*The Electoral
Fraudsters
*The Nigeria State
Looters
*Mess Made in Kenya
*Dishonourable
honourable
*African Beauty in
Ireland
*The birthday Lady
*HUASA Fashion
*Senegalese Night
*Golden Eaglets
Fraudsters
*The Nigeria State
Looters
*Mess Made in Kenya
*Dishonourable
honourable
*African Beauty in
Ireland
*The birthday Lady
*HUASA Fashion
*Senegalese Night
*Golden Eaglets
African Daily
Newspapers
THE GUARDIAN
THE STAR
THE SUB SAHARA
THE PUNCH
NIGERIA TRIBUNE
TIMES OF ZAMBIA
THE SUN
DAILY GRAPHICS
CAPE TIMES
THISDAY
MAIL & GUARDIAN
VANGUARD
DAILY INDEPENDENT
TELL
ACCRA MAIL
THE NEWS
Newspapers
THE GUARDIAN
THE STAR
THE SUB SAHARA
THE PUNCH
NIGERIA TRIBUNE
TIMES OF ZAMBIA
THE SUN
DAILY GRAPHICS
CAPE TIMES
THISDAY
MAIL & GUARDIAN
VANGUARD
DAILY INDEPENDENT
TELL
ACCRA MAIL
THE NEWS
| African-Examiner Photo Gallery |
________________________________________________________________________
Akintokunbo A. Adejumo
MSc, ACIH, MCMI
E-mail akinadejum@aol.com
MSc, ACIH, MCMI
E-mail akinadejum@aol.com
_____________________________________________________________________________
Other Articles from Akintokunbo Adejumo on African Examiner
Article Tools |
| Copyrights 2007 All Rights Reserved African Examiner Online (www.africanexaminer.com.) P. O. Box 11582 Baltimore, MD, 21229, USA |
More on
African Examiner
African Examiner
| African Examiner |
+ United Nations
+ UNESCO
+ World Bank
+ African Union
+ ECOWAS
+ EU
+ Freedom House
+ Cttee to protect Journalist
+ Transparency International
+ UNESCO
+ World Bank
+ African Union
+ ECOWAS
+ EU
+ Freedom House
+ Cttee to protect Journalist
+ Transparency International
+ Sports
+ Archives
+ Site Maps
+ Blog
+ Guest Book
+ Write 4 Us
+ News Tip
+ Archives
+ Site Maps
+ Blog
+ Guest Book
+ Write 4 Us
+ News Tip
+ NIDO (AGM)
+ Women conference
+ Bankole in Toronto
+ The Electoral Fraudsters
+ The Nigeria
+ StateLooters
+ Mess Made in Kenya
+ Dishonourable
+ African Beauty in Ireland
+ The birthday Lady
+ HUASA Fashion
+ Senegalese Night
+ Golden Eaglets
+ Women conference
+ Bankole in Toronto
+ The Electoral Fraudsters
+ The Nigeria
+ StateLooters
+ Mess Made in Kenya
+ Dishonourable
+ African Beauty in Ireland
+ The birthday Lady
+ HUASA Fashion
+ Senegalese Night
+ Golden Eaglets
African Examiner
Photo Gallery
Photo Gallery
| International organisations |
Foreign
Media organisation
Media organisation
Journalism
Network
Network
| News Tip? send it to editor@africanexaminer.com |
| Stay connected |
Oludare
Sunday Fase
editor-in-chief
editor@african
examiner.com
443-904-1239
Sunday Fase
editor-in-chief
editor@african
examiner.com
443-904-1239
| ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
The African Examiner.com
| Read and Post your comment on African Examiner |
Please use the form below to send in your comment about this story.
Make it clean. Our Editors will yank off all vulgar and abusive languages
Make it clean. Our Editors will yank off all vulgar and abusive languages
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
African Examiner online
news, sports, business and entertainment
Wole Soyinka’s “The Avoidable Trap Of Cultural Relativism”* –
A Comment
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 human rights.
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
historical inconsistency.
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, within
Nigeria, 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 exclusive philosophies.
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 broke up.
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
relativism.
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 changeable.
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 Western societies?
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.
A Comment
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 human rights.
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
historical inconsistency.
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, within
Nigeria, 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 exclusive philosophies.
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 broke up.
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
relativism.
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 changeable.
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 Western societies?
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.