(R+Q ) pendulum
This instability does not mean that we should abandon striving to "get things right “
Universalism comes from 18th century enlightenment French agreed on by government understanding faith in the universal standards similar to a faith like natural law. Believed that it had the following.
Absolute Source: Truth is seen as originating from a higher, unchanging authority.
Immutable Principles: Truth is considered eternally valid and unalterable.
Discoverable by Reason: Universal truths can be deduced through rational thought.
Primacy over Positive Law: Natural law takes precedence over human‑made laws.
Foundational Influence: These ideas underpin documents like the American Constitution, where rights are described as endowed with rights by their creator, self evident truths
Criticisms of natural law
Assumed Uniformity: It presumes everyone will reach the same conclusions through reason.
Status Quo Justification: It tends to legitimize existing conditions as “what is” and thus “what ought to be.” stretching descriptive theory into normative theory
Naturalistic Fallacy: It conflates natural occurrence with moral approval. when really its a bias of presentism, believing what is happening now is better than past.
criticisms of universalism
Arrogance: Universalism risks dismissing other perspectives as inferior or misguided.
Exclusion: It can neglect the lived experiences and values of non‑Western cultures.
CULT RELATIVISM STANCE: Cultural relatives, argue that universial human rights are a negative power over other cultures since each culture has its own moral values
criticisms of cult relativsim
the belief that there are completely fixed boundaries between each group,
believes that people are more determined by their culture than they in fact are
emphasizes the ideological divide emphasizing that there are incompatible and emphasized differences more than similarities.
Damar argues that this is incorrect, even societies recognize “the purposeful agent, the need of his or her protection.”
Cultural relativism forgets that human rights is relevant throughout the world because of the spread of the modern state and global powers
Argues that cultural relativism can lead to "moral neutrality in an action
"elvin hatch and she asks "whether they think that opponents to face execution in a dictatorial state, would accept the fact that they are from a non-western culture invalidate their claims to human rights protections.”
Elvin hatch recently observed, "this position may lead to moral neutrality and an action in situations that are intolerable” hatch 1997 372
Discrimination between different types of excision would be racist because it would leave girls of African origin unprotected from mutilation
Experts include Michel Erlich and Claude Meillassoux
Even though the cases are highly predictable, the verdicts are not. Typical arguments against cultural, relativism and female genital mutilation is that they were
Aware they were breaking the law
Aware that custom must give away before the law and that they are legally responsible
Duty to protect all its children and failing to do so would be immoral and racist
Arguments for cultural relativism
Intentionality, it came from a place of love. They were aware of the type of pain, female genital mutilation has, but was necessary to enable their daughters to have a future as women.
Under the constraint of a powerful custom
Imprisoning the mother would probably just make it worse for the children
Noted that the horror against female genital mutilation becomes hostile towards the people responsible for it
Possible to be against the practice without calling for its criminalization a possible middle grown, the last thing children needed was a double punishment at first being mutilated, and then being separated from their mother, however, this denies the pain in anguish of those who have been mutilated and want
French dictionary uncomfortable with the consequences with the stance severe in 1890s and 1980s gone too far in one direction driven to Rett back to leniency
mariatou koiata spent some years with French family cultures never sent in stone reported her excision to the police reported her mother sentencing can be recognition of the girls plate
Acknowledgment that western women are in an awkward situation. They are asked to condemn women whose cultural assumptions are different from their own, but they are no longer sure what entitled them to do so when the jurors hear that the women concerned, love their children in that excision does not always mean the absence of sexual pleasure, even orgasm in some cases.
panikkar perceives as cultural relativism as differing windows in looking down and seeing human rights "human rights are one window through which one particular culture envisions adjust human order for its individuals, but those who live in that culture do not see the window.”
“ The garden looks completely different and yet the same weather one looks at it from a window on the ground floor or from the second floor.”
Pars pro toto. Inside it looks like the whole from the outside. It looks like a part of fragment, similarly human rights or universal from the vantage point of modern western culture and not universal from the outside looking in.”
The best way is to not forget the arch truth is not the whole truth and to engage in a dialogical dialogue
I. Panikkar’s Perspective
Core Idea:
Advocates a via media—a middle path between agnostic relativism and dogmatic absolutism.
View on Truth and Human Rights:
Asserts that truth “has the inbuilt claim to be universally valid” (applying everywhere and at all times).
Sees truth (and human rights) as one culturally specific “window” on justice.
Argues that while truth claims to be universally valid, insisting on one view risks dismissing others as foolish or wicked.
Envisions human rights as merely one “window” on the world—a culturally specific vision among many possible ways to achieve justice.
Proposes a “via media” (middle path) between agnostic relativism and dogmatic absolutism.
Recommends engaging in a “dialogical dialogue” so that we acknowledge our own view is only partial.Panikkar’s call for a dialogical engagement is acknowledged as essential by Dembour, even though she questions the practicality of forming a fixed intermediary space.
Embracing Instability:
Demour critiques Panikkar’s idea of constructing a stable intermediary “new myth” via dialogical dialogue, arguing that it may merely displace the problem.
Instead, she favors an approach akin to a “pendulum” that accepts the discomfort of moving in-between universalism and particularity without attempting to settle on one fixed middle ground
Panikkar’s Via Media: Advocates for a concrete intermediary space—a “new myth”—constructed through dialogical exchange between differing cultural visions.
Dembour’s Pendulum: Rejects the notion of a stable intermediary myth, favoring instead a dynamic, unstable “in-between” state that continuously oscillates as contexts change
Uses female circumcision as an example of the pendulum between Universalism and protecting human rights for all regardless of nationality or race, and also a hands off approach of respecting people's cultural traditions and bleeding more towards a cultural relativistic state.
French see liberty equality as founding principles lean towards Universalism, those who embrace different values cannot truly be French and pressure its members towards the simulation rather than "recognition of difference "page 61
Arguments for circumcision: "circumcision is what makes a woman a woman "page 61 "their daughters would never become proper woman and would fail to find husbands later in life. " as a cultural norm similar to people starving themselves before their weddings to fit into some dress. On page 66 "a striking illustration of this reasoning is provided by a mother who decides not to have her youngest daughter circumcised because the girl has down syndrome and would not be marriageable anyway reported by Light-foot Klein 1989 page 264
July 1982 – The Bobo Traoré Case
• A three‐month‐old baby, Bobo Traoré, dies in Créteil after having been excised two days earlier.
• The case makes headlines and sparks public outcry, prompting authorities to revisit similar cases that had previously been ignored.
1982–1987 – First Wave of Prosecutions in Correctional Tribunals
• A series of five cases are brought before correctional tribunals, which have jurisdiction over offenses carrying sentences of up to five years.
• For example, the father of Bintou Doukara (who suffered only a minor hemorrhage) receives a one-year suspended sentence—a reflection of the relatively mild (or culturally relativist) initial judicial response.
August 1983 – The Danie Ále Richer Precedent
• In Brittany, a French woman, Danie Ále Richer, is convicted by an assise court (the court handling more serious crimes) for cutting her daughter’s clitoris.
• Though not directly about customary African practices, this case establishes a legal precedent by applying Article 312 of the penal code—which mandates severe punishment for violent acts against children—to excision.
• This precedent later influences how similar cases involving Africans are prosecuted.
May 1986 – A Judicial Shift Begins
• The correctional tribunal declares itself non-competent to hear the Coulibaly/Keita case (which involves the parents of six daughters and an exciseuse).
• This decision signals growing discomfort with handling such culturally charged cases within the framework for less serious offenses.
July 1987 – Confirmation of Non-Competence
• The Court of Appeal confirms the tribunal’s decision, affirming that cases involving excision should be heard by assise courts under Article 312.
• This marks a shift toward a harsher judicial approach, treating the practice as a serious crime.
1988 to Early 1990s – Escalation in Sentencing Severity
• Up to 1984: The early excision trials yield suspended sentences of one year.
• 1987: Suspended sentences increase to two years.
• 1988–1990: The norm shifts to suspended sentences of three years.
• March 1991: Some cases see suspended sentences of five years.
• This period reflects the gradual hardening of the judicial stance against excision.
January 1993 – Further Severity
• A mother is sentenced to serve part of a five-year imprisonment.
• At the same time, two prison sentences have already been imposed on an exciseuse (A. Keita), reinforcing the trend toward tougher measures.
September 1994 – A Swing Toward Leniency
• In a notable trial involving the Traoré–Diarra couple, the parents are acquitted, and the exciseuse H. Greaou receives only a one-year suspended sentence.
• This acquittal represents a pendulum swing back toward a culturally relativist perspective, though it generates controversy over the mixed message it sends to affected communities.
February 1999 – Return to Harsh Penalties
• The judicial response shifts sharply: A mother is sentenced to two years in prison, and the exciseuse Mrs. Greaou is condemned to eight years in prison for performing multiple excisions.
• Other parents involved receive suspended sentences.
• This marked reversal indicates a renewed effort to impose stricter penalties in response to public and political pressures.
dinielle richer French woman sadistically, cut off clitoris of daughter
linda traoler diarra fight against geneitl mutilation
mariatou koita charged her mother
Important people of note are
doukara, one year suspended sentence the prosecutor himself hyper requested the suspension of the sentence, showing some discomfort on his part at handling the prosecution
.
II. Louis Dumont’s Perspective
Core Idea:
Emphasizes that universalism and relativism are interdependent and must be seen as mutually encompassing.
View on Social Order and Culture:
Uses the example of India’s caste system to show that even a dominant hierarchical principle inherently includes a drive toward equality.
Asserts that in any cultural or moral system, one pole (universalism or relativism) cannot exist without incorporating aspects of the other.
Outline: The Pendulum Between Universalism and Relativism in Human Rights
Thesis Statement:
Marie-Bénédicte Dembour argues that universalism and relativism in human rights discourse are not separate or opposing ideologies, but rather interdependent positions. Each is unstable when taken alone, necessitating a continual oscillation—akin to a pendulum—between the two. This movement reflects the reality of moral and political struggles, acknowledging both the necessity of universal principles and the dangers of cultural arrogance or moral indifference.
I. Introduction: The Instability of Universalism and Relativism
Universalism and relativism are traditionally framed as irreconcilable opposites.
Dembour's central argument:
"These two positions cannot be considered independently of each other. Each is untenable by itself and needs to accommodate the other to be sustainable."
The metaphor of a pendulum represents the inevitable movement between these positions rather than a stable middle ground.
II. The Problem of Universalism: Arrogance and the Illusion of Absolute Truth
A. Universalism assumes objective moral truths applicable to all societies.
Rooted in Enlightenment ideals: "Exclusive claims to rationality and the ambition to attain a universal and uniform knowledge of the world characterized the eighteenth-century Enlightenment project."
Example: Natural law tradition (e.g., Cicero’s belief in a universal moral order).
B. Universalist human rights discourse excludes diverse perspectives.
"By positing the existence of universal values which can be discovered through reason, the human rights discourse can too easily engender arrogance."
Example from the classroom:
A student asserts, "I just know it," when asked why human rights are universal.
Another student challenges this: “What you find good may not be what other people find good.”
C. Universalism fails to recognize its own cultural specificity.
"It is also important to realize that human rights do not make sense outside the specific political and social history from which they have evolved."
Example: The concept of human rights as a reaction to modern state power rather than an eternal truth.
III. The Problem of Relativism: Indifference and the Justification of Harm
A. Cultural relativism can be used to excuse human rights violations.
"From a relativist perspective, culture easily becomes an excuse for abuse."
Example: Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defended as a "traditional" practice despite violating individual rights.
B. Cultural relativism overlooks internal dissent within cultures.
"Cultural relativism tends to assume that people are more determined by their culture than they in fact are."
Example: Opponents of oppressive cultural norms (e.g., women within practicing communities who resist FGM).
C. The moral neutrality of relativism leads to inaction.
"This position may lead to moral neutrality and inaction in situations that are intolerable."
Example: Opponents of dictatorship facing execution—would they accept cultural relativism as a justification for oppression?
IV. The Pendulum Motion: Erring Between Universalism and Relativism
A. The Case of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) as an Illustration of the Dilemma
Universalist condemnation: "The very idea that such operations are performed on young women and even infants sends shivers down the spine."
Relativist perspective: Many women believe that circumcision is what "makes a woman a woman."
The French legal response illustrates the pendulum swing:
Initial leniency (light sentences, cultural considerations).
Gradual move toward criminalization (FGM as a severe offense).
Return to leniency (acknowledgment of cultural pressures).
B. The Judiciary's Struggle Reflects the Pendulum Effect
"Expressing a conundrum, these suspended sentences can be seen as reflecting the adoption of a mid-way position between the relativism and the universalism."
The 1999 case of Mariatou Koita (who reported her own excision) illustrates the tension between cultural continuity and evolving perspectives.
V. Acknowledging the Interdependence of Universalism and Relativism
A. Universalism cannot exist without relativism.
"Universalism cannot exist without relativism, and vice versa."
The concept of the "margin of appreciation" in the European Court of Human Rights allows for cultural context within universal legal principles.
B. Relativism cannot exist without universalism.
"Even though we cannot live with [ethical relativism], it is not clear how we can avoid it."
Hatch’s argument: The very idea of human rights assumes some level of universal moral obligation.
VI. Conclusion: Accepting the Instability of Moral Judgment
A. There is no final resolution—only continual oscillation.
"The universal can never establish itself because it must be approached from the specific."
Fitzpatrick: "The achieved resolution is not knowledge; rather it is a constant effort to find one’s way."
B. The necessity of ethical humility.
"We should be wary of pronouncing judgments on other people’s ways."
Example: Panikkar’s call for dialogical dialogue, acknowledging alternative worldviews without imposing a single universal truth.
C. Human rights efforts must persist—while recognizing their limitations.
"That my position is characterized by instability does not imply that one should abandon striving to ‘get things right’ … but that one should pursue political struggles in awareness of the limitations."
Final Thought:
Rather than choosing between universalism or relativism, we must recognize their dynamic interdependence, embracing the discomfort of moving between the two in the pursuit of justice.