å Monday, February 20th, 2017

Personally, I have been a little stumped while reading Wendy Brown’s essay. There’s this feeling of uncertainty between whether Brown believes human rights are anti-political and whether they serve a bigger role in politics. I am uncertain if the purpose for her writing is to express distinctions between perceptions of what human rights are, how they are perceived initially and how they emerged into a completely new meaning and purpose. It is my interpretation that Brown is indicating that human rights activism cannot be limited to one defined meaning and purpose now because of evidence of a still-existent moral code that serves as a foundation for these rights and political interdependence regardless of if these rights were initially made to, or not made to, be in relation to politics in several depths.

Our assignment, however, is a debate between agreement and disagreement regarding human rights activism and its purpose, whether or not that purpose is mainly to defend those who are not in power and those who are blameless. I do agree that the main purpose for the rise of human rights is not solely limited to the need for protection and recognition for the innocent and powerless. If that were the case, then hypocrisies among writers who served as precursors for the push for human rights would not serve as evidence of alternative reasoning behind their creation and usage. Yes, the impoverished lacked human rights and protection. Yes, women and slaves did too. The men, the bourgeoisie and the noblemen, the philosophers and the well-educated, that served as forerunners of the human rights idea wrote without actually experiencing any moral-ethically wrong doings, without being the poor, uneducated and enslaved. Though, due to their persuasion of empathy, were able to be the voice of the people who needed the recognition, who needed the change.

The idea that human rights can be considered be anti-political, something pure and of good intention can be opposed through these documents about human rights written by men, about men, are ultimately for men. It is not done out of good intention, but for political motion, for defense and preservation of political standings and control. “…If they stand for political power’s moral limit regardless of its internal organization or legitimacy, what is their political positioning and effect in this work?” (p. 454). It’s a paradox for people in a society to push for human rights activism, for governmental changes and liberty, and can still withstand their limitations, rules and consequences in exchange for a few vague and symbolic ideas of rights. They’re then still put into a position of subjugation, whether it is seemingly lessened or simply not worth an additional fight, which then makes both the people and the authorities subject to hypocrisy. This also emphasizes that human rights, too, are actually just a political image of justice, rather than an active and exertion of justice.

In Wendy Brown’s essay, “The Most We Can Hope For…”, she makes it a point to let it be known to the reader that human rights activism is much more than protecting the innocent and powerless. She cites multiple times author and former politician Michael Ignatieff, whom she describes as “thoughtful and nondismissive”(451). Not only is Brown arguing that human rights activism is more than protecting any certain individual , but also that it is “… effective in limiting political violence and reducing misery”(452). She goes on to state that if all of the “…politically let blood, politically inflicted pain, and politically induced fear”(452) that has been present throughout history can be erased by human rights, that achievement alone would be enough, even if they achieved nothing else, because no one would be able to argue with it. However, how can human rights accomplish this when it is said to be a political project itself that, in Brown’s words, is a particular form of political power carrying a particular image of justice (453). Brown includes Ignatieff’s understanding of human rights which is that it is not about what is good or right, but rather the agreement “about what is insufferably, inarguably wrong”(454).
Two points that I believe are not as highlighted as they should be but are present nonetheless are that human rights have a lot to do with moral and empowerment so that can help people to help themselves. Terms such as moral currency, moral consideration, moral equality, moral inviolability and moral antidote are just a few of the term that Brown uses to help define human rights. Brown states that human rights has become the “international moral currency” In addition, she goes on to state that “human rights is the language that systematically embodies the intuition that each individual is entitled to equal moral consideration… we can say that we are making moral progress”(453). Although, as much moral that is included in human rights, the political parts of it remains immoral in many ways. How can human rights help people help themselves when there are so many political, social and economic aspects involved. The question stands, what kind of politicization does human rights include because they definitely include political aspects even though that’s who they are supposed to be standing up to and opposing.
Although Brown states that human rights were created to protect an individual, she also adds a lot of political affiliations and how they are unavoidable. I do agree that human rights are than what they seem to be and we have to begin to scratch the surface to truly see their intentions and what they truly wish to accomplish

In the essay “The Most We Can Hope For” by Wendy Brown, the author makes important points when arguing that human rights are not only to protect individuals from violence and abuse because it is situated in a political, social, historical, and economic contexts. On page 453 She states that human rights are a political tactic with an image of justice, meaning that political uses the image of justice in this case the human rights to keep up or to gain more power in another ways. However, when talking about defending individuals from cruelty, and avoiding pain and suffering, this takes a moral progress. For me what she is claiming is that political power will always be present in human rights even though it presents itself as antipolitical. Like the example of the intervention in Iraq by the United States and Britain, which shows the replacement of an abusive power by another one in exchange of protection, with the hope of reducing suffering, but at the end the power is still there in other form.

Ignatieff insists that what human beings need to enjoy life is a political-economic account of what state needs to thrive instead of the basic things such as food and shelter. This shows again that political power and its political and economic security is all that matters. In his second claim he argues that a crucial  initiative for free market order human rights offers because they are the vehicle for social and economic security, in other words from my understanding he is trying to say that through human rights individuals can achieve many things, even be able to take a part on political and social contexts because human rights guarantee social and political freedom allowing individuals to have agency and therefore it is up to the individual his aims and ends (455). Here we are talking about freedom or empowerment where the individual makes his own decisions.

From what I read, for Brown, human rights are not only shield that protect individuals agains power and permit individuals to make choices but they could be ways and vehicles to reach domination and governance. For instance the fact that Americans have so many rights, even if these can not shape collective power, still this allows Americans to live without fear which makes human rights be a form a power itself . Furthermore “there is no such a thing as mere reduction of suffering or protection from abuse” (460),  this alone is productive of political subjects. I agree with Brown that the human rights activism is not only a “pure defense of the innocent and powerless”, it is more than that simple quote. it actually enable us to live fearless of oppression not only that but also feel protected and be able to speak up about what we think is infair even defying people in politics.

I agree with Browns claim that human rights cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless. She backs up her reasoning with evidence from the war of Iraq. She states Donald Rumsfeld declares the “War of terrorism is a war of human rights”, this use of language is being used through the lens of the scared and revengeful American. This comes from the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, as New Yorkers it was instilled, hammered, into our minds by the media which is politically driven, that Muslims were dangerous even barbaric people, who knew nothing of human rights. American troops entered a country and killed thousands of innocent people and children; we stereotyped a whole entire country, on the acts of a selected group. How in God’s name is that portraying human rights activism? Brown states, “Rather, the point is that there is no such thing as mere reduction of suffering or protection from abuse-  the nature of the reduction or protection is itself productive of political subjects and political possibilities” (p460).

Brown argues that the power human rights is the protection of people, and their individual right. But who determines those rights; the agency in which those powers lie in then determines how those rights are protected.  Are the equally distributed among all nations, first world and third world countries? He example of the War on Terrorism is just that, human rights in that insist was seen through the western lens, Americans were protecting what they saw as human rights.   The American government didn’t think of the people of Iraq as human and deserved the same rights as we did, so how is this the war of human rights; complete contradiction. I don’t think that there is one human rights law that can be applied to every individual, it all depend on what lens is being used. If the foundation of human rights is to protect to innocent and powerless then why did it do the opposite of that? It seems like a simple concept but in fact it is complex and has intricate loop wholes, it varies on who is using it as a tool of ‘protection’, and who they are trying to protect. we discussed in class if it is possible to be free, I don’t believe that one can truly be free and still have human rights being equal. I believe there is human rights because , as history as shown us, human aren’t always humane beings.

As I read Wendy Brown’s essay “The Most We Can Hope For…..” Human Right and the politics of Fatalism. Wendy has an interesting point of view about Human Rights and mentions about  Michel Ignatieff publication “Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry”

Humans Rights have been created to stop physical cruelty as well as any kind of abuse.However Wendy Brown believed that Human Rights are not created directly to a single individual, and I think her main idea is that Human Rights are being use more by people who are in politics, people using for demand of government, corporations or practically any political figure.

She also mention Ignatieff’s idea of how Human rights protect against violence and abuse, on page 452 she writes about Ignatieff commentaries published “That I take to be the elementary priority of all human rights activism: to stop torture, beating……as best we can, the security of ordinary people” I think this quote is saying that we have the power to keep fighting to get our rights and not only certain group of people.

“Human rights activism is amoral political project and if it displaces, compete with refuses, or rejects other political projects including those also aimed at producing justice” pg. 453, just like I mention before Brown still has a debate on what kind of rights recognizes each situation are political, historical, social or economic context. Brown has point out that to protect a certain vulnerable group, this rights have to be identify and reinforce the perception of that weak group.

On page 459 she also write about what are we have learned in the last century ” if rights secure the possibility of living without fear of express state coercion……the state nor do they enhance the collective power of the citizenry to determinate” Her idea about how rights work to articulate a need or a condition of fault or damage that can not be complete repaired or transformed by rights. These rights of systematic subordinates tent to rewrite, inequalities  and impediments to freedom that are consequent to social stratification as issues of individual violations and is rare for these violation to be articulated under the condition of such violation.

Wendy Brown thinks that although human rights have been created to defend any individual, after fifty years these rights remain only a symbol in which human rights activism which we have to argue in taking. Therefore we have to work within the prevailing discourse of human rights, but we have to be aware of the limits of these actions and remain centered on the idea that nothing is impossible.

In Brown’s essay, “The Most We Can Hope For……Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism she makes several points about how human rights activism is not just for the innocent and powerless. She quotes the work of Michael Ignatieff to break down three key points: human rights is important because its a tool for people to use to help themselves, that rights are political and civil freedoms that are necessary for the attainment of economic and social security, and lastly, that human rights are a “shared vocabulary”(455) from which mankind can flourish.

For the first point, she acknowledges that human rights is a proclimation of individual empowerment. I agree with her about human rights not being pure defense of the powerless and innocent because there is strong moral desire to inforce these rights. There is nothing weak about this. I like that she quoted Ignatieff saying something along the lines of: when an individual obtains agency, they have an inherent right to choose what they live or die for. It is our right to choose the things that defines us. The text also states that in choosing what to live and die for is not in the way of any historical, economical and political contraints, it just is.

Next, for the second point, Brown claims that rights are political and civil freedoms that are necessary for certain securities. In a civil society, having human rights is only the precursor to obtaining everything else that is necessay to indiviualism within a society. There was a quote by Ignatieff given that expressed what Brown was trying to convey: that without the freedom to give opinions or speak and assemble, paired with the freedom of property, humans can not gather themselves to struggle for social and economic security. In other words, baring human rights alone is not enough to survive within a society.

Lastly, for the third point, Brown claims that if we were to achieve moral equality that there would be contention. There was a question asked: that if were were to have these rights where one chooses to live their lives as they see fit, which gives them an individual power, who is to say that there wouldn’t be conflict? Rights, as a universal moral vocabulary, has no say in how we should live together. Rights alone doesn’t aid in the governing of people. Human rights are the basis from which there is a shield from certain injustices.

Human rights cannot rationally be said to exist only to protect the weak from abuse, as they are more and more politicized and designated as an mechanism through which the politics of power is advanced. Brown’s example of this is the United States and Britain “intervention in Iraq” (Brown, 2004, p. 455) which according to Brown was hailed  a human rights effort which according to Ignatieff’s view was intended to reduce the suffering in that country and promote agency or “help people to help themselves” but what choice did that country have. The United States’ intrusion in Iraq did not  reduce or prevent suffering what the U.S did was  advance its own political power in that country.

Another claim Brown is making is that  human rights are not universal they are  applied selectively, not universally, and can be used to further US interests rather than to protect people who fall victim to human rights abuses.

Brown is also arguing that human rights are a part of politics and can be tied to economics as well.  Rights can be a means and a medium of authority and domination.

I think Wendy Brown is arguing that human rights and how they are applied can lead to abuse of these rights and that human rights have to encompass more than just security and protection from suffering and political power. Brown also points out that Ignatieff’s doesn’t think that human rights should include food or shelter and that individual rights and how they are exercised cannot be separated from politics. The state is in the position to enforce or provide these rights to people.

Human rights discourse creates a “certain kind of subject in need of a certain kind of protection.” Another point raised in the text is that Americans have more rights today than they’ve ever had but little power to shape collective justice and political aims. So it appears that for all the rights that we have or fight for we still have relatively little say in government decisions even when they affect us.

I also believe that Brown is also making a point that human rights is a Western concept and therefore may not necessarily be able to be applied universally. At the same time she is touching on the idea that the U.S is in the position to create and impose this concept and can use the language of human rights rhetoric to justify military interventions in other countries as well as economic sanctions.

Human rights activism in not only a collaborative enterprise whereas activist groups are seeking a particular aim. They have carefully designed strategies to reduce the human pain and reduce the human suffering. Human rights fights would have persuasively refuted an individual’s entitlement to equal moral consideration. This was necessary to protect individuals. According to Ignatieff, “the rights language creates the basis for conflict, deliberation, argument and contention (454). This meant disagreements and agreements were an important aspect in joined forces. In other words, human rights activism may have fought for autonomy, yet there were consequences. In their joined forces to create independence, they produced hostility among other organizations. In order to secure basis human rights, a demand was made to recast political, moral and economic entities among other transformations. As one door opened at the same time the other door closed. Society members may obtain the rights to govern self: however, the state control placed in various devices that closed citizen’s political autonomy, financial autonomy and moral autonomy among other liberties.
Hence, human rights activism cannot be reduced to “a pure defense of innocent and powerlessness” because the existence of other powers are engaged in the success and or failure of autonomy. Most discussions about human rights overlapped into political resistance. Freedom of speech (speaking out about human rights) in particular populace is against the law. During socialism, citizens did not have any rights to speak about their ideas, opinions and beliefs opposing human dignity. This meant the human rights arena became a political forum. Their conversations were in direct conflict with particular rules that govern communist countries. As Ignatieff claimed, “Without the freedom to articulate and express political opinions, without freedom of speech, together with freedom of property, agents cannot organize themselves to struggle for social and economic security (Pg. 457). This meant human rights activism fought for the right to govern one-self, and they may have won and they man have not won. Needless to say, activist focused on reducing injustice against humans and simultaneously they caused the government to seize any moral autonomy and economic autonomy.
First, most human rights activism dialogue about morality had important consequences for the broader field. The human rights activism hoped for moral goodness. And they believed in a chance to transform the principles of good behavior as well as respectable acts. Government control prevented any activism groups from recasting the moral clause. So, I believe collectively organizations cannot just fight for human rights without encountering the other significant issues such as moral independence. As stated, ” even free speech, or perhaps, especially free speech in an age of corporately owned and governmentally beholden media, can deepen the subjection of the populace to undemocratic discourses of power, at the same time it permits lots of talking” (Pg459). In other words, human rights activism can openly converse about the inviolability of human dignity; consequently, government aggressively stifled any progression for moral principles.
Second, many human rights activism had a dialogue about the possibilities of economic independence. In accordance to Ignatieff, “he insist human rights must be limited to security the capacity for the individual to act, he also insist this very capacity itself constitutes the necessary preconditions for political engagement that in turn can produce economic improvement and even security” (Pg. 456). Anyone familiar with fighting for a particular purpose must consider all options. Although organizations fought for a significant cause they cannot ignore the challenges to obtain economic independence and security which was related.
To truly achieve human rights we must stop the torture, beatings, killings and physical cruelty against all human beings. Also, we must argue for both moral and economic power to ultimately acquire basic rights. We cannot assume that fighting for just human rights is enough without looking at the broader consequences. The effects could have moral destruction, political eradication and economic defeat.

The essayist Wendy Brown, in her essay ““The Most We Can Hope For…’ Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism,” provides arguments of the moral nature of human rights activism. Whether if it fully serves its goal to maintain an adequate response and consistency to aiding humanity at its points of struggles, of which there will be contentions violating societies rights. Furthermore, if such determinations to overcome the challenges that compromise the humanistic rights are authentic in itself, then there wouldn’t be an inclination towards a self-indulge greed of abuse against its fundament of protecting humanistic rights. For most of Brown’s essay, the Canadian author Michael Ignatieff incites us to unfold with cues of pensive approach towards how we should examine the true purpose of an initiative towards aiding those who may need their human rights to be defended, along the discussion of the insincere purpose behind outcome of those who in pretending to help the struggled, abuse it.

It is true, as Brown suggests, that human rights activism is not solely purposefully for the nature of defending the struggled. That the integral belief of human rights activism is not only a shelter towards one or some particular groups of defenseless, but a charged strike offensively breaking the traditional forms of civil societal norms throughout the globe (Brown 453). With such rigor of self-empowerment that ascends within the self-humane being, the overcome decision of taking an initiative to take upon the struggle, candidly individualizes itself into partaking a contentious approach of not only playing a one-sided role of defense. Such advance phases into breaking the presumptive limited role of human rights activism, shifting gears of a determined objective containing a reasonable principle by then not having any regard in the consequences that could lead to a misfortune (Brown 455).

The energetic perseverance of one’s self ground acceptance human rights activism, brings into mind of how its performance plays a role economically. Having on one side the contribution of goods given towards those who expect to receive it because of their dire needs and then at the same time as much that is given, how its handouts can financially promote an enhanced commercial guarantee of not dwindling (Brown 456). It may seem that the steps towards having an understanding in agreeing in an arrangement in receiving the support may have taken to acknowledge the rights of those who have been suppressed. The acts of “kindness” of the state powers may have been understood in supporting the purpose of action of the activist, not realizing that perhaps it is a form of silencing the victims of whom may have felt a victory to covertly restrict the purpose of fighting for human rights.

As I read Wendy Brown’s “The most we can hope for…” Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism, it made me view things very differently and get a better understanding on her views when it comes to human rights activisms.

As we may all know, human rights is a tool to fight injustice treatment and control that is put on innocent individuals, however Brown argues that human activisim is more than it claims to be. Ignatieff expresses his claims on his view of human rights, but it seemed that his views are within the boundaries, limits and levels within the political system.

Brown supports are arguments by using one of her main evidence, the case of the invasion in Iraq in 2003 by the U.S and Britain. Ignatieff would argue that “Human rights is a language of individual empowerment” and “when individuals have agency, they can protect themselves against injustice” (pg. 455). First, the word empowerment as we know through the state has its limitation; Ignatieff views this invasion as a form of human rights, however Brown would argue that this can be contradicting. How could this be so, when throughout this invasion many innocent individuals, families, children were killed, something they did not choose, but as something we choose for them. Such organization (human rights) that are controlled through governments, made a political decision, so do we conform through such changes and accept this? Another evidence Brown argues towards Ignatieff claims on what is right for those suffering, he would claim, “ A world of moral equality is a world of conflict, deliberation, argument and contention” (pg. 458). Brown would argue that if an individual rights (universal moral) is to avoid any form of oppression why should something very typical and natural be argued. How can through such organization of the human rights, govern and limit the lives of others.

Brown wants people to understand that human rights is not as simple, because at the end there will always be government control, as much as human rights activism would considered themselves anti-politic, politics will always play a part especially through any project that consist of what is right for the people. I agree with Brown, precisely because government and political powers will always govern what is right for the individuals, and no matter the organization, thing will never be as pure, and neither defensible when governments will be the ones controlling them.