week 4 wt - human rights Flashcards
(18 cards)
What are Human Rights? What issue are they a solution to?
Definition:
Human Rights are universal entitlements that every individual possesses by virtue of being human, intended to protect individuals from abuses by states and other actors, and to guarantee basic freedoms and dignity.
Source: (Goodale, “Toward a Critical Anthropology of Human Rights,” 2006)
Purpose:
They are a solution to the problem of state violence, oppression, and the lack of legal or moral recourse for individuals facing abuses. Human Rights aim to provide a global standard for justice and protection.
Source: (Engle, “From Skepticism to Embrace,” 2001)
What is Cultural Relativism? What are its merits and limitations?
Definition:
Cultural relativism is the principle that beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on a person’s own culture, not judged against the criteria of another.
Source: (AAA, “Statement on Human Rights,” 1947)
Merits:
It guards against ethnocentrism and promotes respect for cultural diversity, preventing the imposition of one culture’s values on another.
Source: (AAA, 1947; Engle, 2001)
Limitations:
It can be used to justify harmful practices (e.g., female genital cutting, torture) and may prevent intervention in cases of clear human rights abuses. It risks moral paralysis and can be manipulated by states to avoid scrutiny.
Source: (Turner, “Human Rights, Human Difference,” 1997; Goodale, 2006)
Ethnographic Example:
Turner discusses the Kayapo of Brazil, whose land rights claims were initially dismissed as “cultural” rather than “universal” rights, showing the tension between relativism and universalism.
Source: (Turner, 1997)
Why did the AAA reject the UN’s first Declaration of Human Rights in 1947?
The AAA argued that the UN’s draft was ethnocentric, reflecting Western values and failing to account for cultural diversity. They feared it would be used to justify colonialism and cultural imperialism.
Source: (AAA, “Statement on Human Rights,” 1947; Engle, 2001)
Key Quote:
“Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.”
Source: (AAA, 1947)
How did the AAA’s position on Human Rights change by 1999?
Change:
By 1999, the AAA officially endorsed a Declaration of Anthropology and Human Rights, recognizing the importance of universal rights while still emphasizing cultural context.
Source: (Engle, 2001)
Reason for Change:
Anthropologists increasingly recognized that cultural relativism could be used to shield abuses and that anthropology had a role in advocating for the oppressed. The discipline moved toward a more engaged, critical stance on rights.
Source: (Engle, 2001; Goodale, 2006)
What is the debate between Universalism and Cultural Relativism in Human Rights?
Universalism:
The belief that human rights are the same everywhere, regardless of culture.
Source: (Goodale, 2006)
Cultural Relativism:
The belief that rights and values are culturally specific and should not be imposed universally.
Source: (AAA, 1947)
Anthropological Position:
Anthropologists have moved from strict relativism to a more nuanced position, recognizing the need for universal standards but also the importance of local context and translation.
Source: (Engle, 2001; Merry, “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism,” 2006)
What does it mean to say that Human Rights are “translated” or “vernacularised” into local context?
Definition:
“Vernacularisation” is the process by which global human rights ideas are adapted, reinterpreted, and made meaningful within local cultural contexts.
Source: (Merry, “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism,” 2006)
Ethnographic Example:
Merry describes how women’s rights activists in Fiji and India translate international human rights language into local idioms and practices, making them more acceptable and effective.
Source: (Merry, 2006)
Can Anthropology be prescriptive or only descriptive?
Descriptive:
Traditionally, anthropology has focused on describing and understanding cultures without making value judgments.
Source: (AAA, 1947)
Prescriptive:
There is a growing argument that anthropology should also be prescriptive, advocating for human rights and social justice, especially when faced with clear abuses.
Source: (Turner, 1997; Goodale, 2006)
Current Consensus:
Most contemporary anthropologists see a role for both: careful description and critical engagement, including advocacy when appropriate.
Source: (Engle, 2001; Goodale, 2006)
What is Legal Pluralism and how does it relate to Human Rights?
Definition:
Legal pluralism is the coexistence of multiple legal systems within one geographic area or society (e.g., state law, customary law, religious law).
Source: (Wilson, “Reconciliation and Revenge in Post-Apartheid South Africa,” 2000)
Relation to Human Rights:
Legal pluralism can complicate the implementation of human rights, as local legal systems may conflict with international standards.
Ethnographic Example:
Wilson examines post-apartheid South Africa, where customary law and state law sometimes clash over issues like reconciliation and justice.
Source: (Wilson, 2000)
What is the significance of the AAA’s 1947 Statement on Human Rights?
It marked anthropology’s early commitment to cultural relativism and skepticism toward universalist claims, shaping decades of debate about the discipline’s role in human rights.
Source: (AAA, 1947; Engle, 2001)
How have anthropologists critiqued the concept of Human Rights?
Critiques:
Human rights are often seen as Western constructs, potentially used for political purposes or to justify intervention. Anthropologists warn against ignoring local meanings and practices.
Source: (Goodale, 2006; Turner, 1997)
Ethnographic Example:
Turner’s work with the Kayapo shows how indigenous claims can be reframed as human rights, but also how this translation can distort local meanings.
Source: (Turner, 1997)
How do gender and local activism intersect with Human Rights?
Key Point:
Gendered experiences shape how human rights are understood and claimed. Local women’s movements often reinterpret rights in ways that fit their cultural context.
Source: (Merry, 2006; “Gendering Culture: Towards a Plural Perspective on Kwena Women’s Rights,” 2002)
Ethnographic Example:
The Kwena women in Botswana use both customary and human rights discourses to advance their claims, showing the plural and negotiated nature of rights.
Source: (“Gendering Culture,” 2002)
What is the role of ethnography in the anthropology of Human Rights?
Ethnography provides detailed, context-rich accounts of how rights are understood, claimed, and contested in everyday life, revealing the complexities and contradictions of rights in practice.
Source: (Goodale, 2006; Merry, 2006)
Key Theorists and Works to Remember
Sally Engle Merry: Vernacularisation of human rights, local activism (2006)
Karen Engle: AAA’s changing stance, critique of relativism (2001)
Terence Turner: Indigenous rights, critique of relativism (1997)
Richard Wilson: Legal pluralism, post-apartheid South Africa (2000)
Mark Goodale: Critical anthropology of human rights (2006)
AAA Statement: Foundational document on relativism (1947)
How did anthropologists respond to the AAA’s 1947 Statement on Human Rights?
The AAA’s 1947 statement was controversial even within the discipline. Many anthropologists, especially those working with marginalized groups, argued that strict cultural relativism could be used to excuse or perpetuate abuses. Over time, critics within anthropology pushed for a more engaged, ethically responsible stance that recognized the need to protect individuals from harm, regardless of cultural context.
Source: (Engle, “From Skepticism to Embrace,” 2001)
What is the process of “mapping the middle” in human rights activism?
Definition:
“Mapping the middle” refers to the negotiation and adaptation that occurs between global human rights frameworks and local cultural practices. Activists and communities do not simply accept or reject human rights; instead, they creatively reinterpret and integrate them into local realities, often producing hybrid forms of rights discourse and practice.
Ethnographic Example:
Merry describes how local activists in Fiji and India use both international human rights language and local cultural references to advocate for women’s rights, creating a “middle ground” that is more effective and legitimate.
Source: (Merry, “Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism,” 2006)
How do anthropologists approach the problem of “cultural defense” in human rights cases?
“Cultural defense” is when individuals or groups justify actions (sometimes harmful or illegal) by appealing to cultural tradition.
Anthropologists are often called as expert witnesses in such cases. The challenge is to balance respect for cultural diversity with the need to protect individuals from harm.
Anthropologists increasingly argue for a critical, context-sensitive approach that neither romanticizes culture nor ignores power dynamics and individual suffering.
Source: (Goodale, “Toward a Critical Anthropology of Human Rights,” 2006)
What is the significance of “vernacularization” for the success or failure of human rights initiatives?
Significance:
The success of human rights initiatives often depends on their ability to be “vernacularized”—that is, translated into local terms, values, and practices. When rights are presented in ways that resonate with local beliefs and social structures, they are more likely to be accepted and effective. Conversely, rights initiatives that ignore local context may be rejected or have unintended negative consequences.
Ethnographic Example:
Merry’s research shows that in some contexts, women’s rights campaigns succeed when they are linked to local ideas of justice and morality, rather than imposed as foreign or Western concepts.
Source: (Merry, 2006)
How do anthropologists critique the “universality” of human rights from a postcolonial perspective?
Postcolonial anthropologists argue that the universalist language of human rights often masks the power relations of global politics, reproducing colonial hierarchies and Western dominance. They highlight how “universal” rights can be used to justify intervention, undermine local autonomy, or ignore indigenous forms of justice. This critique calls for a more pluralistic, dialogical approach to rights that recognizes historical inequalities and the agency of local actors.
Source: (Engle, 2001; Turner, 1997; Goodale, 2006)
