Intercultural bridge of human rights.

Beyond Western Ideals: Reimagining Human Rights for a Multicultural World

Lena Voss in Law & Justice June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Exploring the shift towards a non-colonial human rights theory and fostering intercultural dialogue."

In an increasingly interconnected world, the concept of human rights faces a critical juncture. Traditional frameworks, often rooted in Western liberal thought, struggle to address the diverse cultural and social realities of communities worldwide. This has sparked a global conversation about the need to reimagine human rights in a way that respects and incorporates non-Western perspectives.

The push for a pluralistic legal system acknowledging the diverse populations of regions, particularly in areas with a history of colonialism, frequently clashes with the established discourse of liberal human rights, especially its claim to universality. This tension calls for a deeper examination of how universal human rights standards are interpreted and applied across different cultural contexts.

This article explores the challenges of achieving a truly universal understanding of human rights. It critiques the dominant Western-centric model and seeks to identify opportunities for intercultural dialogue. By embracing diverse cultural perspectives, we can strive toward a more inclusive and equitable framework for human rights that resonates with communities around the globe.

The Problem with a Western-Centric Approach

The prevailing discourse on human rights, as understood in international law, is largely a product of Western thought and liberal traditions. Rooted in the sociocultural matrix of modernity, it's inherently limited in its ability to serve as a universal conceptual platform. Different cultures have their own distinct ways of safeguarding values that are equivalent to what the modern Western context seeks to protect through human rights.

While advocating for an intercultural approach, it's important to acknowledge that universal human rights have also been used as tools to support emancipatory practices and provide political support to social actors facing adverse situations. They energize movements against various forms of discrimination. Human rights have become a rallying cry for numerous popular movements, and relinquishing them would mean losing a symbolic and discursive point of reference.

Presupposing a universal human nature: Assumes that human nature is knowable through reason, a tool also considered universal.
Establishing human dignity as an absolute: Creates a separation between the individual and society, prioritizing autonomy, even opposition, of humanity against the cosmos.
Postulating democratic social order as necessary: Envisions society as a sum of free and formally equal individuals, organized by agreed-upon objectives.

The universalism projects the characteristics of dominant sectors onto the generic nature of all humanity, creating a model against which the human condition of all sociohistorical actors is evaluated. Franz Hinkelammert notes that every universalism of abstract principles is the universalist face of a particularism. The concept of universal human rights, as understood by international law, is at least problematic.

Moving Forward: Towards a Truly Universal Vision

Achieving a shared understanding of human rights demands recognition that our own views are shaped by contextualization, historical understanding, complexity, and respect for human diversity. Reinventing human rights requires acknowledging diverse socio-historical contexts, allowing for various forms of emancipatory struggle. The effective enjoyment of dignified living conditions for all requires a commitment to continuous dialogue, mutual respect, and a willingness to challenge existing power structures. As we continue to navigate this complex landscape, the goal remains to create a world where human rights are both universal and deeply rooted in the diverse cultures and experiences of humanity.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1590/2179-8966/2017/31228, Alternate LINK

Title: Hacia Una Teoría No-Colonial De Derechos Humanos

Journal: Revista Direito e Práxis

Publisher: FapUNIFESP (SciELO)

Authors: Manuel Gándara

Published: 2017-12-01

Everything You Need To Know

Why is the traditional Western-centric framework of human rights considered inadequate for addressing global issues?

The prevailing discourse on human rights, deeply embedded in Western thought and liberal traditions, struggles to effectively address the diverse cultural and social realities worldwide. Rooted in the sociocultural matrix of modernity, it faces limitations when applied universally. While it champions universal human rights, its capacity to serve as a universal conceptual platform is inherently challenged by varying cultural interpretations and values, necessitating a reimagining that respects non-Western perspectives.

How can a non-colonial approach to human rights promote inclusivity and bridge cultural divides?

A non-colonial human rights theory can foster inclusivity by recognizing that different cultures have distinct ways of safeguarding values equivalent to what the modern Western context seeks to protect through human rights. By acknowledging diverse socio-historical contexts, the theory promotes mutual respect and understanding. It energizes movements against various forms of discrimination and allows for various forms of emancipatory struggle.

What are the key presuppositions of the Western-centric model of human rights, and how do they shape its perspective?

The Western-centric model presupposes a universal human nature knowable through reason, establishes human dignity as an absolute prioritizing individual autonomy against society and the cosmos, and postulates a democratic social order as necessary, envisioning society as a sum of free and formally equal individuals. This universalism projects the characteristics of dominant sectors onto the generic nature of all humanity, creating a model against which the human condition of all sociohistorical actors is evaluated.

What steps are necessary to move towards a truly universal vision of human rights that respects cultural diversity?

Achieving a shared understanding of human rights requires acknowledging that our views are shaped by contextualization, historical understanding, complexity, and respect for human diversity. Reinventing human rights involves recognizing diverse socio-historical contexts and allowing for various forms of emancipatory struggle. Furthermore, continuous dialogue, mutual respect, and a willingness to challenge existing power structures are essential for ensuring dignified living conditions for all.

According to Franz Hinkelammert, what does it mean when a universal principle is actually the 'universalist face of a particularism,' and how does this relate to the concept of universal human rights?

Franz Hinkelammert argues that every universalism of abstract principles is the universalist face of a particularism. This means that what is presented as universal often reflects the specific interests and perspectives of a particular group or culture. The concept of universal human rights, as understood by international law, becomes problematic because it may inadvertently prioritize certain cultural norms while marginalizing others. This can lead to the imposition of one set of values under the guise of universality.