Colin, without a concept of the human then there is no basis for human
rights. Because 'man' is produced does it follow that human is the result of
a similar production process? If it is then I see a major difficulty in
developing a Foucauldian framework for understanding and promoting human
rights. You speak of understanding Arendt in a certain 'context'. While I do
not seek to challenge your contextualisation, I do wish to introduce the
difficulty with context. While broadly agreeing with Foucault on the
production of truth, there nevertheless remain hard facts and then there is
context. Hard facts are there - a person's existence is one - and then a
context is manufactured in order to interpret or explain the hard fact. In
my view the hard fact exists independent of power - but power always plays a
role in creating the context for understanding the hard fact. So does a
human being have human rights by virtue of the fact that they are human or
do we need to produce - through contextualisation from the hard fact of
'matter in motion' taking on a peculiar physical form - something we term
human? What concerns me, if it is the latter, is that we come dangerously
close to the position adopted by Kissinger when he told the Argentinian
generals that a lot is said about human rights but not enough about context.
He wanted to create a context that would justify the widespread abuse of
human rights. Furthermore, because Foucault is so often contextualised in
postmodernist terms, this has been used to devalue the contribution of
Foucauldian thought to the development of a strong human rights agenda. I
don't have any answers - merely throwing out the things that puzzle me.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
Hannah Arendt's remarks perhaps need to be understood in their own tragic
historical context. Recently I listened to the Berkeley lecture audio at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/audiofiles.html#foucault . Foucault there
makes one of
his many references to Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?', and on this occasion
mentions (rapidly) that the 1784 discussion brought Kant into dialogue with
Moses Mendelssohn and the understanding of enlightenment within Jewish
philosophy. Amos Elon in his recent fine book on Jews in Germany cites
Arendt's
comment, a propos of Mendelssohn and his friend Lessing's play Nathan the
Wise. (when
the sultan asks his identity, Nathan, whose character is said to be modelled
on Mendelssohn, answers, Ich bin ein Mensch - I am a human). Elon reports
that
Arendt called this reply "a grotesque and dangerous evasion of reality". I
do
not think it is a straighforward matter to decide whether her comment is
just.
Anthony, Foucault's views might raise a problem if one assumes that rights
of
humans can only be universally affirmed on the basis of their deduction from
a universal essence of the human. But that might first be a cue to question
whether we actually mean to depend or that assumption, and have performed
such a
deduction.
If yes, then Foucault must be wrong. If no, then what is our problem?
Foucault nowhere says that rights cannot be affirmed or can have no moral
basis. He
himself affirms certain rights and is prepared (within limits) to say why,
although not necessarily by means of a deductive proof.
In a message dated 01/04/04 18:34:25 GMT Daylight Time,
mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Subj: Re: Human rights
> Date: 01/04/04 18:34:25 GMT Daylight Time
> From: mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> But how much does this actually explain?
>
> ''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.
>
> This tells us that there is a disparity in power relations and that given
an
> opportunity there are those who will seek to empower themselves while at
the
> same time disempowering others. 'Nothing but a man' seems a very reductive
> conceptualisation. Is it not more accurate to say that it is not that a
man
> is only a man that makes it possible for others to treat him as less than
a
> man, but that a process of deconstructing the human/man - the act of
making
> him not a man/human is what leads to inhuman treatment of him?
>
> The puzzle I am trying to look at is do rights have no substance outside
of
> the power to make them effective? Are rights only rights because of
power -
> or do they not precede power and then lead us to ask how best to use power
> to make such rights less susceptible to violation? Are rights only rights
> when codified or do rights have an ethical dimension which exist
independent
> of whether they have been codified and enshrined in law? If power precedes
> rights
> then power defines rights - it can give and it can take but it doesn't
make
> it just.
>
> '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.' - Arendt. But Arendt lived long enough to see Pinochet was
> denying Chilean nationals any rights. Jews born in Argentina and who had
> full political rights were nevertheless tortured and murdered by the
> military regime because they were Jews, for whom the regime had a rabid
> hatred. People who were not stateless nevertheless went to the camps.
>
> '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.' - Arendt. Here Arendt seems to be accepting that the nation
> state has some totalising call on the allegiance of people which in return
> it will guarantee rights. Why should nationalism have such a totalising
> right over and above say Catholicism?
>
> It seems that because Foucault views 'man' as being produced that some
view
> this as meaning that rights have no meaning outside of the very power that
> produces man. And because metanarrative is rejected then a universalising
> human rights is conceptually indefensible. Basically the question I am
> asking is: is Foucauldianism incompatible with a universal culture of
human
> rights?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philippe Magnan" <magnan_philippe@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Human rights
>
>
> >
> >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
> >---
> >
>
>
Colin Gordon
Director, NHSIA Disease Management Systems Programme
Health Informatics Manager, Royal Brompton Hospital
Chair, British Medical informatics Society
http://www.bmis.org
07881 625146
colinngordon@xxxxxxx
--- 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
---
rights. Because 'man' is produced does it follow that human is the result of
a similar production process? If it is then I see a major difficulty in
developing a Foucauldian framework for understanding and promoting human
rights. You speak of understanding Arendt in a certain 'context'. While I do
not seek to challenge your contextualisation, I do wish to introduce the
difficulty with context. While broadly agreeing with Foucault on the
production of truth, there nevertheless remain hard facts and then there is
context. Hard facts are there - a person's existence is one - and then a
context is manufactured in order to interpret or explain the hard fact. In
my view the hard fact exists independent of power - but power always plays a
role in creating the context for understanding the hard fact. So does a
human being have human rights by virtue of the fact that they are human or
do we need to produce - through contextualisation from the hard fact of
'matter in motion' taking on a peculiar physical form - something we term
human? What concerns me, if it is the latter, is that we come dangerously
close to the position adopted by Kissinger when he told the Argentinian
generals that a lot is said about human rights but not enough about context.
He wanted to create a context that would justify the widespread abuse of
human rights. Furthermore, because Foucault is so often contextualised in
postmodernist terms, this has been used to devalue the contribution of
Foucauldian thought to the development of a strong human rights agenda. I
don't have any answers - merely throwing out the things that puzzle me.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
Hannah Arendt's remarks perhaps need to be understood in their own tragic
historical context. Recently I listened to the Berkeley lecture audio at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/audiofiles.html#foucault . Foucault there
makes one of
his many references to Kant's 'What is Enlightenment?', and on this occasion
mentions (rapidly) that the 1784 discussion brought Kant into dialogue with
Moses Mendelssohn and the understanding of enlightenment within Jewish
philosophy. Amos Elon in his recent fine book on Jews in Germany cites
Arendt's
comment, a propos of Mendelssohn and his friend Lessing's play Nathan the
Wise. (when
the sultan asks his identity, Nathan, whose character is said to be modelled
on Mendelssohn, answers, Ich bin ein Mensch - I am a human). Elon reports
that
Arendt called this reply "a grotesque and dangerous evasion of reality". I
do
not think it is a straighforward matter to decide whether her comment is
just.
Anthony, Foucault's views might raise a problem if one assumes that rights
of
humans can only be universally affirmed on the basis of their deduction from
a universal essence of the human. But that might first be a cue to question
whether we actually mean to depend or that assumption, and have performed
such a
deduction.
If yes, then Foucault must be wrong. If no, then what is our problem?
Foucault nowhere says that rights cannot be affirmed or can have no moral
basis. He
himself affirms certain rights and is prepared (within limits) to say why,
although not necessarily by means of a deductive proof.
In a message dated 01/04/04 18:34:25 GMT Daylight Time,
mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Subj: Re: Human rights
> Date: 01/04/04 18:34:25 GMT Daylight Time
> From: mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Reply-to: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> But how much does this actually explain?
>
> ''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.
>
> This tells us that there is a disparity in power relations and that given
an
> opportunity there are those who will seek to empower themselves while at
the
> same time disempowering others. 'Nothing but a man' seems a very reductive
> conceptualisation. Is it not more accurate to say that it is not that a
man
> is only a man that makes it possible for others to treat him as less than
a
> man, but that a process of deconstructing the human/man - the act of
making
> him not a man/human is what leads to inhuman treatment of him?
>
> The puzzle I am trying to look at is do rights have no substance outside
of
> the power to make them effective? Are rights only rights because of
power -
> or do they not precede power and then lead us to ask how best to use power
> to make such rights less susceptible to violation? Are rights only rights
> when codified or do rights have an ethical dimension which exist
independent
> of whether they have been codified and enshrined in law? If power precedes
> rights
> then power defines rights - it can give and it can take but it doesn't
make
> it just.
>
> '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.' - Arendt. But Arendt lived long enough to see Pinochet was
> denying Chilean nationals any rights. Jews born in Argentina and who had
> full political rights were nevertheless tortured and murdered by the
> military regime because they were Jews, for whom the regime had a rabid
> hatred. People who were not stateless nevertheless went to the camps.
>
> '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.' - Arendt. Here Arendt seems to be accepting that the nation
> state has some totalising call on the allegiance of people which in return
> it will guarantee rights. Why should nationalism have such a totalising
> right over and above say Catholicism?
>
> It seems that because Foucault views 'man' as being produced that some
view
> this as meaning that rights have no meaning outside of the very power that
> produces man. And because metanarrative is rejected then a universalising
> human rights is conceptually indefensible. Basically the question I am
> asking is: is Foucauldianism incompatible with a universal culture of
human
> rights?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philippe Magnan" <magnan_philippe@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 11:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Human rights
>
>
> >
> >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
> >---
> >
>
>
Colin Gordon
Director, NHSIA Disease Management Systems Programme
Health Informatics Manager, Royal Brompton Hospital
Chair, British Medical informatics Society
http://www.bmis.org
07881 625146
colinngordon@xxxxxxx
--- 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
---