HYBRID

INTERACTIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND A chapter by Jan Servaes and

DEVELOPMENT IN CULTURAL Chris Verschooten

PERSPECTIVE.
INTRODUCTION
The conceptualisation of human rights as a Culture and human rights are two very
part of an administrative system was dynamic issues and involve a large number
primarily a western phenomenon and of debates. These debates usually revolve
occurred in three stages: around one or more of the following
dichotomies:
 The first generation of rights: political and
civil rights- a bourgeoisie movement against  Tradition versus modernity
the absolute rule of the monarch and
feudalism. Universality versus (cultural) Relativism
 The second generation of rights: cultural,  Individuality versus collectiveness
social and economic rights- governed largely
by Marxist values and the socialist
movement.
The third generation of rights- based on
solidarity and collective being based largely
on Asian values- the anti-colonial revolution.
TRADITION VERSUS MODERNITY
PERCEPTIONS OF CULTURE

 Earlier, culture was seen as homogenous to an Cultural Change

area- and was assumed to be a list of traits.
 This chapter aims to view culture not as
homogenous grounds but as heterogenous
entities which are capable of change based on
both cultural coherence as well as deviance and From external factors:
contradiction. From Within : Cultural Due to the introduction
Coherence and of intercultural contexts
Deviance due to globalisation.
HYBRIDISATION OF CULTURE
 The westernised notion of development leads to a largely “hybrid” or “creole”
society- not pertaining to any one side of the traditional versus modern dichotomy
but resulting in an overlap of cultures.
 The notion of a global village.
 Thailand case study
 Afghanistan and the idea of Islam
Cultures are not given, but are often construed. They are symbolic constructions
within social contexts. (Gertz et al) This involves a large number of powers and the
discourse involved.
FOUCALT’S POWER DISCOURSE
The formation of a culture is often the result of discourse between a large number of voices in
society with varying levels of political powers.

Examples of discourse:
 The Sati discourse: comparison between pre colonial and post colonial India.
 ‘Villagization’ in Tanzania
 The Sabarimala discourse.

In these situations the victims or the real people involved are often reduced to “cardboard
figures” i.e. are not allowed a voice in the discourse- thus going against the basic notion of
human rights.
US VERSUS THEM
 The idea of our culture versus others- culture as a set notion of ideas instead of an
entity produced by discourse and negotiation.
The Western notion of Oriental culture- the adaptation of Western human rights for
the Eastern world.
Critical discourse of human rights as participants versus as observers.
UNIVERSALITY VERSUS RELATIVISM
 The main basis for the relativism debate is the fact that the conception of human rights is a largely
western phenomenon.
 Cultural relativists, particularly in East Asia and newly colonised countries believe that the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Covenant as hardly ‘universal’. Rather they see it as built for
a largely western world with an ethnocentricity largely unsuitable for a vast majority of the world.
 The central debate of relativism revolves around the idea of ‘Asian values’.
 Like most dichotomous debates there are various stances on the spectrum. There is radical cultural
relativism, the moderate stance as well as the radical universality stance.

Radical universalism: human

Radical relativism: all human
rights are based in culture,
traditions and shared values-
often used to justify weak
values of governments
The moderate stance which
makes one aware of one’s
own ethnocentricities and their
own biases
rights are for all and must be
equal for all as their basis lie
in the very nature of
humanhood- often lead to an
imperialism of western values
all over again.
HUMAN RIGHTS IN A LOCAL CONTEXT
The notion of radical relativism is often denied as human rights as a notion is universal
in nature despite it’s Western conception. However rights are often not identified as
important for development by many cultures. The Universal Declaration of Rights is
often not recognised or thought of as too abstract. Bell explains the five reasons to
contextualize human rights as follows:
 long term commitments
Finding social groups capable of social and/or political change
Easier to justify
Finding the right attitude amongst activists
Coming up with local mechanisms to protect human rights
WEAK CULTURAL RELATIVISM
This idea was proposed by Donelly and consists of three levels of cultural variation.

The substance
of the list of
human rights
The interpretation of
individual rights

The form in which rights are

implemented
 When speaking of a cross cultural approach, Galtung proposes that one must be
concerned not only with the content, but also the construction of laws regarding
human rights- a balance between the legislator and the audience to distribute
authority and credit.
 The discussion of the issue in the context of globalisation.
INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS
COLLECTIVISM
Individualism is seen as a largely western phenomenon while collectivism is associated
with Asian values- the Bangkok Declaration of 1993 and the Vienna Conference.

The individualism- collectiveness debate is also associated with the discourse about
first and second generation rights- human rights in the West versus the East- and the
present ‘North versus South’.
Main arguments of the debate:
The West- gives importance to the political rights and undermines development
The East- negligence of internal democracy, culture used as a bargaining tool
THE DEMAND FOR SOLIDARITY
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Anti-colonialism movements for solidarity by non-Western countries- concerned with
self determination, peace, culture, development and ecological balance.
Reasons for the failure of the movements for collective rights:
1. Formation of secessionist groups
2. Collective rights often undermine the individual rights of people.
 Collective rights need to be taken seriously as individual rights always do not
necessarily guarantee group rights.
Collective rights also help to reduce structural injustice. (Tomasevski)
 CAN RIGHTS OF A GROUP BE HUMAN RIGHTS?
CORPORATE GROUPS
 Single, integrated entity with a moral
standing of it’s own.
 Rights of the group cannot be
considered human rights- rights of a
moral unit are not rights of an individual.
COLLECTIVE GROUPS
No moral standing of it’s own.
Rights of the collective group can be
considered as human rights as they can
be traced back to the individual. (Jones)

 Rights of groups need to be seen as complementary to human rights, rather than opposing
them.
 All individuals are parts of groups, some of which need protection- the Istanbul Conference on
Human Rights. (Galtung)
CONCLUSION
Culture is increasingly hybrid.
Culture is a multidimensional discourse involving power structures.
Human rights should be translated into local cultural contexts.
There is little to support the division of rights
Collective rights cannot be helpful for a corporate group setup but may be
beneficial otherwise
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING