Throughout the semester, we have read many essays by different philosophers that detail everything about human rights. In his essay Who is the Subject of the Rights of Man?, Jacques Ranciere discusses essays written by numerous philosophers that allow him to come to a conclusion about the subject of “Rights of Man”.
Ranciere begins his article by describing life after movements in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe; there was a “new landscape of humanity” (1) filled with violence, danger, etc. He states that the “Rights of Man turned out to be the rights of the rightless” (1), because of all the horrible things that were going on in the world. People were being driven away from their homes, their lands and were constantly threatened by forces.
Because of the state of the world at the time, a suspicion arose, which was that the ‘man’ of ‘Rights of Man’ was only an idea because the only real rights were rights of citizens who belonged to communities. Ranciere discusses how Arendt talked about this suspicion in her work Perplexities of the Rights of Man. Ranciere deduces that the “abstract life” talked about in Arendt’s work meant a life away from politics, or a private life. Thus, by critiquing abstract rights, or rights of a person in the private sphere, she was also critiquing democracy.
Ranciere believes it is critical to reset the question “Who is the subject of the Rights of Man?” onto the subject itself, which includes politics. This would in turn set the definition of politics on a different ground. He dismisses Arendt, and says, “The Rights of Man are the rights of those who have not the rights that they have and have the rights that they have not”. Rights of Man cannot be the rights of a single subject that is simultaneously the source and bearer of rights.
Ranciere gives a great example of his statement about the subject of the rights of man. Olympe de Gouges was one of many feminists during the French Revolution. She led a campaign that argued that women were treated equally in both spheres of their life (in the political sphere and their bare life). Women were supposed to only care about and participate in their own private lives. Although women could not vote or be elected because they “did not fit the purity of political life”, they could be sentenced to death, thus bringing them (and their bare life) into the political sphere. These women demonstrated that they were deprived of rights they had, but they were given rights that the Constitution denied them.
11 comments:
I think it's interesting that at the end of the article Ranciere says that this debate comes down to good and evil. He thinks that in order get to an ethical state that is fair would require "the erasure of all legal distinctions and the closure of all political intervals of dissensus" (11). This seems to be different from some of the others we have read because he seems to say that a government or political agent is not required to give someone rights. He seems to believe that we can accomplish this without that sort of body at least in an idealized state. Is he saying that it is the political agencies that are responsible for keeping people in a state where they do not have basic human rights? Does he believe we can actually get rid of this political state or this something that would only happen in theory?
I was also interested in how Ranciere's debate concluded with good and evil. Moreover what I found particularly interesting was that good and evil was related to ethics. I believe that ethics dictate one's way of life. As Ranciere said ethics is what is accepted by the state that one lives in. I find that to be true because in one's state there is a particular culture, and in that culture there are things that are accepted and frowned upon. These ultimately compose the ethics that one lives by. In different societies I believe it can be proved that ethics are what are accepted by one's respective state. For instance the culture in America and Saudi Arabia share differences and similarities that compose their ethics. One difference is that sex is generally much more accepted in America than Saudi Arabia. This influences the ethics of Americans and Saudi Arabians since in their state sex is viewed in a particular way of being either as something evil or something good.
I agree with Amer that Ranciere is right in stating that ethics are what is accepted by the state that one lives and that these ethics change from place to place and from time to time. All societies have a different set of ethical norms that develop and change over time. These ethical values determine things to be good and evil. I believe that when people live in a society they follow these norms and are given rights.
In response to James' comment, I understand that all societies have different sets of ethical norms that they develop and adhere to, but it seems that you are considering them to be the means for creating the human rights? While they are based on ethical values, does what is good and evil always encompass human rights?
Ranciere is also developing the definition of being inhuman or less than human by describing the zone of indiscernibility. This encompasses those in which one’s humanity cannot be determined and therefore do not attribute to the same rights as others. For example, stateless people lack humanity for political representation and any type of civil rights. As we discussed in class, these stateless beings who are innocent of many criminal acts have no rights. If a crime was to be committed, then that person would be held accountable under the rights of that national government.
I agree that ethic's determine one's society and that society's differ depending on where one lives. In these communities, people are given right's based off the laws that they follow, which asks the question, 'does this make them human?'And if so, when they are stripped from these rights, are they still human? Ranciere discusses those who have rights and are considered human compared to thos who do not in the zone of indiscernibility. For example those in prision, children, etc.
I find Ranciere's description of dissensus to be interesting. As he puts it, it is "putting two worlds in one and the same world" (6). Relatively, in regard to Heather's comment, in my opinion, I do not think that Ranciere is saying that governmentality is not needed to give human rights. Rather, he's referring to the eradication of our differences and cultural views, ethics in govermentality. This refers to the example that he gives when he describes dissensus on how women civil right activists "acted as subjects that did not have the rights that they had and had the rights that they had not." (6). As I think back to the past philosophers we have studied, I believe that this is parallel to Rousseau's "State of Nature". Yet, in the end, Ranciere does not think that we should discuss the nature of human (animal) in our search to find out the subject of the Rights of Man.
I understand what Ranciere is trying to say about women during the French Revolution. They should be able to use the rights that "political life" provides. They are only supposed to be involved in their own lives meanwhile the law can sentence them to death which included them into the political life. Law can have power over them but at the same time they can not be involved within the law. How is that right, that they can be included within the law to be managed in any way possible but at the same time have no say in it?
I agree with Allie's view on women during the French Revolution. The situation the women were in is very similar to the situation the colonists were in against the English Crown right before the Revolutionary war. The famous phrase the colonists yelled to the British soldiers "no taxation without representation" is similar to the issues that the women of the French Revolution faced. It doesn't make sense that a woman can be killed, tortured, or imprisoned for breaking the law without any representation in the government. If you have the right to be tried and convicted by the government you should also have the right to hold a official position or AT LEAST vote for the person who will do the best job. The women in the French Revolution can also be compared to the slaves in America before the Civil War, they to could be killed or punished for breaking the law but they had absolutely no say in the government.
My apologies if I have offended anyone in response to my blog comment. It seems that there have been a misunderstanding. When I quote Ranciere's words regarding the women activists, I feel that neither I nor Ranciere was referring that the conditions that women were justified or right. Rather, I believe that it is absolutely right to say Ranciere thought that the women deserve the very same equality of life and participation to their political life(6). However, Ranciere later states, even though the acts against women are wrong, it is still enactable due to dissensus. Ranciere gives such example of the women activist just to simply shows the definition of dissensus. Back then, even though men and women live in the same world and experience the same environment, they experience a division of fundamental sense : "a dispute about what is given"(6) . As Ranciere furthers defines it, it is "putting two worlds in one and the same world"(6). In order to reach an ideal ethical state, as Heather puts it, we'll need to lead to the "erasure of all legal distinction and the closure of political intervals of dissensus."(11)
Post a Comment