Cultural Imperialism or Intercultural Discourse (excerpts)

Human rights are considered to be universal values, regardless of cultural beliefs. Otfried Höffe, a philosopher at the University of Tübingen, calls for an intercultural discourse on rights, one that embraces many different ideals.

As long as the discourse about human rights is carried out primarily by Europeans and North Americans, other cultures will fear a new form of colonialism and imperialism, an cultural imperialism of rights. Through an intercultural discourse of rights, we can oppose this on three levels by relativizing the special position of Europeans and North Americans:
- In terms of legal history, the intercultural discourse of rights demonstrates that the bases for humans rights – e.g., the protection of life and limb, of property and a good name ("honor") – exist in almost all legal systems. In addition to this, we should not forget that while a universal concept of humanity emerged at a very early stage in our own culture – in Greece, the notion of reason; in ancient Israel, the notion that humans have been made in the image of God --, elementary inequalities in rights, including slavery, existed in Occidental culture for centuries. We know that Occidental culture first had to experience 'pathologies', for example as bloody religious wars, before the 'therapy', i.e., human rights, became effective.
- On the second level (that of legal theory), intercultural discourse is not based upon one particular element of our own legal culture – its often one-sided emphasis on the individual – but rather is based exclusively upon elements that are interculturally valid. In order to ensure that this is the case, intercultural discourse develops principles that can indeed be regarded as universal – the suggestion that cultures have completely different values is both overly hasty and dangerous – but that, at the same time, are open to cultural differences.
- Finally, in terms of legal practice, intercultural discourse demands that these universally valid principles be realized with great care. In particular, we must ensure that the other cultures are also granted the right that Europe and North America have claimed for themselves: the right to mediate between the universal idea of human rights and one's own legal culture.

II.

In order to be realized effectively, human rights require exact definitions. In establishing the philosophical foundations, however, a more modest form of universalism is recommended, a form that is, at the same time, more appropriate to the issue at hand. We should seek merely to establish principles. And we should recognize that such principles are already open to that which communitarians believe they must fight to ensure. For such openness was implied from the beginning: traditions, customs and changing contexts. Precisely with human rights, universality cannot mean uniformity, but rather the opposite: the right to particularity, even eccentricity.

III.

We can assume that the basic idea of human rights is appropriate for and applicable to other cultures. However, we should not assume more than this basic idea – the inviolability of every human being. And precisely because a great deal of freedom remains in determining human rights in concrete situations, they can still be a powerful force in creating a vision for the future. According to this vision, the globalization of our lives can lead to a humanity that recognizes the same elementary legal conditions both domestically and internationally, and yet, at the same time, is not dominated by a single culture, i.e., that of Europe and North America. Human rights allow humanity an identity in difference.

Translation from German: Tom Lampert

Otfried Höffe is professor of philosophy at the University of Tübingen, Germany