The validity of “Rights” often elicits insightful/fiery testimonies from supporters and detractors respectively. While it can be argued that the notion of “Rights” is a rather grand ideal for the benefit of humankind and not just some random generalization to appease the common society. I do believe in the value of rights, though I feel that there are hidden clauses are associated with it. I recognize that the concept of rights conforms to and shapes certain persons and groups. In other words, the value and meaning of rights are interchangeable. As with the case of declaration of rights, the ideals that were implemented by its framers constructed those so-called rights pertaining to their well-being. As we see from Lynn Hunts text there were indeed questions, concerns, and uncertainties as to whom these rights were extended to, “The French debates over citizenship and rights reveal a recurring clash between the ideals of human rights philosophy and the reality of eighteenth-century prejudices. Slaves, Jews, and women…enjoyed little political rights nowhere in the world in the eighteenth century.”[1] In hindsight, the use of the term-rights during the French Revolution were molded to appease and apply certain groups of society. One can even argue that rights serve as double standards. It was evident during the 18th century, and to an extent, present in today’s culture.
[1] Hunt, Lynn. Ed. The French Revolution and Human Rights, A Brief Documentary History. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 1996). 18.
What you said in your post is similar to the idea I was attempting to convey in mine. The idea and formal definition of what "rights" truly are seems to be dependent upon the culture and society that is defining it, obviously. Your comment about a double standard plays into that idea, where in the 18th century they probably thought nothing of it, where as today it seems like a double standard. When you commented on today's culture it only furthered the idea of an evolving definition and idea of rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree that "rights" are a social construct and as such subject to definition by the society creating them. But we can't judge the past by today's standards. Abbé Sieyès said, “In no circumstances can any freedom or right be without limitations.”(Hunt, Doc 10) Then, as now, discussion centers around the definitions of these terms and the limits of their application, with the perspective of the times. Some people think it is preposterous that SeaWorld is being sued for enslaving Orca whales. In the 18th c, the perspective on black slaves was similar. For many people the concept of blacks having equal rights was preposterous. It took a very long time to change enough people’s minds about that to make new laws, but we are still fighting a percentage of the population that hasn’t made the paradigm shift.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that we give so much power to words. The idea of rights is open to everyones own interpretation, yet you look at the Average American and he is clearly aware the rights he is granted. We take for granted this bestowing of rights I believe. Look at the citizens of Syria at this moment, where are the rights equal to ours. They are denied these rights because of the border they live in.
ReplyDelete