Wendy Brown, Assignment 03
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.
