I think in order to discuss Wole Soyinka’s speech, (whether I am really qualified andintellectual enough to do this is another question, but I will trynevertheless) as above, it is necessary to understand what Cultural Relativismimplies. The first use of the term, “Cultural Relativism” was around 1924 whenAlan Locke described Robert Lowe’s “extreme cultural relativism”, and sincethen there have been numerous debates between cultural relativism and universalhuman rights.
It is normal to assume that any intelligentsia from the so-called ThirdWorld will find the philosophy of cultural relativism abhorrentand definitely unacceptable. This is because it is the principle that anindividual human’s beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of hisor her own culture. Some school of thought also believe it to be an undeniablefact; moral rules and social institutions evidence a surprising cultural andhistorical inconsistency.
However, there is a conflict with those who hold universal human rights very dear, andthis is evident from the Wole Soyinka’s treatise. However, the Nobel Laureatemade no attempt to reconcile the competing claims of cultural relativism anduniversal human rights, and indeed is wary of the claims made by the proponentsand promoters of the former.
The eminent, Nobel Laureate Professor also outlined the issue of “Cultural Diversity” of thehuman, which is of course an undeniable and acknowledged fact. Human beings arediverse and hence we have for example, blacks and whites, Africans and Asians,and even amongst Africans, we have Nigerians and South Africans, and furthermore,within Nigeria,we have Yorubas, Igbos and others.
To acknowledge other people’s diversity is a good thing and this, as isincreasingly evident to all, should ultimately bring about the peacefulco-existence of diverse cultures and people in the world. However, the danger,as Wole Soyinka pointed out, is in the usurpation of the cultural diversity bythe proponents of cultural relativism, despite the fact that they are mutuallyexclusive philosophies.
This has then led to a distortion of the principles of universal human rights, even asimperfect as it is. And perhaps, it is because of this imperfection thatcultural relativists have been able to exploit the weakness
Furthermore, the essay pointed out the how the philosophies of cultural relativism could bedistorted to endorse certain human differences which are inherent in thisworld, and then used to justify certain barbarisms which we have experiencedsince the beginning of time. But then, we know that all ideas, philosophies andreligious creeds could be so distorted even by the most devoted ofpractitioners of these creeds. We know how the holy books of The Bible and TheKoran have been distorted for largely personal reasons, or to justify hatred,killings, etc. It is the same way that cultural relativism has been, and isstill being warped today, and will probably continue for a very long time.
The essay again asserted that cultural relativism has created an environment in whichdiverse views or opinions on various cultural, or rather socio-cultural issuesin the society are refused or totally ignored, such that dissent is notpermitted. This has therefore led todictatorship, discrimination and even state-sanctioned genocide. An example ofthe latter that comes to my mind is the “ethnic cleansing” that happened whenthe former Yugoslaviabroke up.
Diversity of culture and human rights are better presented without the baggage ofcultural relativism. All humans, as the essay/speech pointed out, have rightsby virtue of their humanity and those rights cannot be conditioned by gender ornational or ethnic origin. Also, we knowthat human rights as it exists universally are the highest moral rights, so norights can be subordinated to another person (e.g. a husband) or an institution(e.g. the state). This is in diametric opposition to the philosophy of culturalrelativism.
One could therefore see the antagonism of human rights proponents and supporters to thetheories of cultural relativism.
Personally, I believe, and this is also reflected very visibly in the essay/speech, thatcultural relativism, if we are not careful, is leaning more towards acceptingthe inequality of the races as a natural phenomenon, and therefore promotesracism. The essay also presupposes that it is this doctrine that could havebeen responsible for ethnic and religious problems and occurrences we arehaving all over the world today, and whose proponents are vigorously trying topush down our throats, especially in the so-called Third World or developingcountries and economies of the world.
My own take on this is this. I am definitely not a fan or follower of the ideals orphilosophy of cultural relativism. However, with a little bit of research toget more knowledge about the topic, I have come to realise that it is possiblethat both sides of the debate on cultural relativism and universal human rightsare manipulated to be made reciprocally exclusive and both sides make claimsthat are not only valid but reconcilable.
From the point of view of someone whose people are always on the receiving end ofinjustice, discrimination, inequality, etc, (that is, Africans), Wole Soyinkais right to be wary of a doctrine which instead of promoting equality anddignity of the races (that is Human Rights), seems to be doing the oppositewhile couching the deed in a way that seems acceptable to everybody, and infact is being promoted in high places around the world.
However, the fact remains that Human Rights, as we have it defined today, are notuniversal, but predicated on Western moral values which might not necessarilybe adaptable to, say, someone in Botswana or Thailand, and therefore should notbe imposed as model on non-Western societies in disregard of those non-Westernsocieties’ historical and economic progress and in disregard of their culturaldifferences and perceptions of what is right and wrong.
Universalism holds that more “primitive” cultures will eventually evolve to have the samesystem of law and rights as Western cultures. Cultural relativists hold anapposite, but similarly rigid viewpoint, that a traditional culture is notchangeable.
This then reflected what I have pointed out above that universalism is modelled afteronly the Western viewpoint, disregarding other cultures and in fact denigratingother cultures as inferior. This is racism of the highest order.
As again pointed out in the speech by Wole Soyinka, cultural relativism has greatproblems and potential for abuse, however, I submit that universalism oruniversal human rights in its current state is not the ideal solution. Why, forexample, if we have an African King, who has an advisory council of 12 seniorchiefs, this system is any less representative than the supposedly more liberalWestern societies?
I think the challenge to moralists and proponents of both concepts is to “marry” the twoviewpoints or philosophies or ideologies to find an ideal solution or a commonground for the betterment of the society at large. We still need to take into consideration suchissues as efficacy of international laws, international system of human rights,promotion and protection of human rights, and state compliance.
However, if cultural tradition or cultural relativism alone governs State observance ofinternational standards, then widespread disrespect, abuse and violation ofhuman rights would be given legitimacy, and these I think, is the crux of Prof.Wole Soyinka’s essay.
*Wole Soyinka, 2008. “The Avoidable Trap Of Cultural Relativism”. Speech on the occasion of thesecond edition of the Geneva Lecture Series, Geneva, 10 December 2008.
https://theblacklist.net/
Comments