'To call out to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not exist.
What
counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights, invention of
the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights, and recite
lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of applying
human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in each case,
this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something quite
different.'
I don't see this as that far from Foucault's take on the law and sovereignty. do
you remember his debate with Chomsky? wasn't he seriously undermining there the
notion that justice is the motive behind struggles-similarly to what Deleuze does
here? in fact, even in the later text on confronting governments he talks of
private individuals showing solidarity amongst themselves as governed. there is
no mention of human rights as a meaningful tool in its legal application. at his
time the function of human rights could have conceivably been one of simply
denouncing the suffering of the governed. 'the suffering of men must never be a
silent residue of policy'. but today, the notion of human rights and its full
embodiment in the workings of the executive, through the international courts and
police, ought to make one wonder as to the functions of its applicability and
more especially its naming and enlisting operations and declarations, as Deleuze
rightly points out. in fact, when foucault calls for a revolt against those who
hold the monopoly of government - 'which we need to wrest from them little by
little and day by day'- is he so far from Deleuze saying that it's a matter of
jurisprudence? 'Law isn't created through declarations of human rights.
Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the only thing there is. '
this is to say...I don't get your outrage.
you seem to be saying that people should be granted the right to revolt, which
would be a nonsense in theory. and in practice, whilst in the positive it
translates into 'the europeans, or whoever holds the monopoly of rights
assignment, should grant a right to the palestinians, or to the chechnyans, or to
the kurds, or to whoever is in fashion amongst moralists, to revolt...', in the
negative - and within the same framework- it also means that that monopoly can be
equally legitimately exercised through the creation of sub-humans (suspected
terrorists-refugees-etc etc).
> Glen - but is this not merely to say that rights are mere abstract
> formalities without the power to implement them? But this leads on to a
> position that the powerless therefore have no rights to begin with. And
> without rights to break out of their powerlessness what right do they have
> to break out of it? If rights are not specified as such how then do we claim
> they have been violated by human rights abusers? Is it not more the case
> that Deleuze rejects human rights on the grounds that the Foucualdian
> rejection (and his own) of universals militates against developing a human
> right because it then becomes a totalising metanarrative? Yet without such a
> totalising concept do humans not abdicate their ethical responsibility to
> others by ceding grouind to every tin pot dicatorial regime that wants to
> opt out of systems that protect people from torure, rape, enslavement,
> arbitrary killing etc?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Human rights
>
>
> > I don't think he was antagonistic towards the concept as much as he was
> > antagonistic towards its deployment. My reading was that human rights is
> > only a weapon in those circumstances where it is recognised as such.
> Deleuze
> > is arguing one step before the application or invocation of human rights,
> he
> > is arguing that groups need to be engaged on the level that can create and
> > establish justice or rights. It is a 'pure abstraction' unless the
> > juridicial work (to legitimate the authority of the concept) has already
> > occurred - 'the invention of rights, invention of the law'. Negri and
> Hardt
> > relate to this in Empire where they discuss the passage from the virtual
> to
> > the actual (i do not have my copy hear, so no reference!). Justice first
> has
> > to be actualised, that is, in the situation 'requiring' justice (creating
> > the 'requirement' of justice is the first step of its actualisation),
> before
> > the instruments of that justice can be deployed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Glen.
> >
> > PhD Candidate
> > Centre for Cultural Research
> > University of Western Sydney
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Human rights
> >
> >
> > > Is Deluze really saying anything here other than accusing as idiots
> those
> > > who advocate human rights? What right can he be talking about creating
> if
> > > not a human right? The discourse of human rights has caused immense
> > problems
> > > for those who have abused them. Why surrender the weapon?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > >
> > >
> > > > yes, we put it here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze10.htm
> > > >
> > > > and also recently published it on makeworld paper#4
> > > > the pdf for it should come online soon.
> > > >
> > > > arianna
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:08 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Arianna,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for the article, I enjoyed it! Can it be found online?
> > > > >
> > > > > Glen.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > foucault's article dated 1984 is only short but predictable: you
> > find
> > > it
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > third volume of the essential works, Power, it's entitled
> > 'confronting
> > > > > > governments: human rights'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > here is Deleuze on the issue :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reverence that people display toward human rights -- it almost
> > > makes
> > > > > > one want to defend horrible, terrible positions. It is so much a
> > part
> > > of
> > > > > > the softheaded thinking that marks the shabby period we were
> talking
> > > > > about.
> > > > > > It's pure abstraction. Human rights, after all, what does that
> > mean?
> > > > > > It's pure abstraction, it's empty. It's exactly what we were
> > talking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > before about desire, or at least what I was trying to get across
> > about
> > > > > > desire. Desire is not putting something up on a pedestal and
> > saying,
> > > hey,
> > > > > > I desire this. We don't desire liberty and so forth, for example;
> > > that
> > > > > > doesn't mean anything. We find ourselves in situations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take today's Armenia, a recent example. What is the situation
> > there?
> > > If
> > > > > I
> > > > > > understand correctly -- please let me know if I don't, though
> that's
> > > not
> > > > > > the point either -- there's an Armenian enclave in another Soviet
> > > > > republic.
> > > > > > So there's an Armenian republic, and then an enclave. Well,
> that's
> > a
> > > > > > situation. First, there's the massacre that the Turks, or the
> > Turkic
> > > > > > people, I'm not sure, massacre the Armenians once again, in their
> > > enclave.
> > > > > > The Armenians take refuge in their republic -- I think, and again,
> > > please
> > > > > > correct my errors -- and then, there, an earthquake hits. It's as
> > if
> > > they
> > > > > > were in the Marquis de Sade. These poor people went through the
> > worst
> > > > > > ordeals that they could face, and they've only just escaped into
> > > shelter
> > > > > > when Mother Nature starts it all up again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mean, we say "human rights", but in the end, that's a party line
> > for
> > > > > > intellectuals, and for odious intellectuals, and for intellectuals
> > > without
> > > > > > any ideas of their own. Right off the bat, I've noticed that
> these
> > > > > > declarations of human rights are never done by way of the people
> > that
> > > are
> > > > > > primarily concerned, the Armenian associations and communities,
> and
> > so
> > > on.
> > > > > > Their problem isn't human rights. What is it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a set-up! As I was saying, desire is always through
> > set-ups.
> > > > > > Well, there's a set-up. What can be done to eliminate this
> enclave,
> > > or to
> > > > > > make it livable? What is this interior enclave? That's a
> > territorial
> > > > > > question: not a human rights question, but a qusetion of
> territorial
> > > > > > organisation. What are they going to suppose that Gorbachev is
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > > get out of the situation? How is he going to arrange things so
> that
> > > > > > there's no longer this Armenian enclave delivered into the hands
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > hostile Turks all around it? That's not a human rights issue, and
> > > it's
> > > > > not
> > > > > > a justice issue. It's a matter of jurisprudence. All of the
> > > abominations
> > > > > > through which humans have suffered are cases. They're not denials
> > of
> > > > > > abstract rights; they're abominable cases. One can say that these
> > > cases
> > > > > > resemble other, have something in common, but they are situations
> > for
> > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Armenian problem is typical of what one might call a problem
> of
> > > > > > jurisprudence. It is extraordinarily complex. What can be done
> to
> > > save
> > > > > > the Armenians, and to enable the Armenians to extricate themselves
> > > from
> > > > > > this situation? And then, on top of things, the earthquake kicks
> > in.
> > > An
> > > > > > earthquake whose unfolding also had its reasons, buildings which
> > > weren't
> > > > > > well built, which weren't put together as they should have been.
> > All
> > > of
> > > > > > these things are jurisprudence cases. To act for liberty, to
> become
> > a
> > > > > > revolutionary, this is to act on the plane of jurisprudence. To
> > call
> > > out
> > > > > > to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
> exist.
> > > What
> > > > > > counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights,
> > invention
> > > of
> > > > > > the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights,
> and
> > > > > recite
> > > > > > lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of
> > > applying
> > > > > > human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in
> each
> > > case,
> > > > > > this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something
> quite
> > > > > > different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll take an example I quite like, because it's the only way to
> get
> > > across
> > > > > > what jurisprudence is. People don't really understood, well, not
> > > > > everyone.
> > > > > > People don't understand very well. I remember the time when it
> was
> > > > > > forbidden to smoke in taxis. The first taxi drivers who forbade
> > > smoking
> > > > > in
> > > > > > their taxis -- that made a lot of noise, because there were
> smokers.
> > > And
> > > > > > among them was a lawyer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have always been passionate about jurisprudence, about law. Had
> I
> > > not
> > > > > > done philosophy, I would have done law, but indeed, jurisprudence,
> > not
> > > > > > human rights. Because that's life. There are no human rights,
> > there
> > > is
> > > > > > life, and there are life rights. Only life goes case by case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, taxis. There was this guy who didn't want to be forbidden
> from
> > > > > smoking
> > > > > > in taxi. So he took the taxi driver to court. I remember it very
> > > well:
> > > > > > the taxi driver was ruled guilty. If the trial were to take place
> > > today,
> > > > > > the taxi driver wouldn't be guilty, it would be the passenger
> who'd
> > be
> > > the
> > > > > > guilty party. But back then, the taxi driver was found guilty.
> > Under
> > > > > what
> > > > > > pretext? That, when someone took a taxi, he was the tenant. So
> the
> > > taxi
> > > > > > passenger was likened to a tenant; the tenant is allowed to smoke
> in
> > > his
> > > > > > own home under the right of use and support. It's as though he
> was
> > an
> > > > > > actual tenant, as though my landlord told me: no, you may not
> smoke
> > in
> > > my
> > > > > > home. And I'd say: yes, if I am the tenant, I can smoke in my own
> > > home.
> > > > > > So the taxi was made out to be a sort of mobile apartment in whcih
> > the
> > > > > > passenger was the tenant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ten years later, it's become almost universal: there is almost no
> > taxi
> > > in
> > > > > > which one can smoke, period. The taxi is no longer made out to be
> > > like
> > > > > > renting an apartment, it's a public service. In a public service,
> > > > > > forbidding smoking is permitted. All that is jurisprudence.
> > There's
> > > no
> > > > > > issue of rights of this or that. It's the matter of a situation,
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > > situation that evolves. And fighting for freedom, really, is
> doing
> > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So there you have it, the Armenian example seems typical to me.
> > Human
> > > > > > rights -- what do they mean? They mean: aha, the Turks don't have
> > the
> > > > > > right to massacre the Armenians. Fine, so the Turks don't have
> the
> > > right
> > > > > > to massacre the Armenians. And? It's really nuts. Or, worse, I
> > > think
> > > > > > they're hypocrites, all these notions of human rights. It is
> zero,
> > > > > > philosophically it is zero. Law isn't created through
> declarations
> > of
> > > > > > human rights. Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the
> > only
> > > > > > thing there is. So: fighting for jurisprudence. That's what
> being
> > on
> > > the
> > > > > > left is about. It's creating the right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Tout le respect des droits de l'homme, c'est vraiment, on a envie
> > > presque
> > > > > > >de tenir des propositions odieuses. Ça fait tellement partie de
> > cette
> > > > > > >pensée molle de la période pauvre dont on parlait. C'est du pure
> > > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > >Les droits de l'homme, mais qu'est-ce que c'est? C'est du pure
> > > abstrait.
> > > > > > >C'est vide. C'est exactement ce qu'on disait tout à l'heure pour
> le
> > > > > désir,
> > > > > > >ou ce que j'essayais de dire pour le désir. Le désir, ça ne
> > consiste
> > > pas
> > > > > à
> > > > > > >ériger un objet, à dire: je désire ceci. On ne désire pas, par
> > > exemple,
> > > > > la
> > > > > > >liberté et cetera. C'est zéro. On se trouve dans des situations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je prends l'exemple actuel de l'Arménie. Il est tout récent,
> > > celui-là.
> > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, la situation? Si j'ai bien compris, on me
> > > corrigera,
> > > > > > >mais si on me corrige, ça ne change pas grand chose. Il y a cet
> > > enclave
> > > > > > >dans une autre république soviétique, il y a cet enclave
> > arménienne.
> > > Il y
> > > > > > >a une république arménienne et il y a une enclave. Bon, ça, c'est
> > une
> > > > > > >situation. La première chose. Il y a ce massacre, là, que des
> > Turcs,
> > > des
> > > > > > >semblants des espèces des Turcs, je ne sais pas, pour autant
> qu'on
> > > sache
> > > > > > >actuellement, je suppose qu'il soit ça, massacrent des Arméniens
> > une
> > > fois
> > > > > > >de plus, dans leur enclave. Les Arméniens se réfugient dans leur
> > > > > > >république, je suppose, tu corrige toutes mes erreurs, et là, il
> y
> > a
> > > un
> > > > > > >tremblement de terre. On se croyait dans le Marquis de Sade. Des
> > > pauvres
> > > > > > >hommes ont traversé les pires épreuves vécues des hommes, et à
> > peine
> > > ils
> > > > > > >arrivent là, à l'abris, c'est la nature qui s'y met.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je veux dire, on dit: les droits de l'homme. Mais enfin, c'est
> des
> > > > > > >discours pour intellectuels, et pour intellectuels odieux, et
> pour
> > > > > > >intellectuels qui n'ont pas d'idées. D'abord, je remarque que
> > > toujours
> > > > > ces
> > > > > > >déclarations des droits de l'homme, elles ne sont jamais fait en
> > > fonction
> > > > > > >avec les gens que ça intéresse, les sociétés d'Arméniens, les
> > > communautés
> > > > > > >d'Arméniens et cetera. Leur problème, c'est pas les droits de
> > > l'homme.
> > > > > > >C'est quoi?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Voilà un agencement. Comme je disais, le désir, c'est toujours à
> > > travers
> > > > > > >des agencements. Voilà un agencement. Qu'est-ce qui est possible
> > pour
> > > > > > >supprimer cette enclave ou pour faire que cet enclave soit
> vivable?
> > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette enclave là-dedans? Ça, c'est une
> > question
> > > de
> > > > > > >territoire. Ce n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme, c'est
> > de
> > > > > > >l'organisation de territoire. Qu'est-ce qu'ils vont supposer que
> > > > > > >Gorbatchev va tirer de cette situation, comment il va faire pour
> > > qu'il
> > > > > n'y
> > > > > > >ai pas cet enclave arménienne livré là aux Turcs menaçants
> autours?
> > > Ce
> > > > > > >n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme. Ce n'est pas une
> > > question de
> > > > > > >justice. C'est une question de jurisprudence. Toutes les
> > abominations
> > > que
> > > > > > >subi l'homme sont des cas. C'est pas des démentis à des droits
> > > abstraits.
> > > > > > >C'est des cas abominables. On dira que ces cas peuvent se
> > ressembler,
> > > > > mais
> > > > > > >c'est des situations de jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Le problème arménien là, c'est typiquement ce qu'on appellera un
> > > problème
> > > > > > >de jurisprudence. C'est extraordinairement complexe. Que faire
> pour
> > > > > sauver
> > > > > > >les Arméniens, et que les Arméniens se sauvent eux-mêmes de cette
> > > > > > >situation? Et en plus, ce tremblement de terre s'y met. Un
> > > tremblement de
> > > > > > >terre qui a aussi ces raisons, des constructions qui n'étaient
> pas
> > > bien,
> > > > > > >qui n'étaient pas faites comme il fallait. Tout ça, c'est des cas
> > de
> > > > > > >jurisprudence. Agir pour la liberté, devenir révolutionnaire,
> c'est
> > > > > opérer
> > > > > > >dans la jurisprudence. Quand on s'adresse à la justice, la
> justice
> > ça
> > > > > > >n'existe pas, les droits de l'homme ça n'existe pas. Ce qui
> compte
> > > c'est
> > > > > > >la jurisprudence. C'est ça l'invention du droit. Alors, ceux qui
> se
> > > > > > >contentent de rappeler les droits de l'homme et de réciter les
> > droits
> > > de
> > > > > > >l'homme, c'est des débiles. Il ne s'agit pas de faire appliquer
> des
> > > > > droits
> > > > > > >de l'homme. Il s'agit d'inventer des jurisprudences où, pour
> chaque
> > > cas,
> > > > > > >ceci ne sera plus possible. C'est très différent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je prends un exemple que j'aime beaucoup, parce que c'est le seul
> > > moyen
> > > > > de
> > > > > > >faire comprendre ce que c'est la jurisprudence. Les gens n'y
> > > comprennent
> > > > > > >rien, enfin, pas tous. Les gens ne comprennent pas très bien. Je
> me
> > > > > > >rappelle, moi, le temps où il a été interdit de fumer dans les
> > taxis.
> > > > > > >Avant, on fumait dans les taxis. Il y avait un temps où on
> n'avait
> > > plus
> > > > > > >le droit de fumer dans un taxi. Les premiers chauffeurs de taxi
> qui
> > > ont
> > > > > > >interdit de fumer dans les taxis, ça a fait du bruit, parce qu'il
> y
> > > avait
> > > > > > >des fumeurs. Et il y avait un, c'était un avocat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >J'ai toujours été passionné par la jurisprudence, par le droit.
> Si
> > je
> > > > > > >n'aurais pas fait de philosophie, j'aurais fait du droit, mais
> > > justement,
> > > > > > >pas du droit de l'homme, j'aurais fait de la jurisprudence. Parce
> > que
> > > > > > >c'est la vie. Il n'y a pas de droits de l'homme, il y a la vie,
> il
> > y
> > > a
> > > > > des
> > > > > > >droits de la vie. Seulement la vie c'est cas par cas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Donc, les taxis. Il y a un type qui ne veut pas être interdit de
> > > fumer
> > > > > > >dans un taxi. Il fait un procès au taxi. Je me souviens très
> bien,
> > > parce
> > > > > > >que là, je m'étais occupé d'avoir les attendus du jugement. Le
> taxi
> > > était
> > > > > > >condamné. Aujourd'hui, pas de question. Il y aurait le même
> > procès,
> > > il
> > > > > ne
> > > > > > >serait pas condamné le taxi, ce serait le usager qui serait
> > condamné.
> > > > > Mais
> > > > > > >au début, le taxi a été condamné. Sous quels attendus? Que,
> lorsque
> > > > > > >quelqu'un prenait un taxi, il était locataire. Donc,
> l'utilisateur
> > de
> > > > > taxi
> > > > > > >a été assimilé à un locataire. Le locataire a le droit de fumer
> > chez
> > > lui.
> > > > > > >Il a le droit d'usage et d'appui. C'est comme s'il faisait de
> > > location.
> > > > > > >C'est comme si ma propriétaire me disait: non, tu ne va pas fumer
> > > chez
> > > > > > >toi. Si, si je suis locataire, je peux fumer chez moi. Donc le
> taxi
> > a
> > > été
> > > > > > >assimilé à un appartement roulant dont l'usager était le
> locataire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Dix ans après, ça s'est absolument universalisé, il n'y a
> > > pratiquement
> > > > > > >plus de taxi où on peut fumer au nom de quoi. Le taxi n'est plus
> > > assimilé
> > > > > > >à une location d'appartement, il est assimilé à un service
> > publique.
> > > Dans
> > > > > > >un service publique, on a le droit d'interdire de fumer. Tout ça
> > est
> > > > > > >jurisprudence. Il n'est pas question de droit de ceci ou de cela.
> > Il
> > > est
> > > > > > >question de situation, et de situation qui évolue. Et lutter pour
> > la
> > > > > > >liberté, c'est réellement faire de la jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Alors là, l'exemple de l'Arménie me parait typique. Le droits de
> > > l'homme,
> > > > > > >ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire: ah, les Turcs, il n'ont pas le
> > droit
> > > de
> > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. D'accord, les Turcs n'ont pas le droit
> de
> > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. Et après? C'est vraiment des débiles. Ou
> > > pire,
> > > > > je
> > > > > > >crois que c'est tellement des hypocrites, là, toute cette pensée
> > des
> > > > > > >droits de l'homme. C'est zéro, philosophiquement c'est zéro. Et
> la
> > > > > > >création du droit, ce n'est pas les déclarations des droits de
> > > l'homme.
> > > > > La
> > > > > > >création, en droit, c'est la jurisprudence. Il n'y a que ça qui
> > > existe.
> > > > > > >Donc: lutter pour la jurisprudence. C'est ça, être de gauche.
> > C'est
> > > > > créer
> > > > > > >le droit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > >Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Human rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what is the best material available on Foucault's attitude to
> human
> > > > > rights?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> > > > > > This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > > > > multipart/alternative
> > > > > > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > > > > > text/html
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
What
counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights, invention of
the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights, and recite
lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of applying
human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in each case,
this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something quite
different.'
I don't see this as that far from Foucault's take on the law and sovereignty. do
you remember his debate with Chomsky? wasn't he seriously undermining there the
notion that justice is the motive behind struggles-similarly to what Deleuze does
here? in fact, even in the later text on confronting governments he talks of
private individuals showing solidarity amongst themselves as governed. there is
no mention of human rights as a meaningful tool in its legal application. at his
time the function of human rights could have conceivably been one of simply
denouncing the suffering of the governed. 'the suffering of men must never be a
silent residue of policy'. but today, the notion of human rights and its full
embodiment in the workings of the executive, through the international courts and
police, ought to make one wonder as to the functions of its applicability and
more especially its naming and enlisting operations and declarations, as Deleuze
rightly points out. in fact, when foucault calls for a revolt against those who
hold the monopoly of government - 'which we need to wrest from them little by
little and day by day'- is he so far from Deleuze saying that it's a matter of
jurisprudence? 'Law isn't created through declarations of human rights.
Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the only thing there is. '
this is to say...I don't get your outrage.
you seem to be saying that people should be granted the right to revolt, which
would be a nonsense in theory. and in practice, whilst in the positive it
translates into 'the europeans, or whoever holds the monopoly of rights
assignment, should grant a right to the palestinians, or to the chechnyans, or to
the kurds, or to whoever is in fashion amongst moralists, to revolt...', in the
negative - and within the same framework- it also means that that monopoly can be
equally legitimately exercised through the creation of sub-humans (suspected
terrorists-refugees-etc etc).
> Glen - but is this not merely to say that rights are mere abstract
> formalities without the power to implement them? But this leads on to a
> position that the powerless therefore have no rights to begin with. And
> without rights to break out of their powerlessness what right do they have
> to break out of it? If rights are not specified as such how then do we claim
> they have been violated by human rights abusers? Is it not more the case
> that Deleuze rejects human rights on the grounds that the Foucualdian
> rejection (and his own) of universals militates against developing a human
> right because it then becomes a totalising metanarrative? Yet without such a
> totalising concept do humans not abdicate their ethical responsibility to
> others by ceding grouind to every tin pot dicatorial regime that wants to
> opt out of systems that protect people from torure, rape, enslavement,
> arbitrary killing etc?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Human rights
>
>
> > I don't think he was antagonistic towards the concept as much as he was
> > antagonistic towards its deployment. My reading was that human rights is
> > only a weapon in those circumstances where it is recognised as such.
> Deleuze
> > is arguing one step before the application or invocation of human rights,
> he
> > is arguing that groups need to be engaged on the level that can create and
> > establish justice or rights. It is a 'pure abstraction' unless the
> > juridicial work (to legitimate the authority of the concept) has already
> > occurred - 'the invention of rights, invention of the law'. Negri and
> Hardt
> > relate to this in Empire where they discuss the passage from the virtual
> to
> > the actual (i do not have my copy hear, so no reference!). Justice first
> has
> > to be actualised, that is, in the situation 'requiring' justice (creating
> > the 'requirement' of justice is the first step of its actualisation),
> before
> > the instruments of that justice can be deployed.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Glen.
> >
> > PhD Candidate
> > Centre for Cultural Research
> > University of Western Sydney
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:52 AM
> > Subject: Re: Human rights
> >
> >
> > > Is Deluze really saying anything here other than accusing as idiots
> those
> > > who advocate human rights? What right can he be talking about creating
> if
> > > not a human right? The discourse of human rights has caused immense
> > problems
> > > for those who have abused them. Why surrender the weapon?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:08 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > >
> > >
> > > > yes, we put it here:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze10.htm
> > > >
> > > > and also recently published it on makeworld paper#4
> > > > the pdf for it should come online soon.
> > > >
> > > > arianna
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:08 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Arianna,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for the article, I enjoyed it! Can it be found online?
> > > > >
> > > > > Glen.
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Arianna" <ari@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:01 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Human rights
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > foucault's article dated 1984 is only short but predictable: you
> > find
> > > it
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > third volume of the essential works, Power, it's entitled
> > 'confronting
> > > > > > governments: human rights'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > here is Deleuze on the issue :
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reverence that people display toward human rights -- it almost
> > > makes
> > > > > > one want to defend horrible, terrible positions. It is so much a
> > part
> > > of
> > > > > > the softheaded thinking that marks the shabby period we were
> talking
> > > > > about.
> > > > > > It's pure abstraction. Human rights, after all, what does that
> > mean?
> > > > > > It's pure abstraction, it's empty. It's exactly what we were
> > talking
> > > > > about
> > > > > > before about desire, or at least what I was trying to get across
> > about
> > > > > > desire. Desire is not putting something up on a pedestal and
> > saying,
> > > hey,
> > > > > > I desire this. We don't desire liberty and so forth, for example;
> > > that
> > > > > > doesn't mean anything. We find ourselves in situations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take today's Armenia, a recent example. What is the situation
> > there?
> > > If
> > > > > I
> > > > > > understand correctly -- please let me know if I don't, though
> that's
> > > not
> > > > > > the point either -- there's an Armenian enclave in another Soviet
> > > > > republic.
> > > > > > So there's an Armenian republic, and then an enclave. Well,
> that's
> > a
> > > > > > situation. First, there's the massacre that the Turks, or the
> > Turkic
> > > > > > people, I'm not sure, massacre the Armenians once again, in their
> > > enclave.
> > > > > > The Armenians take refuge in their republic -- I think, and again,
> > > please
> > > > > > correct my errors -- and then, there, an earthquake hits. It's as
> > if
> > > they
> > > > > > were in the Marquis de Sade. These poor people went through the
> > worst
> > > > > > ordeals that they could face, and they've only just escaped into
> > > shelter
> > > > > > when Mother Nature starts it all up again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mean, we say "human rights", but in the end, that's a party line
> > for
> > > > > > intellectuals, and for odious intellectuals, and for intellectuals
> > > without
> > > > > > any ideas of their own. Right off the bat, I've noticed that
> these
> > > > > > declarations of human rights are never done by way of the people
> > that
> > > are
> > > > > > primarily concerned, the Armenian associations and communities,
> and
> > so
> > > on.
> > > > > > Their problem isn't human rights. What is it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's a set-up! As I was saying, desire is always through
> > set-ups.
> > > > > > Well, there's a set-up. What can be done to eliminate this
> enclave,
> > > or to
> > > > > > make it livable? What is this interior enclave? That's a
> > territorial
> > > > > > question: not a human rights question, but a qusetion of
> territorial
> > > > > > organisation. What are they going to suppose that Gorbachev is
> > going
> > > to
> > > > > > get out of the situation? How is he going to arrange things so
> that
> > > > > > there's no longer this Armenian enclave delivered into the hands
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > hostile Turks all around it? That's not a human rights issue, and
> > > it's
> > > > > not
> > > > > > a justice issue. It's a matter of jurisprudence. All of the
> > > abominations
> > > > > > through which humans have suffered are cases. They're not denials
> > of
> > > > > > abstract rights; they're abominable cases. One can say that these
> > > cases
> > > > > > resemble other, have something in common, but they are situations
> > for
> > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Armenian problem is typical of what one might call a problem
> of
> > > > > > jurisprudence. It is extraordinarily complex. What can be done
> to
> > > save
> > > > > > the Armenians, and to enable the Armenians to extricate themselves
> > > from
> > > > > > this situation? And then, on top of things, the earthquake kicks
> > in.
> > > An
> > > > > > earthquake whose unfolding also had its reasons, buildings which
> > > weren't
> > > > > > well built, which weren't put together as they should have been.
> > All
> > > of
> > > > > > these things are jurisprudence cases. To act for liberty, to
> become
> > a
> > > > > > revolutionary, this is to act on the plane of jurisprudence. To
> > call
> > > out
> > > > > > to justice -- justice does not exist, and human rights do not
> exist.
> > > What
> > > > > > counts is jurisprudence: *that* is the invention of rights,
> > invention
> > > of
> > > > > > the law. So those who are content to remind us of human rights,
> and
> > > > > recite
> > > > > > lists of human rights -- they are idiots. It's not a question of
> > > applying
> > > > > > human rights. It is one of inventing jurisprudences where, in
> each
> > > case,
> > > > > > this or that will no longer be possible. And that's something
> quite
> > > > > > different.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll take an example I quite like, because it's the only way to
> get
> > > across
> > > > > > what jurisprudence is. People don't really understood, well, not
> > > > > everyone.
> > > > > > People don't understand very well. I remember the time when it
> was
> > > > > > forbidden to smoke in taxis. The first taxi drivers who forbade
> > > smoking
> > > > > in
> > > > > > their taxis -- that made a lot of noise, because there were
> smokers.
> > > And
> > > > > > among them was a lawyer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have always been passionate about jurisprudence, about law. Had
> I
> > > not
> > > > > > done philosophy, I would have done law, but indeed, jurisprudence,
> > not
> > > > > > human rights. Because that's life. There are no human rights,
> > there
> > > is
> > > > > > life, and there are life rights. Only life goes case by case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, taxis. There was this guy who didn't want to be forbidden
> from
> > > > > smoking
> > > > > > in taxi. So he took the taxi driver to court. I remember it very
> > > well:
> > > > > > the taxi driver was ruled guilty. If the trial were to take place
> > > today,
> > > > > > the taxi driver wouldn't be guilty, it would be the passenger
> who'd
> > be
> > > the
> > > > > > guilty party. But back then, the taxi driver was found guilty.
> > Under
> > > > > what
> > > > > > pretext? That, when someone took a taxi, he was the tenant. So
> the
> > > taxi
> > > > > > passenger was likened to a tenant; the tenant is allowed to smoke
> in
> > > his
> > > > > > own home under the right of use and support. It's as though he
> was
> > an
> > > > > > actual tenant, as though my landlord told me: no, you may not
> smoke
> > in
> > > my
> > > > > > home. And I'd say: yes, if I am the tenant, I can smoke in my own
> > > home.
> > > > > > So the taxi was made out to be a sort of mobile apartment in whcih
> > the
> > > > > > passenger was the tenant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ten years later, it's become almost universal: there is almost no
> > taxi
> > > in
> > > > > > which one can smoke, period. The taxi is no longer made out to be
> > > like
> > > > > > renting an apartment, it's a public service. In a public service,
> > > > > > forbidding smoking is permitted. All that is jurisprudence.
> > There's
> > > no
> > > > > > issue of rights of this or that. It's the matter of a situation,
> > and
> > > a
> > > > > > situation that evolves. And fighting for freedom, really, is
> doing
> > > > > > jurisprudence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So there you have it, the Armenian example seems typical to me.
> > Human
> > > > > > rights -- what do they mean? They mean: aha, the Turks don't have
> > the
> > > > > > right to massacre the Armenians. Fine, so the Turks don't have
> the
> > > right
> > > > > > to massacre the Armenians. And? It's really nuts. Or, worse, I
> > > think
> > > > > > they're hypocrites, all these notions of human rights. It is
> zero,
> > > > > > philosophically it is zero. Law isn't created through
> declarations
> > of
> > > > > > human rights. Creation, in law, is jurisprudence, and that's the
> > only
> > > > > > thing there is. So: fighting for jurisprudence. That's what
> being
> > on
> > > the
> > > > > > left is about. It's creating the right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Tout le respect des droits de l'homme, c'est vraiment, on a envie
> > > presque
> > > > > > >de tenir des propositions odieuses. Ça fait tellement partie de
> > cette
> > > > > > >pensée molle de la période pauvre dont on parlait. C'est du pure
> > > > > abstrait.
> > > > > > >Les droits de l'homme, mais qu'est-ce que c'est? C'est du pure
> > > abstrait.
> > > > > > >C'est vide. C'est exactement ce qu'on disait tout à l'heure pour
> le
> > > > > désir,
> > > > > > >ou ce que j'essayais de dire pour le désir. Le désir, ça ne
> > consiste
> > > pas
> > > > > à
> > > > > > >ériger un objet, à dire: je désire ceci. On ne désire pas, par
> > > exemple,
> > > > > la
> > > > > > >liberté et cetera. C'est zéro. On se trouve dans des situations.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je prends l'exemple actuel de l'Arménie. Il est tout récent,
> > > celui-là.
> > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, la situation? Si j'ai bien compris, on me
> > > corrigera,
> > > > > > >mais si on me corrige, ça ne change pas grand chose. Il y a cet
> > > enclave
> > > > > > >dans une autre république soviétique, il y a cet enclave
> > arménienne.
> > > Il y
> > > > > > >a une république arménienne et il y a une enclave. Bon, ça, c'est
> > une
> > > > > > >situation. La première chose. Il y a ce massacre, là, que des
> > Turcs,
> > > des
> > > > > > >semblants des espèces des Turcs, je ne sais pas, pour autant
> qu'on
> > > sache
> > > > > > >actuellement, je suppose qu'il soit ça, massacrent des Arméniens
> > une
> > > fois
> > > > > > >de plus, dans leur enclave. Les Arméniens se réfugient dans leur
> > > > > > >république, je suppose, tu corrige toutes mes erreurs, et là, il
> y
> > a
> > > un
> > > > > > >tremblement de terre. On se croyait dans le Marquis de Sade. Des
> > > pauvres
> > > > > > >hommes ont traversé les pires épreuves vécues des hommes, et à
> > peine
> > > ils
> > > > > > >arrivent là, à l'abris, c'est la nature qui s'y met.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je veux dire, on dit: les droits de l'homme. Mais enfin, c'est
> des
> > > > > > >discours pour intellectuels, et pour intellectuels odieux, et
> pour
> > > > > > >intellectuels qui n'ont pas d'idées. D'abord, je remarque que
> > > toujours
> > > > > ces
> > > > > > >déclarations des droits de l'homme, elles ne sont jamais fait en
> > > fonction
> > > > > > >avec les gens que ça intéresse, les sociétés d'Arméniens, les
> > > communautés
> > > > > > >d'Arméniens et cetera. Leur problème, c'est pas les droits de
> > > l'homme.
> > > > > > >C'est quoi?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Voilà un agencement. Comme je disais, le désir, c'est toujours à
> > > travers
> > > > > > >des agencements. Voilà un agencement. Qu'est-ce qui est possible
> > pour
> > > > > > >supprimer cette enclave ou pour faire que cet enclave soit
> vivable?
> > > > > > >Qu'est-ce que c'est, cette enclave là-dedans? Ça, c'est une
> > question
> > > de
> > > > > > >territoire. Ce n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme, c'est
> > de
> > > > > > >l'organisation de territoire. Qu'est-ce qu'ils vont supposer que
> > > > > > >Gorbatchev va tirer de cette situation, comment il va faire pour
> > > qu'il
> > > > > n'y
> > > > > > >ai pas cet enclave arménienne livré là aux Turcs menaçants
> autours?
> > > Ce
> > > > > > >n'est pas une question de droits de l'homme. Ce n'est pas une
> > > question de
> > > > > > >justice. C'est une question de jurisprudence. Toutes les
> > abominations
> > > que
> > > > > > >subi l'homme sont des cas. C'est pas des démentis à des droits
> > > abstraits.
> > > > > > >C'est des cas abominables. On dira que ces cas peuvent se
> > ressembler,
> > > > > mais
> > > > > > >c'est des situations de jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Le problème arménien là, c'est typiquement ce qu'on appellera un
> > > problème
> > > > > > >de jurisprudence. C'est extraordinairement complexe. Que faire
> pour
> > > > > sauver
> > > > > > >les Arméniens, et que les Arméniens se sauvent eux-mêmes de cette
> > > > > > >situation? Et en plus, ce tremblement de terre s'y met. Un
> > > tremblement de
> > > > > > >terre qui a aussi ces raisons, des constructions qui n'étaient
> pas
> > > bien,
> > > > > > >qui n'étaient pas faites comme il fallait. Tout ça, c'est des cas
> > de
> > > > > > >jurisprudence. Agir pour la liberté, devenir révolutionnaire,
> c'est
> > > > > opérer
> > > > > > >dans la jurisprudence. Quand on s'adresse à la justice, la
> justice
> > ça
> > > > > > >n'existe pas, les droits de l'homme ça n'existe pas. Ce qui
> compte
> > > c'est
> > > > > > >la jurisprudence. C'est ça l'invention du droit. Alors, ceux qui
> se
> > > > > > >contentent de rappeler les droits de l'homme et de réciter les
> > droits
> > > de
> > > > > > >l'homme, c'est des débiles. Il ne s'agit pas de faire appliquer
> des
> > > > > droits
> > > > > > >de l'homme. Il s'agit d'inventer des jurisprudences où, pour
> chaque
> > > cas,
> > > > > > >ceci ne sera plus possible. C'est très différent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Je prends un exemple que j'aime beaucoup, parce que c'est le seul
> > > moyen
> > > > > de
> > > > > > >faire comprendre ce que c'est la jurisprudence. Les gens n'y
> > > comprennent
> > > > > > >rien, enfin, pas tous. Les gens ne comprennent pas très bien. Je
> me
> > > > > > >rappelle, moi, le temps où il a été interdit de fumer dans les
> > taxis.
> > > > > > >Avant, on fumait dans les taxis. Il y avait un temps où on
> n'avait
> > > plus
> > > > > > >le droit de fumer dans un taxi. Les premiers chauffeurs de taxi
> qui
> > > ont
> > > > > > >interdit de fumer dans les taxis, ça a fait du bruit, parce qu'il
> y
> > > avait
> > > > > > >des fumeurs. Et il y avait un, c'était un avocat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >J'ai toujours été passionné par la jurisprudence, par le droit.
> Si
> > je
> > > > > > >n'aurais pas fait de philosophie, j'aurais fait du droit, mais
> > > justement,
> > > > > > >pas du droit de l'homme, j'aurais fait de la jurisprudence. Parce
> > que
> > > > > > >c'est la vie. Il n'y a pas de droits de l'homme, il y a la vie,
> il
> > y
> > > a
> > > > > des
> > > > > > >droits de la vie. Seulement la vie c'est cas par cas.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Donc, les taxis. Il y a un type qui ne veut pas être interdit de
> > > fumer
> > > > > > >dans un taxi. Il fait un procès au taxi. Je me souviens très
> bien,
> > > parce
> > > > > > >que là, je m'étais occupé d'avoir les attendus du jugement. Le
> taxi
> > > était
> > > > > > >condamné. Aujourd'hui, pas de question. Il y aurait le même
> > procès,
> > > il
> > > > > ne
> > > > > > >serait pas condamné le taxi, ce serait le usager qui serait
> > condamné.
> > > > > Mais
> > > > > > >au début, le taxi a été condamné. Sous quels attendus? Que,
> lorsque
> > > > > > >quelqu'un prenait un taxi, il était locataire. Donc,
> l'utilisateur
> > de
> > > > > taxi
> > > > > > >a été assimilé à un locataire. Le locataire a le droit de fumer
> > chez
> > > lui.
> > > > > > >Il a le droit d'usage et d'appui. C'est comme s'il faisait de
> > > location.
> > > > > > >C'est comme si ma propriétaire me disait: non, tu ne va pas fumer
> > > chez
> > > > > > >toi. Si, si je suis locataire, je peux fumer chez moi. Donc le
> taxi
> > a
> > > été
> > > > > > >assimilé à un appartement roulant dont l'usager était le
> locataire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Dix ans après, ça s'est absolument universalisé, il n'y a
> > > pratiquement
> > > > > > >plus de taxi où on peut fumer au nom de quoi. Le taxi n'est plus
> > > assimilé
> > > > > > >à une location d'appartement, il est assimilé à un service
> > publique.
> > > Dans
> > > > > > >un service publique, on a le droit d'interdire de fumer. Tout ça
> > est
> > > > > > >jurisprudence. Il n'est pas question de droit de ceci ou de cela.
> > Il
> > > est
> > > > > > >question de situation, et de situation qui évolue. Et lutter pour
> > la
> > > > > > >liberté, c'est réellement faire de la jurisprudence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Alors là, l'exemple de l'Arménie me parait typique. Le droits de
> > > l'homme,
> > > > > > >ça veut dire quoi? Ça veut dire: ah, les Turcs, il n'ont pas le
> > droit
> > > de
> > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. D'accord, les Turcs n'ont pas le droit
> de
> > > > > > >massacrer les Arméniens. Et après? C'est vraiment des débiles. Ou
> > > pire,
> > > > > je
> > > > > > >crois que c'est tellement des hypocrites, là, toute cette pensée
> > des
> > > > > > >droits de l'homme. C'est zéro, philosophiquement c'est zéro. Et
> la
> > > > > > >création du droit, ce n'est pas les déclarations des droits de
> > > l'homme.
> > > > > La
> > > > > > >création, en droit, c'est la jurisprudence. Il n'y a que ça qui
> > > existe.
> > > > > > >Donc: lutter pour la jurisprudence. C'est ça, être de gauche.
> > C'est
> > > > > créer
> > > > > > >le droit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >[...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >L'Abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze, avec Claire Parnet, Vidéo Éd.
> > > > > > >Montparnasse, 1996
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 12:26 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Human rights
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > what is the best material available on Foucault's attitude to
> human
> > > > > rights?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> > > > > > This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> > > > > > multipart/alternative
> > > > > > text/plain (text body -- kept)
> > > > > > text/html
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>