THE CONCEPTS OF RELATIVISM AND UNIVERSALISM IN THE CONTEXT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS.
Written By: Dr. Syed Raza Shah Gilani.
Relativism:
The discourse surrounding relativism and universalism in the realm of human rights has been a
subject of ongoing debate and scrutiny. These concepts represent opposing perspectives on the
nature and applicability of human rights, posing significant challenges for policymakers,
scholars, and practitioners. This exploration delves into the intricate dynamics of relativism and
universalism, aiming to elucidate the key principles, critiques, and potential pathways for
reconciling these contrasting viewpoints.
Relativism: Embracing Cultural Contexts
Cultural Relativism:
Cultural relativism suggests that human rights are culturally specific, and what may be
considered a right in one culture may not be viewed the same way in another.
It acknowledges the influence of cultural, historical, and societal norms in shaping perceptions of
rights. At the core of relativism lies the notion of cultural relativism, asserting that human rights
are inherently culturally specific. This perspective contends that what may be deemed a
fundamental right in one cultural context might not hold the same significance in another.
Acknowledging the influence of cultural, historical, and societal norms becomes paramount in
understanding the relativist stance.
Challenges of Relativism:
Critics argue that cultural relativism can be used to justify human rights abuses, as some
practices may infringe upon fundamental human rights regardless of cultural context.
Balancing cultural sensitivity with the protection of universal human rights is a significant
challenge.
Cultural Sensitivity vs. Human Rights Abuses:
While cultural relativism emphasizes respect for diverse cultural perspectives, it faces criticisms
for potentially providing a cover for human rights abuses. Critics argue that certain practices,
irrespective of cultural context, infringe upon fundamental human rights. Striking a balance
between cultural sensitivity and the protection of universal human rights becomes a formidable
challenge within the relativist framework.
Universalism:
Universalism: Inherent Dignity and Common Standards
Inherent Dignity:
Universalism asserts that human rights are based on inherent human dignity and are applicable to
all individuals, irrespective of their cultural, social, or political context.

Page 1 of 4
It upholds the idea that certain rights are fundamental and should be universally protected.
Contrary to relativism, universalism posits that human rights are grounded in inherent human
dignity and are, therefore, applicable universally. This perspective asserts that certain rights are
fundamental and should be safeguarded for all individuals, irrespective of cultural, social, or
political differences. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) exemplifies a
commitment to common standards applicable to all.
International Human Rights Instruments:
Universalism is embedded in various international human rights documents such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which sets out a common standard for all people and
nations. Universalism finds expression in various international human rights instruments,
including treaties, conventions, and declarations. The development and ratification of these
documents underscore the global recognition of a common set of human rights principles.
However, critics argue that these standards may be influenced by Western values, necessitating a
careful consideration of diverse cultural perspectives.
Critiques of Universalism:
Critics argue that the concept of universal rights may be influenced by Western values,
potentially neglecting diverse cultural perspectives.
Striking a balance between universal principles and cultural diversity is essential to address these
concerns.
Synthesis:
Cultural Sensitivity and Universal Standards:
Finding a middle ground involves recognizing the importance of cultural context while
upholding fundamental human rights.
Efforts should be made to ensure that universal rights are applied with cultural sensitivity and
respect for diverse perspectives.
Dialogues and Global Cooperation:
Encouraging dialogues between different cultures and nations helps bridge the gap between
relativism and universalism.
Global cooperation is crucial for establishing common ground and addressing challenges to
human rights on a global scale.
Progressive Development of Human Rights:
The understanding of human rights evolves over time, reflecting societal changes and emerging
consensus.
Striving for a progressive development of human rights norms can accommodate both cultural
diversity and universal principles.
Hence, the debate between relativism and universalism in human rights emphasizes the need for
a nuanced approach that respects cultural differences while safeguarding fundamental rights on a

Page 2 of 4
global scale. Achieving a balance requires ongoing dialogue, international cooperation, and a
commitment to the evolving understanding of human rights.
Conclusion: Towards a Harmonious Coexistence
In conclusion, the debate between relativism and universalism in human rights underscores the
need for a nuanced and comprehensive approach. Rather than adopting rigid positions,
embracing a harmonious coexistence of these perspectives is crucial. Cultural relativism
emphasizes respect for diversity, while universalism underscores the inherent dignity of every
individual. The synthesis of these perspectives requires ongoing dialogue, international
cooperation, and a commitment to the evolving understanding of human rights. In this intricate
dance between relativism and universalism, the ultimate goal remains the protection and
promotion of the inherent rights and dignity of all individuals, transcending cultural, social, and
political boundaries.
Critiques and Challenges: Striking a Delicate Balance
Cultural Bias and Western-centric Approach: A primary critique of universalism revolves
around the perception of cultural bias. Critics argue that a Western-centric approach may
marginalize non-Western perspectives, potentially undermining the legitimacy of universally
proclaimed rights. Addressing this concern requires a nuanced understanding of cultural diversity
and a commitment to inclusive dialogue.
Imposition of Values and Colonial Legacy: Another challenge stems from the historical
context of imperialism and colonialism, where Western powers imposed their values on
colonized societies. Skeptics of universalism contend that this legacy continues to influence
contemporary human rights discourse, necessitating efforts to rectify historical injustices and
build trust among diverse nations.
Synthesis: Navigating Complexity with Nuance
Cultural Sensitivity with Universal Principles:
Navigating the complexities of relativism and universalism calls for a synthesis that combines
cultural sensitivity with the recognition of universal principles. Striking a delicate balance
involves acknowledging the importance of cultural context while upholding fundamental human
rights that transcend cultural boundaries.
Dialogues and Global Cooperation:
Fostering dialogues between different cultures and nations becomes imperative for bridging the
gap between relativism and universalism. Global cooperation serves as a conduit for establishing
common ground, fostering mutual understanding, and addressing challenges to human rights on a
global scale.
Progressive Development of Human Rights:
Recognizing that the understanding of human rights evolves over time is essential. A
commitment to the progressive development of human rights norms allows for the
accommodation of both cultural diversity and universal principles. This dynamic approach
encourages continuous dialogue and adaptation to societal changes.

Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4