The outworking of this is that is that some people are more human than
others. I don't believe this but it worries me in that it reinforces the
very reactionary ensemble Cordelia speaks out against. The Western powers
for aeons managed to dominate by dehumanising those outside the West. The
Nazi concept of subhuman and inferior races was based on a rationale that
some people were less human than others. Human rights is not problematic
because of the difficulty of constructing rights that are uniquely inherent
to all humans, it is problematic because powerful interests want to prevent
such rights being extended to all humans. Three rights that should be
extended to all humans are the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be
raped; the right not to be tortured. Or are we to surrender some people to
those malign practices because we fail to 'socially construct' them as
human. How these three areas are western constructed truths is beyond my
understanding. Furthermore, it ignores that corpus of anti-colonialist and
liberation theology writing and activism that did not originate in the West,
but as a radical response to and rejection of Western values, and which
wanted a better world for human beings. Furthermore, the very space for
waging a strategy of critique and mounting ethical resistance to what is
happening in Iraq is because through strategies of reversal the human rights
question can be used against those invading Iraq. I think it is important to
distinguish between human rights as a regime of truth used to mask power and
dominance, and human rights as a genuine strategic objective. Foucauldians
probably quicker than most realise that meaning is positional rather than
fixed. Why that the abusers monopolise the meaning infused into human
rights? The problem with liberal democratic/western conceptualisations of
human rights is that they are too restrictive. Marxists who have tried to
address the issue of human rights - because Marxism for too long abused
them - have historicised and grounded a rights discourse in economic, social
and political practices. Did Foucault not talk of the responsibility that we
hold because of our global citizenship?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Human rights
> >===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
> >Colin, without a concept of the human then there is no basis for human
> >rights.
>
> Maybe that's why the concept of a "human rights" that is universal is
> problematic. Not only is
> "human" a cultural construction, "rights" itself is also a product of
society,
> I don't see how anyone
> can construct a set of "rights" that is uniquely inherent to all human.
>
> Maybe I am just being an Asian [sic], but the concept of human rights seem
to
> be a set of "truth"
> generated by westerners to exercise power in non-west culture. For one,
it's
> only ever regulated if
> the U.S. can make a profit out of it (such as in Iraq), secondly, only
western
> elites have a voice in
> discussing what constitute a part pf this set of "human rights."
>
> Sorry to interrupt your discussion, I just find the concept of human
rights to
> be highly hypocritical.
>
> -Cordelia
>
> ---------------------------
> The belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche
>
> I had been mad enough to study reason - Foucault
>
>
others. I don't believe this but it worries me in that it reinforces the
very reactionary ensemble Cordelia speaks out against. The Western powers
for aeons managed to dominate by dehumanising those outside the West. The
Nazi concept of subhuman and inferior races was based on a rationale that
some people were less human than others. Human rights is not problematic
because of the difficulty of constructing rights that are uniquely inherent
to all humans, it is problematic because powerful interests want to prevent
such rights being extended to all humans. Three rights that should be
extended to all humans are the right not to be enslaved; the right not to be
raped; the right not to be tortured. Or are we to surrender some people to
those malign practices because we fail to 'socially construct' them as
human. How these three areas are western constructed truths is beyond my
understanding. Furthermore, it ignores that corpus of anti-colonialist and
liberation theology writing and activism that did not originate in the West,
but as a radical response to and rejection of Western values, and which
wanted a better world for human beings. Furthermore, the very space for
waging a strategy of critique and mounting ethical resistance to what is
happening in Iraq is because through strategies of reversal the human rights
question can be used against those invading Iraq. I think it is important to
distinguish between human rights as a regime of truth used to mask power and
dominance, and human rights as a genuine strategic objective. Foucauldians
probably quicker than most realise that meaning is positional rather than
fixed. Why that the abusers monopolise the meaning infused into human
rights? The problem with liberal democratic/western conceptualisations of
human rights is that they are too restrictive. Marxists who have tried to
address the issue of human rights - because Marxism for too long abused
them - have historicised and grounded a rights discourse in economic, social
and political practices. Did Foucault not talk of the responsibility that we
hold because of our global citizenship?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cordelia Chu" <raccoon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Human rights
> >===== Original Message From "McIntyre" <mcintyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
> >Colin, without a concept of the human then there is no basis for human
> >rights.
>
> Maybe that's why the concept of a "human rights" that is universal is
> problematic. Not only is
> "human" a cultural construction, "rights" itself is also a product of
society,
> I don't see how anyone
> can construct a set of "rights" that is uniquely inherent to all human.
>
> Maybe I am just being an Asian [sic], but the concept of human rights seem
to
> be a set of "truth"
> generated by westerners to exercise power in non-west culture. For one,
it's
> only ever regulated if
> the U.S. can make a profit out of it (such as in Iraq), secondly, only
western
> elites have a voice in
> discussing what constitute a part pf this set of "human rights."
>
> Sorry to interrupt your discussion, I just find the concept of human
rights to
> be highly hypocritical.
>
> -Cordelia
>
> ---------------------------
> The belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche
>
> I had been mad enough to study reason - Foucault
>
>