Lets clean up and refocus debate on the thread's topic. I think NJ started the job, but I'd like to shift it it even further along.
To start with, no more discussions on the nature of genital mutilation (f or m). While interesting, that should be moved to a different thread. For sake of argument we can simply assume whatever current cultural practice comes under scrutiny, defies a commonly held concept of "human right" (defined from US legal standard).
Recapping...
Monoculture: The term monocultural refers to something which is related to a single culture, as opposed to multicultural which relates to many cultures.
It is a contextual term. For example, a person who grew up in one nation, with a specific ethnic background traditionally associated with that nation's history could be termed monocultural, as opposed to someone with a mixed national/ethnic heritage could be called bicultural, or multicultural. Used another way, an institution or community can be defined as monocultural if it happens to have a singular dominant (common, majority) set of beliefs/values/practices, as opposed to multicultural institutions and communities containing many sets of relatively equal value/practice. As a specific example, an Amish community or Jewish Kibbutz would generally by monocultural, and a university's international dormitory generally multicultural.
The term is also a definition of current state, and does not inherently imply or assume an essential, static nature of any culture. For example Amish traditions and practices can change over time as they encounter other cultures, or by increased activity/popularity of internal subcultures. Indeed, if Amish communities began opening themselves to other ethnic groups/traditions, sharing schools and such, they could eventually become defined as multicultural.
However, some people DO view certain social entities as having an essential nature. Many of these demand specific cultural "traditions" be made/kept majority over other cultures (or subcultures) and remain static (immune to change) by enforcement mechanisms.
One example of such a group were German National Socialists, who believed in an Aryan culture that has specific characteristics, which their communities must protect and enhance (namely by removing all other cultures/subcultures). A more recent example is the Netherlands gov't, which decided that there is a "dutch culture" with specific characteristics that define it and should be practiced to keep it the same over time (through strict immigration policies, and forced indoctrination of subcultures). This latter case was a flip from an overtly multicultural policy, to one of monoculturalism.
My position is that cultures are not static, and do not have essential natures. It is a fiction to try to trap them in amber, so to speak, with monocultural policies. That said, I also do not believe that the fluid nature of cultures creates an argument that they can or should be actively changed by outside parties through coercive tactics, to suit their own interests.
I feel that the concept of individual rights has been inflated from a fluid legal/political concept within specific nations, to a binding moral concept that must be held over all people regardless of nation. In fact, I would argue such movements involve the fabrication of a fictional culture (a borderless global human culture) with an essential, static nature. To say that human rights mean X and are bound to people by their inherent humanity, and regardless of their local cultural standards, is to advocate for stasis in the concept of what human rights are.
Perhaps I am wrong?
Chiro set out an interesting position as I hope I understood it, and may even work with Mod's position. While I originally used the word "practical" to describe his interpretation of human rights, perhaps the better word was "internalized". That is that one feels strongly in such a way and will work accordingly. That is opposed to saying I must work this way because an external reality mandates that I do such, justifies my thoughts/actions, and applies to everyone else.
Brenna, and this might work for Chiro and Mod, set out that international activity is the building of a consensual model of human rights. That it derives a power from the fact that nations are working together to build it. Did I get that right, brenna?
These are interesting, and while I understand internalized concepts of individual rights, I feel there is an overstatement regarding international declarations and laws. These are all legal concepts, which themselves can change over time, and hold different meanings for different groups which agree to them. That makes it strange for me to hear talk of their results being universal (applicable to all), or inherent to anyone by virtue of being human.
Aren't they just legal agreements (rather than findings) regarding individual rights? That is to say a practical statement of how we are planning on treating them, not that they have a reality in and of themselves (like the diplomats are oracles slowly divining the ultimate shape of reality/morality)? Couldn't these beliefs just as easily change as society in the future changes? If not, why not?
And this gets to NJ. If there is an idea that the work of nations building consensus are creating or uncovering an inherent moral/legal reality that binds all humans, where does this come from? If such a universal exists, doesn't that explictly endorse an absolute morality? If that is true, doesn't that argue for some separate purpose for humans in nature? After all no other animals have such a thing. If it is not merely a temporal human construct, and indeed is inherent to human action, doesn't that suggest actions by Gods?
I concur with NJ, that if there are universal (absolute, pertaining to all) moral truths then they have to find legitimacy in Gods, not the works of men.
Whew... so you see why this idea of individual rights as an external reality, which can and must be applied to all other cultures becomes problematic for me. I feel such grandiose statements regarding individual rights cannot be logically maintained without reference to gods (that is it is inconsistent with atheism), and further that it creates a fictional community (a global human culture) with a singular moral code applicable to all (once the diplomats get it all worked out), and enforced by legal mechanisms.
As an example of coercion on the local level, in support of "human rights", I list my
NYTime article again. If that is grassroots consensus building on norms, then what are they but the result of cultural imperialism?
Edited by Silent H, : findings
h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
™ Version 4.2