Middle of Everywhere - Mary Bray Pipher [141]
Probably the greatest tensions are around finding the balance between respect for ethnic traditions and respect for human rights. For example, some men from traditional cultures will not allow their wives to leave home or to study English. Women are kept at home and denied opportunities to make friends, learn our language, and enjoy our city.
I witnessed the birth of a baby whose mother had experienced female genital mutilation as a girl. The mother had a terrible time with pain and bleeding. Her body required much repair work after the delivery. The baby had a hard time being born and barely survived. After seeing the effects of this traditional practice, I will never again be silent about female circumcision.
One of the best documents in the history of the world is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a bill of rights for the world (see appendix 3). It was formulated by the United Nations in 1948, right after World War II, and prohibits torture and slavery and argues for the right to equal pay for equal work and freedom of religion and speech. I would like to see this document hanging on the walls of our public buildings and cultural centers.
In fact, all over the world, support for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being challenged by those who argue in favor of cultural relativity. Some argue that it is "Eurocentric" to enforce human rights. Well-meaning people are often confused about how to proceed. Should they respect a local cultural act, even if it involves treating certain people badly?
An example of this changing perspective on respect for human rights comes from an English class. For years a colleague I know has taught college students Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery." In this story, a villager is selected by the others to be stoned in a traditional ceremony. This story once horrified students, but in the last few years, students have had a different reaction. Instead of reacting with sympathy for the victim of the stoning, they condone the villagers' behavior under the guise of cultural relativity. Apparently, to many people, even murder is all right if it's a cultural tradition.
Human rights should be universal. Cultural traditions are not set in stone. Cultures are not monolithic. Rather, they are processes, or sets of negotiations between members. Cultures are practical, active, and creative responses to specific conditions. They are constantly changing, and within any given culture there are many points of view and many different groups and members.
Culture isn't the property of just the leaders or the powerful. The right to interpret the cultural values doesn't belong to any one group. It is important to ask whose interests are served and whose are violated by a tradition. Who profits from maintaining the status quo in a culture? Who stands to gain with change?
For me, human rights trumps respect for ethnic traditions. Slavery may exist in certain cultures, but it is wrong. Dowry deaths may be a cultural tradition, but they are unjust. A rigid caste, gender, and class system has no place in a free world. Many countries value men over women, but that is wrong. Cultural relativity should be a liberating, not a constraining, concept. It should allow us to select from all cultures what is best for us humans, not hold us to that which is harmful in the name of respect for tradition.
Margaret Mead defined the ideal culture as one in which there was a place for every human gift. I have found no better definition of an ideal culture. Mead's definition includes both respect for the individual and a belief in community. It's a transcendent definition that encompasses all cultures in all times and places.
My own deepest belief is that the purpose of human life is to grow