When Deleuze say that « Human right is a pure abstraction », what does he mean?
« It seems that a man who is nothing but a man has lost the very qualities which make it possible for other people to treat him as a fellow-man.? Arendt.
Human rights are not enough when only words, disconnected from any specific situation.
As Arendt points :
?In the name of the will of the people the state was forced to recognize only ?nationals? as citizens, to grant full civil and political rights only to those who belonged to the national community by right of origin and fact of birth. 230?
That the human rights are connected to the nation-state. Stateless people become rightless can go straight to camp under no political protection but under the police. Then the human is only human, without any political rights. Only human rights : void. « It seems that a man who is nothing but a man has lost the very qualities which make it possible for other people to treat him as a fellow-man.? Hannah Arendt Origins Of Totalitarianism, NY, Harcourt, p. 300
It is better develop a cosmopolitic that can protect from the arbitrariness of police power those stales so they don?t became rightless ? that is to say human only human. Without a cosmopolitics, human right doesn?t give them any political cloth outside the nation-state.
Here is Arendt again :
?The secret conflict between state and nation came to light at the very birth of the modern nation-state, when the French Revolution combined the declaration of the Rights of Man with the demand for sovereign nationality. The same essential rights were at once claimed as the inalienable heritage of all human beings and as the specific heritage of specific nations, the same nation was at once declared to be subject to laws, which supposedly would flow from the Rights of Man, and sovereign, that is, bound by no universal law and acknowledging nothing superior to itself. (On the principle of sovereignty, cf. Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République, and Sabine?s History of Political Theory on Bodin?s main theories). 230
?The practical outcome of this contradiction was that from then on human rights were protected and enforced only as national rights and that the very institution of a state, whose supreme task was to protect and guarantee man his rights as man, as citizen and as national, lost its legal, rational appearance?. 230-1
« The stateless people were as convinced as the minorities that loss of national right was identical with the loss of human rights, that the former inevitably entailed the latter. The more they were excluded from right in any form, the more they tended to look for a reintegration into a national, into their own national community.?292
« The conception of human rights based upon the assumed existence of a human being as such, broke down at the very moment when those who professed to believe in it were for the first time confronted with people who had indeed lost all other qualities and specific relationship?except that they are were still human. The world found nothing sacred in the abstract nakedness of being human. And in view of objective political conditions, it is hard to say how the concepts of man upon which human rights are based?that he is created in the image of God (in the American formula), or that he is the representative of mankind, or that he harbours within himself the sacred demands of natural law (in the French formula)?could have help to solve the problem. The survivors of the extermination camps, the inmates of concentration and internal camps, and even the comparatively happy stateless people could see [?] that the abstract nakedness of being nothing but human was their greatest danger.?
299-300
Philippe
McIntyre <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I recall the Chomsky-Foucault debate, although the question of human nature
is what I remember most from it. I don't argue that people should be
'granted' the right to revolt - where does that ever happen? But I do think
they are right to revolt if their rights are denied. But if they do not have
human rights because human rights is a mere rhetorical device for idiots,
what then is the basis of their revolt other than a very subjective view of
their own particularism? How then do we ethically distinguish between a
particularism that revolts against a theocracy that demands women be
mutilated or be stoned to death or wear veils, or a particularism that
revolts against a secularism which seeks to abolish such practices?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arianna"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
> '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"
> > To:
> > 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"
> > > To:
> > > 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"
> > > > To:
> > > > 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"
> > > > > To:
> > > > > 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"
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > 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,
=== message truncated ===
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail
Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !
--- 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
---