guess is that it shares a cultural history with the global abolition and suffrage movements. But it presumes that the Western idea of equal rights for all, across the board, is somewhat culturally arrogant. Who are the citizens of the UK, France, the US, etc. (or at least parts of them) to tell the people of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Burma, and numerous other countries that the way their country operates (typically in a very realist, “might makes right” manner) are in some way inferior? Why do I get to determine which cultures are or are not upholding my ideal and publically chastise them? It was this same mentality, taken from the opposite direction, which led to the enslavement of African and Indigenous Americans by these same European cultures. The justification was that those cultures were inferior and therefore not worthy of equal treatment. The Bible was used to justify the terrible treatment of others.

            Is this merely an extra-long period of cultural guilt, where we try to make amends by encouraging these same cultures to act like we act? If the goal is to persuade these sometimes-ancient cultures to adopt our viewpoint, does the approach by Amnesty International and Greenpeace and others to loudly and publically shame these countries really accomplish anything? Do they really accomplish the things they claim to influence or are they taking credit for the actions of others that provide the goal they were seeking?

            I realize I’m delving into the world of anthropological theory and cultural relativism, but the reading for some reason got my hackles up, with the general assumption that our culture is inherently superior to others. To some extent, examples lived are much more effective than examples lectured.