Essay 004
Anthropology & Universal Human Rights
Various Essays on the Anthropological Examination of Universal Human Rights
June 17, 2023
Universality versus Cultural Relativism
Without a doubt, there is an underlying tension between the concept and practice of International Human Rights (IHR) or Universal Human Rights (UHR), which emphasizes basic human rights of individuals, and Anthropology, which focuses on the study of cultures—system of beliefs and practices—of groups. The concept of cultural relativism, which is pervasive in the practice of Cultural Anthropology as an academic discipline, is founded on the idea that any particular culture must by understood in the context of that culture, and that all cultural beliefs are equally valid and truth itself is relative. From that perspective it may be fair to state that Anthropological inquiries must view all beliefs and actions—even those we disagree with, both morally and philosophically, including violence and conflict—without personal judgement or without the application of an outside system of values. However, with that said the economic and political globalization of the world has brought forth international conflict (e.g. Thirty Years War, World War I, World War II) that had resulted in the death of tens of millions of people and the brink of global annihilation. UHR as a concept and as a practice is not a result of religious or philosophical mandates, nor natural human altruism, but rather it is the result of historical events and international conflict. In other words, it is a relatively contemporary socially constructed concept. As a result, the concept and practice of UHR is dynamic and is constantly changing based on evolving international and political relations and international legal structures.
The practice of human rights is essentially tied to the formation of international communities—including formal institutions such as the United Nations, national and international government bodies, and informal actors such as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), corporations, mass media, and individuals. While some may claim that UHR are a result of victor’s justice after the allies victory in World War II, it would be fair to state that the evolution of UHR as ideas and as a set of practices reflects the power dynamics of the global community. This is realized through international conferences (e.g. Atlantic Charter, Dumbarton Oaks Conference, United Nations Conference on International Organization) and the formal institutions and informal actors mentioned above.
While it may be fair to state that some people in the field of Anthropology aims to remain neutral in regards to the application of discoveries to the cultures of study, as a collective discipline, it is clear that the professional organization of anthropologists (e.g. American Anthropological Association [AAA]) has made the decision to apply collected knowledge to solving human problems—including the rights of individuals. The clearest example of this is the 1999 Statement on Human Rights from the American Anthropological Association (AAA), which has declared that while Anthropologists will always respect concrete human differences, they will also respect the declarations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, the Conventions on Torture, Genocide, and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
ethnicity, nationalism, and ethnic conflict
The public perception of ethnicity and basis for ethnic conflict is often greatly affected by the medium in which such ideas are transmitted and received. According to a theory of imagined communities by Benedict Anderson (1983), the idea of nationalism or national identity is socially constructed and lies in the imagination of those who perceive themselves as a part of the group. Furthermore, as with ethnic groups, nationalism is also constructed via identity and ascription, where identity involves the perception of the self to a particular group, and ascription requires others to confirm that perception. As a result, ethnicity and nationalism always requires two groups—and in group and an out group. Anthropological and ethnographic approaches to viewing ethnicity and nationalism has expanded our collective understanding of how such social organization develops and how it affects our interactions.
As an example, an anthropological analysis of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 reveals that the conflict was a result of historical circumstances—including the colonization of the region by the Dutch—which based partly on the Hamitic myth (an outdated form of scientific racism), created the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. These groups persisted beyond the decolonization of the modern state of Rwanda and eventually, through power struggles of Rwandan political leaders, used those ethnic divisions to incite violence and start a civil war which ended in the mass killings of innocent individuals. Using the framework of imagined communities as conceptualized by Benedict Anderson, such ethnic groups and differences of the Hutu and Tutsi lied in the minds of individuals within these groups and further reinforced through propaganda and stories that were repeated by actors with political agendas.
Similar to the case of the Rwanda, an anthropological analysis of the Bosnian War in the 1990s has revealed that the ethnic divisions were constructed and reinforced by political groups and actors—including the Chetnik, Slobodan Milosovic, and Utsasha— in order to justify the mass killings of Serbs and Bosnian Muslims.
The anthropological approach combining historical and ethnographic methodologies, helps uncover the reasons why ethnic groups are formed and why ethnic conflicts occur. Such disciplinary approaches are informed by a adherence to cultural relativism, which states that truth itself is relative and depends on the cultural environment, and through a practice known as thick description, which is a form of describing human social action that goes beyond observable physical behaviors, and contextualizes such actions as interpreted by others in the community.
International Human Rights & the Media
Anthropology as an academic discipline and as a tool for situational analysis can help provide a broader understanding of international human rights, events, and policies by situating phenomena in the context of a particular society, community, and culture. This is in large part because anthropological methodologies relies on ethnographic research—a systematic study of human cultures by embedding oneself for an extended period of time in a particular social setting. The discipline’s commitments to the tenets of holism (i.e. viewing individual phenomena in a context of a broader whole) and cultural relativism (i.e. a particular culture should be understood on its own terms and without the judgment of outside values and norms) also help make sense of particular social issues beyond the facts and common assumptions of a news story.
Taking one example as a case study, a 2019 news article from The Economist titled, “Half a million ghosts: How well has Rwanda healed 25 years after the genocide?” details the background of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and investigates how Rwandans have adjusted to life decades after the violent conflict. In the beginning of the article, it asks many of the same questions that anthropologists also aim to answer including: “what exactly caused the genocide?” “Could outsiders have stopped the genocide?” “Are the Hutus, who are still a large majority, quietly determined to take over again one day?” but ultimately it fails to give any meaningful explanations.
In order to analyze the Rwandan genocide from an anthropological perspective, we must first understand how ethnic identities are constructed and how the borders of ethnic identities can occasion violent conflict. To that end, social theories are helpful in providing a framework to help explain why certain things happen. On the topic of social and ethnic identity, Benedict Anderson’s theory of imagined communities is particularly useful. According to Anderson’s understanding, national identity—and by extension ethnic identity—lies within the imagination of those who perceive themselves as a part of the ethnic group. Furthermore, ethnic identities are constructed through the process of identity and ascription, where identity involves the perception of the self to a particular group, whereas ascription involves others outside the group to confirm that perception. Therefore, ethnic identities fundamentally require two groups to exist—in-groups and out-groups—such as the Rwandan Tutsi and Hutu.
Furthermore, situating the Rwandan genocide in the broader context of historical events shows that certain events, including the colonization of the region by the Dutch who favored the Tutsi ethnic group and materially reinforced ethnic borders through the use of identification documents. These ethnic divisions persisted beyond the decolonization of Rwanda into its current modern state, and within the backdrop of power struggles between Rwandan political groups, certain political leaders used such ethnic divisions to incite violence and start a civil war which resulted in the mass killing of over eight-hundred thousand innocent individuals.
Aside from explaining why ethnic conflict had occurred, understanding the historical and cultural background of the genocide also provides a clearer context for how Rwandans have (and still are) adjusting to life after the civil war and the current sociopolitical state. The lack of resources in some way forced the Rwandan people to resort to highly localized community courts known as gacaca. While the use of the gacaca process was far from ideal, there is no arguing that it has been more effective than the previous system of justice. Furthermore, while the authoritarian governance under the current regime of President Paul Kagame is maintaining the peace within the Rwandan borders, that peace comes at the cost of certain human rights—such as the freedom of speech and expression. One final point regarding this news article is that the stories communicated within mass media (i.e. news journalism) itself is also subject to biased perspectives. The fact is that we as an audience situated within the Western world consume information about the outside world (i.e. Rwanda) through the perspective of journalists who aren’t exactly native to the specific culture. As a result, our perceptions of the Rwandan people (and their historical and current circumstances) are mediated through a series of people and technologies that have an immense power to shape such perceptions.
In sum, as we have seen in the analysis of the Rwandan genocide, the anthropological approach of combining ethnographic methodologies (e.g. participant observation, thick description) within historical and cultural contexts helps shed light on why ethnic groups form, why conflict occurs between ethnic groups, and how such conflicts can be prevented in the future.
The Liberalism of human rights in a multicultural world
Human rights as a socially constructed concept and practice is the result of historical conflict between nations and between communities on the international stage. As such it is fair to describe Universal Human Rights (UHR) or International Human Rights (IHR) as a relatively modern human invention. Moreover, the way human rights are recognized and practiced today is heavily shaped by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of American States (OAS), and international court systems such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). To take a further step back, the advent of these global institutions are largely a byproduct of international conflict (e.g. Thirty Years War, World War I, World War II) that had resulted in the death of tens of millions of people and the brink of global annihilation. Furthermore, the victory of the United States and the Allies in World War II to certain extent set the foundation for establishing the individual as a foundational basis for the practice of human rights since the values and principles of the United States (and a majority of the Western world) were founded on the rights and liberties of individuals.
With that said, when human rights were first being established by the United Nations and through international conferences (e.g. Atlantic Charter, Dumbarton Oaks Conference, United Nations Conference on International Organization [1945], The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [1966], and The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights [1966]), the Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union galvanized the concept of state sovereignty as a major principle in the way human rights were to be realized (Article 2(7) in the UN Charter). As a result there is a fundamental tension between the desire to establish a broad definition of universal human rights (based on the individual) and the needs and political agendas of nation states. However, in practice this friction results in not only conflict between individual rights and state aspirations, but it also results in conflict between states and communities of people—in particular minority ethnic groups. As an example, in Nicaragua in the early aughts, an indigenous minority group known as the Awas Tingni found themselves in conflict with the Nicaraguan government over the rights to their own communal land and resources and the right for the Nicaraguan government to extract resources and economic value from the national forests. In order to accommodate the tensions between the human rights of individuals (and by extension rights of groups and/or communities) and the principle of state sovereignty, the practice of human rights attempts to adhere to the tenet of overlapping consensus—a concept wherein communities of differing cultures, values, and norms can still come to a consensus by agreeing to a common—overlapping—set of rules, principles, or values. In other words, the nation-states that seek to protect the human rights of their citizens can accommodate the variety of human societies and cultures by agreeing to specific principles such as the freedom of religion and freedom from torture. Furthermore, to further accommodate the enormous variety of cultures and societies, the practice of international law (which shapes the way human rights is observed) adheres to a principle known as customary law, wherein, laws are constructed with respect to the local customs of particular social settings.
While principles such as overlapping consensus attempt to mitigate the tensions between the human rights of individuals and state actors, such conflicts are still present in today’s societies. As an example, in the case of France, we can observe a conflict between an individual’s right to religious freedom and freedom of expression—in particular the practice of wearing Islamic headscarves (i.e. hijab and burka)—and the right of French society to maintain the principle of secularism (laïcité) in public spaces (i.e. schools). In this particular case, the struggle between individual human rights and the rights of society are not only a result of historical circumstances but are reflective of the power inequities between majority and minority groups.
particular professions and the realization of human rights
Universal human rights as it is conceptualized and practiced in society today is not a result of religious or philosophical ratification—nor is it a result of natural human altruism—but rather, it is the consequence of historical events and global conflict. In short, the legal structures and international institutions (e.g. United Nations, Organization of American States, International Criminal Court, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, etc.) provide a foundation to establish norms and values that—with the adherence to the tenet of overlapping consensus—we as a globalized community can agree to. However, as we have seen over the course of this class, within the context of the legal practice of human rights, there are many situations wherein the human rights of individuals are in conflict with the collective needs of societies and nation states and individual rights are sometimes at odds with the cultural diversity of local communities.
In order to resolve such conflicts, we must understand the situation—beyond the legal perspective—on a deeper and more nuanced level. To that end, other professional fields, such as anthropology, history, political science, and journalism, allows actors within the practice of human rights to understand conflict from various perspectives and how such struggles can create political, cultural, and historical entanglements. For example, anthropology looks at human rights from a broad societal and cultural perspective, political science shows us human rights from the perspective of governance and power, and journalism tried to communicate important information to the public. In other words, having a more complete understanding can help shape legal structures and place decisions in a broader historical, societal, and cultural context.
In one concrete case study from this class, we observed a conflict between the rights of the indigenous Awas Tingni to their ancestral land and resources and the desire for the Nicaraguan state to profit and develop economically from that same ecological resource. In this particular case, it not only shows the inherent limitations of international legal system to enact change for marginalized ethnic groups, it helps illustrate what role other professions play in contributing to the realization of human rights. For the case of the Awas Tingni, anthropological research (i.e. ethnographic research and participant observation) helped document their current and historical use and occupancy of their ancestral lands.
Similarly, in the case of the Rwandan genocide, anthropologists, political scientists, and historians helped explain the roots of the ethnic violence between the Tutsi and Hutu through the development of social theories. As an example, the theory of imagined communities from Benedict Anderson, a political scientist, helped helped link the development of media technologies and economic systems (print media capitalism in Anderson’s analysis of the industrial revolution) to the emergence of nationalism and national identity. When applied to the Rwandan genocide, myths and folklore of the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic identities were propagated through radio and other media, and were used as propaganda by political leaders in order to incite violence between the two groups. In sum, other professions help bring a diversity of perspectives that shed light on how ethnic identities and divisions are created, and help explain why conflict occurs between groups. Ultimately, a broader understanding helps help bring justice and prevent future conflicts by tailoring structural solutions—legal and otherwise—to the local contexts.