Last week, at least a few of my students essentially argued that they didn’t believe there was any such thing as a universal human right. “Human rights are culturally contingent,” said one.
The question I think I want to ask today is about who, in these particular cultures, supports the different rights we’re discussing? Sharia law argues that honour killings are acceptable, but to whose benefit and who suffers? What if the cultural relativism can be (almost universally) demonstrated to benefit a particular group or class, namely men or the wealthy? Isn’t that then a reason to argue that political activism has an interventionist role to play in these cases, at the very least in support of indigenous activists working against these practices, who, by definition, are from less advantaged groups or classes?
Of particular note here is that sharia law and its ilk are rarely invoked for ancient rules on how to deal with thieves, for example, but tend to be raised vigorously around women’s issues and marriage rights. It’s similar to the way that Christian fundamentalism is vehemently opposed to homosexuality but seems fine with shellfish, both of which are described in the Old Testament using the same word, abomination.
I’ll write more as I complete the readings for this week, but that’s my own thinking so far.