Re: Human Rights

Koray -

First of all one has to be profoundly moved by the hunger strikes. Though
realists would simply write off such an act as an internal event within the
state (Turkey), and probably ineffectual politically because the state
government is obliged not to recognize the moral and ethical implications of
such gestures, radical as they are.

However, I am astounded by the dedication of such individuals in their
committment to sacrifice themselves for the moral and ethical identity of
the community, culture, society. Anyone who is not is privelaged.

Your key word is in your central question: How is it possible to CONSTRUCT
inalienable conception of human rights? If we're going to construct
something as a right--we have to understand the method for such a operation.

Anthony Giddens informs my methodological approach here with his concept of
"structuration." Dealing with structures, Giddens says, yields "systems of
semantic rules (or conventions); those of domination as systems of
resources; those of legitimation as systems of moral rules."

Social interaction is always a structural blend of all three systems. It is
the process of blending that we want to know about, because we want to blend
in the right amount of morality (human rights principles, conditions) such
that the structure is balanced through and with the system of semantic
convention (law?) and the system of resource domination (legislative,
enforcement).


Can you take Foucault in this direction?

Tom




Folow-ups
  • Re: Human Rights
    • From: Koray Caliskan
  • Partial thread listing: