For All Points-Of-The-View.
I think in order to discuss Wole Soyinka’s speech, (whether I am really qualified and
intellectual enough to do this is another question, but I will try
nevertheless) as above, it is necessary to understand what Cultural Relativism
implies. The first use of the term, “Cultural Relativism” was around 1924 when
Alan Locke described Robert Lowe’s “extreme cultural relativism”, and since
then there have been numerous debates between cultural relativism and universal
It is normal to assume that any intelligentsia from the so-called Third
World will find the philosophy of cultural relativism abhorrent
and definitely unacceptable. This is because it is the principle that an
individual human’s beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his
or her own culture. Some school of thought also believe it to be an undeniable
fact; moral rules and social institutions evidence a surprising cultural and
However, there is a conflict with those who hold universal human rights very dear, and
this is evident from the Wole Soyinka’s treatise. However, the Nobel Laureate
made no attempt to reconcile the competing claims of cultural relativism and
universal human rights, and indeed is wary of the claims made by the proponents
and promoters of the former.
The eminent, Nobel Laureate Professor also outlined the issue of “Cultural Diversity” of the
human, which is of course an undeniable and acknowledged fact. Human beings are
diverse and hence we have for example, blacks and whites, Africans and Asians,
and even amongst Africans, we have Nigerians and South Africans, and furthermore,
we have Yorubas, Igbos and others.
To acknowledge other people’s diversity is a good thing and this, as is
increasingly evident to all, should ultimately bring about the peaceful
co-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 by
the proponents of cultural relativism, despite the fact that they are mutually
This has then led to a distortion of the principles of universal human rights, even as
imperfect as it is. And perhaps, it is because of this imperfection that
cultural relativists have been able to exploit the weakness
Furthermore, the essay pointed out the how the philosophies of cultural relativism could be
distorted to endorse certain human differences which are inherent in this
world, and then used to justify certain barbarisms which we have experienced
since the beginning of time. But then, we know that all ideas, philosophies and
religious creeds could be so distorted even by the most devoted of
practitioners of these creeds. We know how the holy books of The Bible and The
Koran have been distorted for largely personal reasons, or to justify hatred,
killings, etc. It is the same way that cultural relativism has been, and is
still being warped today, and will probably continue for a very long time.
The essay again asserted that cultural relativism has created an environment in which
diverse views or opinions on various cultural, or rather socio-cultural issues
in the society are refused or totally ignored, such that dissent is not
permitted. This has therefore led to
dictatorship, discrimination and even state-sanctioned genocide. An example of
the latter that comes to my mind is the “ethnic cleansing” that happened when
the former Yugoslavia
Diversity of culture and human rights are better presented without the baggage of
cultural relativism. All humans, as the essay/speech pointed out, have rights
by virtue of their humanity and those rights cannot be conditioned by gender or
national or ethnic origin. Also, we know
that human rights as it exists universally are the highest moral rights, so no
rights 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 cultural
One could therefore see the antagonism of human rights proponents and supporters to the theories of cultural relativism.
Personally, I believe, and this is also reflected very visibly in the essay/speech, that
cultural relativism, if we are not careful, is leaning more towards accepting
the inequality of the races as a natural phenomenon, and therefore promotes
racism. The essay also presupposes that it is this doctrine that could have
been responsible for ethnic and religious problems and occurrences we are
having all over the world today, and whose proponents are vigorously trying to
push down our throats, especially in the so-called Third World or developing
countries and economies of the world.
My own take on this is this. I am definitely not a fan or follower of the ideals or
philosophy of cultural relativism. However, with a little bit of research to
get more knowledge about the topic, I have come to realise that it is possible
that both sides of the debate on cultural relativism and universal human rights
are manipulated to be made reciprocally exclusive and both sides make claims
that are not only valid but reconcilable.
From the point of view of someone whose people are always on the receiving end of
injustice, discrimination, inequality, etc, (that is, Africans), Wole Soyinka
is right to be wary of a doctrine which instead of promoting equality and
dignity of the races (that is Human Rights), seems to be doing the opposite
while couching the deed in a way that seems acceptable to everybody, and in
fact is being promoted in high places around the world.
However, the fact remains that Human Rights, as we have it defined today, are not
universal, but predicated on Western moral values which might not necessarily
be adaptable to, say, someone in Botswana or Thailand, and therefore should not
be imposed as model on non-Western societies in disregard of those non-Western
societies’ historical and economic progress and in disregard of their cultural
differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong.
Universalism holds that more “primitive” cultures will eventually evolve to have the same
system of law and rights as Western cultures. Cultural relativists hold an
apposite, but similarly rigid viewpoint, that a traditional culture is not
This then reflected what I have pointed out above that universalism is modelled after
only the Western viewpoint, disregarding other cultures and in fact denigrating
other cultures as inferior. This is racism of the highest order.
As again pointed out in the speech by Wole Soyinka, cultural relativism has great
problems and potential for abuse, however, I submit that universalism or
universal human rights in its current state is not the ideal solution. Why, for
example, if we have an African King, who has an advisory council of 12 senior
chiefs, this system is any less representative than the supposedly more liberal
I think the challenge to moralists and proponents of both concepts is to “marry” the two
viewpoints or philosophies or ideologies to find an ideal solution or a common
ground for the betterment of the society at large. We still need to take into consideration such
issues 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 of
international standards, then widespread disrespect, abuse and violation of
human 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 the second edition of the Geneva Lecture Series, Geneva, 10 December 2008.