When Human Rights Meet Cultural Identity: The Uncritical Westernisation of Ghanaian Values

There is a quiet cultural transformation taking place in Ghana, and perhaps the most disturbing aspect of it is that we are gradually losing the confidence to defend what is distinctly ours.

In the name of modernity, human rights, freedom of expression and civilisation, aspects of Ghanaian culture that once provided the foundation for respect, social cohesion and intergenerational relationships are increasingly being dismissed as backward. Meanwhile, practices and values originating elsewhere are often imported into our social consciousness as though everything foreign must necessarily be superior.

This is not an argument against human rights. Neither is it a call for Ghana to reject modernity. It is an argument for something much simpler: we must have the intellectual confidence to distinguish between universal human rights and cultural values that are specific to particular societies.

One of the clearest examples is the changing attitude towards respect for elders. It is increasingly common to see young people openly insulting older people on social media, radio and television. What is even more worrying is that such behaviour is sometimes defended as an expression of freedom, assertiveness or modern communication.

We are sometimes told that in some Western societies, a child may tell a parent, “Daddy, don't be silly next time,” without necessarily being considered disrespectful. But should Ghana simply adopt that standard?

In many Ghanaian communities, telling an elder not to be silly is not merely a description of behaviour. It is an insult. Calling an elder a fool, stupid or a liar would traditionally be regarded as an unacceptable breach of respect, regardless of whether the elder had actually behaved foolishly or dishonestly. This does not mean that Ghanaian children were trained to accept wrongdoing from elders. Far from it.

Our traditional systems had mechanisms for correcting elders without humiliating them. One could disagree with an elder without insulting him. One could challenge an elder's decision without calling him a fool. One could point out that something was wrong without destroying the dignity of the person who was wrong. That distinction appears increasingly lost.

The question, therefore, is not whether an elder can be wrong. Of course an elder can be wrong. The question is whether correcting someone requires us to strip that person of dignity. There is a difference between freedom of expression and freedom from restraint.

Another problem with the contemporary debate about culture is the tendency to speak about Ghanaian culture as though Ghana had one homogeneous cultural system. It does not, and it can't.

Ghana is a multicultural country made up of numerous ethnic groups, languages, traditions and systems of social organisation. What is considered perfectly normal in one community may appear strange, inappropriate or even incomprehensible in another.

Consider traditional marriage and kinship practices. There are communities where practices such as a man marrying two biological sisters have historically existed. There are also communities where a younger brother could marry the widow of his deceased elder brother as part of established customary arrangements.

Whether one personally approves of such practices is another question. The important point is that their existence demonstrates the diversity of Ghanaian customary life.

The same applies to kinship terminology. In some Ghanaian communities, the relationship between people may be described through terms that, when translated literally into English, create meanings that do not exist in the original cultural context.

An elderly man referring to a young girl as his “wife,” for instance, may, in a particular cultural setting, be using a kinship expression whose meaning has little or nothing to do with sexual relations or marriage.

The danger arises when such expressions are removed from their cultural context and interpreted entirely through Western conceptual frameworks. This is where human rights advocacy must exercise caution.

Human rights are important precisely because they protect human dignity. But protecting human dignity does not require us to pretend that every culture uses the same language, symbols, customs and social relationships. A cultural practice should not automatically become unacceptable simply because a person from another cultural background finds it strange.

At the same time, cultural tradition cannot be used as a shield for practices that cause demonstrable harm.

Female genital mutilation, for example, may have cultural roots in some communities, but the fact that something is traditional does not automatically make it morally or medically acceptable. Where a practice causes serious physical or psychological harm, society has every legitimate reason to examine, challenge and ultimately eliminate it. The same principle should apply consistently.

Culture deserves protection, but culture is not beyond criticism. Human rights deserve protection, but human rights advocacy should not become cultural imperialism.

The growing influence of international human rights organisations and Western-oriented advocacy groups in Ghana has undoubtedly contributed to important conversations about women's rights, children's rights, discrimination and abuse. But there is a legitimate question that Ghanaian society must ask: At what point does the defence of universal rights become an attempt to prescribe how every society must think, speak and organise itself?

There is a danger when Western social norms are presented as the universal standard against which every African cultural practice must be measured.

Ghana does not have to choose between human rights and culture. We can defend human rights while retaining our cultural identity. We can protect children without destroying traditional systems of kinship. We can condemn abuse without condemning every traditional practice, and we can promote gender equality without assuming that every Western social arrangement must become Ghana's model. And we can demand accountability from young people and elders alike without abandoning the cultural principle of respect.

There is also an uncomfortable contradiction in the way cultural debates are sometimes conducted. We are encouraged to accept certain Western social practices because they are justified in the language of individual freedom and human rights. Yet when Ghanaian society expresses reservations about other practices that have become accepted in some Western countries, we are sometimes portrayed as backward, intolerant or uncivilised.

The debate surrounding same-sex marriage illustrates this tension. If cultural and moral differences are legitimate when Western societies explain their own social evolution, why should cultural differences suddenly become illegitimate when Ghanaian society expresses its own moral and cultural convictions?

This does not mean that Ghana should deny anyone dignity or subject anyone to violence or persecution. It means that respect for human dignity should not require the abandonment of cultural self-determination.

A Ghanaian can respect another person's humanity without necessarily adopting every value that person holds. That distinction is essential in a democratic society. There is nothing inherently wrong with Ghana becoming modern. But modernisation should not mean becoming culturally forgetful.

Our grandparents may not have had smartphones, but they understood something that modern technology cannot teach us: society survives on relationships, responsibilities and mutual respect. The elder had responsibilities towards the younger person, and the younger person had responsibilities towards the elder.

Authority was not supposed to mean absolute power, and respect was not supposed to mean absolute obedience. There was room for correction, disagreement and accountability. But there were also boundaries governing how people spoke to one another. We should not throw away those values simply because some Western societies have adopted different social conventions.

Indeed, perhaps one of Ghana's greatest challenges today is not that we are becoming modern, but that we are sometimes becoming modern without becoming more discerning. We consume foreign entertainment, language, lifestyles, social values and political ideas with astonishing speed, sometimes without asking whether they fit our own circumstances. We increasingly measure ourselves against societies with completely different histories and social structures. That is not development. That is dependency of the mind.

Ghana must develop a more confident approach to culture. We should be able to say: This practice is harmful, therefore we must change it. We should equally be able to say: This practice is simply different from yours, but difference alone does not make it wrong. That is the intellectual maturity we need.

Human rights organisations have an important role to play in Ghana. They should continue to expose abuse, defend vulnerable people and promote human dignity. But they should also recognise that Ghanaian society has its own history, traditions, languages and systems of social relationships.

The solution to cultural differences is not always cultural replacement. Sometimes it is cultural understanding. Sometimes it is reform. Sometimes it is preservation. And sometimes it is the courage to say no.

Ghana must therefore resist the temptation to westernise every aspect of its cultural life. We should welcome ideas that improve our society, but we must interrogate them before adopting them. We should learn from the world without surrendering our identity to the world.

A nation that doesn't have confidence in its own culture eventually loses the ability to determine its own social values. We do not need to reject the West. We need to stop assuming that everything Western is better. Modern Ghana must be open to the world, but it must also know who it is.

The Trial News