The Politics of Human Rights
THE POLITICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Chapter Contents
Introduction 49
The Invention of Human Rights 51
Why Are Human Rights Controversial? 55
Thinking Politically about Human Rights 63
Conclusion 68
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, students should be able to:
Explain what it means to say that human rights are inherently political.
Show why the political character of rights makes them controversial.
Relate the controversial character of rights to their appeal to activists.
Differentiate between instrumental and expressive uses of human rights.
Explain the paradox of institutionalization.
Relate political thinking about human rights to theoretical and contemporary political controversies.
INTRODUCTION
Focus of the chapter: The politics of human rights, emphasizing their political character rather than the political science surrounding them.
Challenge to conventional view: Human rights are often seen as moral principles, perceived as neutral and above politics.
Moral principles are viewed as:
Based on dignity, rationality, autonomy, capabilities, or humanity.
Not typically subject to critique.
Discussion of how human rights function ethically in international laws and practices:
Useful for naming and shaming states violating human rights (e.g., UN Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review).
Source of inspiration for activists around the world.
Important themes:
Criticism of human rights as being complicit in neoliberalism and imperialism (e.g., Whyte 2019; Bob 2019).
The exhaustion of the human rights framework (Hopgood 2013).
The political nature of human rights:
Comfort in viewing them as moral absolutes can obscure their political implications.
Understanding their controversial nature is crucial for grasping their relevance in challenges to power dynamics.
THE INVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Modernity of Human Rights
Distinction made between historical rights and contemporary human rights:
Historical rights tied to medieval social hierarchies.
Early rights in Europe often anchored in
Class/status rather than individuality, reflecting a conservative social order.
Modern human rights characterized by:
Humanism: Focus on human potential and achievements.
Rationalism: Emphasis on reason and science over tradition.
Individualism: Rights pertain to individual rather than group identities.
Rights, Revolutionary and Retrograde
By the 17th century, the idea of human rights being used to justify revolutions illustrates their political utility.
Thomas Hobbes:
Argued for a powerful sovereign; viewed freedom and equality as sources of chaos.
John Locke: Built on Hobbes’s ideas:
Argued legitimate government required the consent of the governed.
Government failing in duties loses legitimacy; people have the right to challenge or replace it.
The narrative surrounding major revolutions (England 1688, USA 1776, France 1789):
Often presented as progressive breakthroughs, yet limited in emancipatory scope (e.g., women, laborers, slaves excluded from rights).
Rights initially crafted for the bourgeois revolution:
Took form in arguments justifying freedom against monarchy, but often excluded marginalized groups from these rights.
Emancipatory Potential
Despite historical exclusions, the premise of natural rights has a profound disruptive role:
As Carole Pateman states, it challenges justifications of authority and subordination.
Women and enslaved peoples claimed rights through reference to liberated humanism.
Recognition of the radical logic of human rights extending beyond original intentions:
Empowers marginalized groups to claim rights through revolution and assertion of equality.
WHY ARE HUMAN RIGHTS CONTROVERSIAL?
A key theme is that human rights are inherently disruptive:
Used as tools to challenge existing power structures.
Misconception that human rights are morally self-evident:
Critics of rights are seen as mistaken or immoral, leading to a misunderstanding of their function.
Human Rights as Social Constructs
A social constructionist approach recognizes rights as human-constructed norms:
Social reality is shaped by interactions, not inherent truths.
Analogous to race as a social construct: no biological basis but still a real concept in society.
Two Uses of Human Rights
Instrumental Use:
Using rights to achieve specific goals such as legal protections, advocacy, or systemic change.
Affective Use:
Expressing values or identity, affirming dignity, fostering community.
Political implications of rights claims:
They demand altered social arrangements and threaten existing privilege, leading to controversy.
Paradox of Institutionalization
Refers to how rights become conservative upon formalization:
Rights institutionalized lose radicality as they become part of the state's regulatory framework.
Neil Stammers explains: institutionalized rights can serve the powerful and maintain existing power dynamics.
Speaking Rights to Power
Human rights claims act as demands for justice and dignity:
Inherently address issues of power and inequality.
Alison Brysk's work emphasizes the necessity of robust human rights movements to counteract established power:
Engages in communicative counter-hegemony to challenge dominant ideologies.
Human Rights, for and against Domination
Human rights can be misused or co-opted in service of domination, reinforcing existing hierarchies:
Historical examples illustrate this, e.g., colonialism justified as civilizing missions.
Recognizing misuse doesn't invalidate the concept;
Questions centered on the link between human rights uses and their effectiveness against domination.
THINKING POLITICALLY ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS
Two contemporary debates:
Inequality and backlash against human rights underscore their political implications.
Human Rights against Inequality:
Samuel Moyn's arguments on human rights accommodating neoliberalism raise questions about their effectiveness in tackling inequality.
Human rights movements can potentially reframe these issues, drawing on radical historical contexts.
CONCLUSION
Human rights are fundamentally political and controversial due to their origins and social construction.
Recognized as essential tools for rhetoric and mobilization against existing power structures.
Ongoing struggles to define their meaning and adapt them to contemporary inequalities and power relations highlight their enduring relevance and dynamism.
Argument
The primary objective of this chapter is to uncover and explain the inherently political character of human rights. By doing so, it aims to unravel the mystery of how human rights can simultaneously appear universal in their moral appeal while remaining intensely contentious in practice. Rather than viewing human rights as neutral or purely moral principles, this analysis treats them as constructs that function within power dynamics to either challenge or reinforce social hierarchies.
Section 1: The Invention of Human Rights
The Modernity of Human Rights
Transition from Tradition: Contemporary human rights are distinct from historical rights, which were often tied to medieval social hierarchies and status.
Core Pillars:
Humanism: Focus on human potential and achievements.
Rationalism: Emphasis on reason and science over tradition.
Individualism: Rights pertain to individual identity rather than collective or class status.
Rights, Revolutionary and Retrograde
Thomas Hobbes: Viewed equality and freedom as sources of chaos, arguing for an absolute sovereign to maintain order.
John Locke: Countered Hobbes by arguing that government legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed; citizens have the right to challenge a failing government.
Historical Context: Major revolutions—England (1688), USA (1776), and France (1789)—utilized rights language to justify rebellion but initially excluded women, laborers, and enslaved people.
Emancipatory Potential
Despite their exclusionary origins, human rights possess a radical logic. As noted by Carole Pateman, the premise of natural rights can disrupt justifications for subordination, allowing marginalized groups to assert their own equality.
Section 2: Why Are Human Rights Controversial?
Human Rights as Social Constructs
Rights are not inherent biological facts; they are human-constructed norms. Much like race, they lack a biological basis but possess significant social reality and influence.
The Dual Utility of Rights
Instrumental Use: Utilizing rights as tools to achieve specific legal protections or systemic reforms.
Affective Use: Using rights to express values, affirm dignity, and foster internal community identity.
The Paradox of Institutionalization
Developed by Neil Stammers, this concept explains that as rights become part of a state's legal and regulatory framework, they often lose their radical, disruptive power and can even be used to maintain existing power structures.
Speaking Rights to Power
Alison Brysk highlights how human rights movements engage in "communicative counter-hegemony" to challenge dominant ideologies and demand justice against established power.
Section 3: Thinking Politically about Human Rights
Human Rights against Inequality
Contemporary debates focus on the "exhaustion" of the human rights framework. Samuel Moyn argues that human rights have become too accommodating to neoliberalism, often failing to address the structural roots of economic inequality.
Addressing the Backlash
The political character of rights means they are constantly under pressure. Thinking politically involves recognizing how rights can be co-opted (as seen in colonial "civilizing missions") and how they must be reframed to address modern power relations and global injustices.
Section 4: Conclusion
Human rights are fundamentally political and controversial because they are social constructs used to navigate and contest power. While they are often presented as moral absolutes, their true relevance lies in their use as tools for mobilization and rhetoric against domination. The ongoing struggle to define their meaning ensures that human rights remain a dynamic, though contested, framework for pursuing global justice.