5 Assignment 03

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.

I am not quite sure as to what evidence Brown provided that supported her claim human rights activism. I notice that she used Ignatieff to explain human rights. She uses Michael Ignatieff to support her philosophy on human rights. She insisted that human rights are anti-politics. Human rights focused on pain and suffering rather than the political understanding of justice. Ignatieff claims that we must accept the suffering and fight through it. But later he realizes that he cannot limit his brief of human rights as suffering (454).

Ignatieff has three claims on human rights. The first is that human rights help people help themselves. The second is that in order to feel socially and economically secured civil and political freedom is required. And the last claim is the right to language and shared vocabulary so conflict and arguments can begin. These claims concerns the ontological, historical, and political logic of human rights. He also argues that when individuals have empowerment then they are able to protect themselves form injustice and decides what they want to live and die for

The last two claims mentioned by Ignatieff coincide with one another. Without the freedom to speak it will be hard for people to have social and economic security. If we want to feel secure in anything we must speak out and be heard.

What Brown is saying in her essay “The Most We Can Hope For…” reminds me a bit of Pateman from last week. Pateman was asking feminists to look outside the current power structure, and language to figure out what they wanted on their own terms and in their own terms. Brown is directing us to be as objective when talking about human rights activism.

Acts of activism don’t exist in a void, there are consequence for every action, and we can’t always know all the consequences and repercussions of the actions we take. In this way activism is inherently political, are we helping the current regime? Hurting it? Or are we refusing to help one group because of its other human rights violations? These are all political acts. Brown doesn’t want us to subscribe to any one ideology because of these types of agendas. She uses the great word “generic” (60) to explain that no subjugation or abuse is generic, and neither than is the response. We choose to act in certain ways and we can’t always know what will happen long-term. One analogy that I believe is relevant is that many people choose to be vegetarian because of all the issues surrounding factory farming, issues that are moral, environmental, humanist, economic and on. However, an increase in vegetable farming leads to an increase in pesticides in certain cases which has decreased the bird population in farming communities. This was a negative consequence of a well-intentioned deed. I’m not saying we should stop being vegetarians, just that there is a large picture.

Human rights work and our viewpoints on it are subjective, and influenced by our upbringing, our beliefs and society. Brown points out that our acts are influenced by dynamic contexts (for example political and economic context), and by this I think she means where we as activists are coming from. Missionaries believed they were doing good as well. When we choose a project because of our interests, we don’t offer support to a separate project, this is another way in which our activism is political.

I think what Brown is writing makes complete sense, we must be critical and constantly evaluate ourselves and the human rights movement. Just as we note that actions that made sense to our parents, from the small to the large, from serving the husband first to how they considered race, things are evolving in our time. We have to constantly be checking ourselves to be sure we are doing the most good. The argument reminds me of myself as a feminist, and the ways in which I need to continually check my privilege, which is hard and easy to forget or push back against, but if I just believe that I’m right, and trying to do good I’ll never grow. If I still maintained the beliefs I had even a year ago without recognizing new information the stagnation would make me and my beliefs obsolete.

Wendy Brown’s essay, “The Most We Can Hope For…” Human Rights and the Political of Fatalism addresses many points on human rights activism, she also uses Michael Ignatieff to improve and support her argument.

Human rights are freedom in which every human being needs to have, to protect themselves from cruelty or maltreatment. Brown’s argument is that human rights activism is more than beneficial because it is an efficient factor to limit political violence and most importantly agony. Brown’s believe in political mantle, which makes it seem anti-political to denied human rights to those innocent and powerless people. She explains the differences between how human rights take their shape, moral discourse, which focuses on pain and cruelty, instead of political discourse of comprehensive justice.

Wendy Brown supports her argument using Ignatieff three claims; “Human rights matter because they help people to help themselves”, “civil and political freedoms…”, and “conflict, deliberation, argument and contention.” Moreover, she focuses on Ignatieff position on the Iraq war. One of her most crucial evidence found in claim number one was Ignatieff position on the Iraq war. He came up with the term “empowerment” to hide the truth. In other words, empowerment is going towards the anti-political side. In claim number two, which focuses on the economic and political possibilities. Food, shelter, security, and healthcare are the four most necessary human needs to develop a form of survival. To me it seems like Ignatieff has a very different point of view when it comes to human survival, he is choosing freedom of speech over the most important basic needs of human survival. In claim number three he states, “A world of normal equality is a word of conflict, deliberation, argument, and contention (95). In other words, Ignatieff disagree with individual’s equality and thinks individuals will prospect to empower for democratic determination. Finally, Brown uses Ignatieff own words to prove and support all her arguments. She also talks about Ignatieff poor interest in defending the empowerment people. I agree with Wendy Brown; human rights activism plays an important role in society. It would be extremely unfair to leave innocent and powerless people with no rights or a way to defend themselves from suffering. I had a hard time trying to understand this reading, maybe I misunderstood what Wendy Brown was trying to explain. I know she uses Ignatieff’s claims to support her argument. I can’t wait for the class discussion on Tuesday.

Wendy Brown directs her essay, “’The Most We Can Hope For…’: Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism” as a response to a series of lectures given by Michael Ignatieff.  Along the way, Brown identifies ways in which human rights activism is more than the antipolitical movement attempting to defend the innocent against abusive states and actors it claims to be.  Firstly, by challenging the assertion that human rights activism is antipolitical, Brown then identifies the unintended consequences of human rights activism and lastly claims it to be used as a tool to further imperialist international policy and of the global capitalist economy. Let us first look at the claim that human rights activism is antipolitical.

While human rights activism attempts to cast itself as morally antipolitical, Brown argues the mere fact that human rights exists within a political framework and their actions result in political consequences beyond their intended scope makes them political. Brown continues, identifying ways in which human rights activism can result in unintended ramifications (as the saying goes, the best of intentions…). Most glaringly, because human rights activism focuses on individual rights and justice, it has the tendency, purposeful or not, to supersede all other collective justice projects (p454-455). While some of the political consequences of human rights activism may not be intended, the use of human rights language to further global free trade and imperialist policy does seem to be purposeful.

Brown clearly identifies that Ignatieff’s focus on individual rights over collective rights creates an environment ripe for global free-trade capitalism, with the assumption that social and economic rights will follow. While the focus on individual rights may lead to an environment in which capitalism can thrive, Brown rightfully points out that history shows economic and social rights to not generally follow, at least not without organized activism (p. 457-458). Moving from global capitalism to imperialism, Brown identifies how the umbrella of human rights was used to invade Iraq and to justify the war on terror. Both not only resulted in gross human rights violations abroad, but also a limit on political and civil rights at home (p. 460).

While not an easy read for someone like myself with an optimistic bent, I cannot help but to agree with Brown. The examples she provides, the invasion of Iraq and the war on terrorism, illustrate how the pursuit of human rights can easily be distorted by imperialist and capitalist powers. Further, if we are to look at how the United Nations operates, focusing on human rights abuses by developing countries and ignoring the abuses (or not being allowed to investigate and publish the abuses) of the superpower and permanent security council member states, we are provided with yet another example. This isn’t to say that human rights activism should be dismissed outright. As Brown states in the closing of her essay, we need to find a way to address both collective and individual injustices, in addition to the imbalance of power, outside the current political framework of human rights activism.

According to Wendy Brown in her book “‘The Most We Can Hope For…”: Human Rights and the Politics of Fatalism,” Michael Ignatieff states that Human rights are a protection or privilege that every human should have in order to protect themselves from, cruelty, torture, abuse or violence. But for Brown Human right is not just protect people from the injustice is let them act and have these rights. When we talk about human rights it is not just about people’s rights but also about the political power over these rights.

Wendy Brown mentions how Michael Ignatieff has three claims about human rights. In his first claim, Ignatieff argues that every individual who has rights is able to decide about his life and what is good or bad for him. Contrary to Ignatieff, Brown believes that even though people have rights it will be always somebody deciding what is best for them. One of the examples she mentions is the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain. In that moment this invasion was supposed to help people in Iraq giving them a message of human rights. But the reality was different and this invasion ended in a war and a lot of dead people. In this example, there were more political and economic interests than human rights (Pg,456).

In Ignatieff’s second claim, he says that the human rights of an individual should be limited to the ability of the individual to act, leaving aside vital needs such as food, shelter, and medicine. At this point I agree with Wendy Brown that human rights activism is more than “a pure defense of the innocent and powerless”, is a way to violate their rights to have free access to vital needs as food, housing, and healthcare.This is what we would call Capitalism over human rights.

In his third claim, Ignatieff’s argues that human rights “empower individuals (Pg. 458), to protect themselves and against suffering.  Even though human rights means that an individual has the decision in some aspects of their lives, as Wendy Brown mentions there will always be a government or political power who decides what is good or bad for that individual.

Finally, Wendy concludes her essay saying that “the most we can hope for” is maybe the reduction of the suffering that human rights are supposed to give all people in the world. (pg, 462).