Theory of human rights

Theory of human rights

20/03/19

Textbooks

- Freedom’s right, the social foundation of democratic life – Axel Honneth

- Autonomy, vulnerability

- Article by Honneth and Anderson – recognition and justice

Introduction

Honneth tried to combine tradition and innovation -> not only method, but from the political point of view: this means conservatism and progressive mind. Human rights from the point of view of a theory of justice and liberty.

Justice vs social justice

Social justice -> specific perspective based on a specific interpretation (ideological and political). Honneth’s perspective is stimulating and arises assumptions. This implies that we have to keep our ideas in mind, but his perspective opens up new points of view. Contextualizing all the issues can lead to see them differently: to spot something which is a problem is not easy, nobody says that an argument can be a problem, but you feel it (personal intuition).

Main points

• Description, argumentation, analyzation
• Identify problems and analyze them analytically
• Defining concepts which can be contested and find out why these are confused (is it a result of a debate?)
• Argumentation -> personal opinion always supported by an argument
• Assessment -> personal, mixture of elements (ideological, normative, psychological, normative)

Human rights

-> the legal sphere and the social sphere

Legal: is not only legislation (national, international, supernational levels) but what’s done in court. It’s all fine to have wonderful rules, if the rules are not applied or not applied properly, we are in trouble. The Soviet constitution of '35 or '36 is interesting because there are a lot of beautiful principles, but none of these principles have been implemented, and this is not a detail. Empirically, a wonderful principle codified with a very bad application (deliberately) so in law it’s very important to focus on what is codified but also to what happens to the codified.

We’re not focusing on the legal sphere but looking at the human rights in the social sphere. Honneth on social sphere provides an important argument: why do we need to wait for parliaments, courts to intervene to attribute to human rights the attention they deserve? The alternative would be that there’s a lot to be done at the level of the social practice in the sphere of intersubjectivity. Here, we see the level to which people care about their own rights and especially to the rights of others. ‘Caring’ about them does not mean being aware, because for example, smokers are aware it is not healthy, but we still do it; a contradictory thing will not stop us from doing it and the Scottish philosopher David Hume said this -> you know perfectly it, but you do the complete opposite.

For example, we have reason and sentiment: it’s easier to be taken by emotions. Reason it’s something to deal with. In the social sphere because we encounter lots of contradictions. In court, normally, there are procedures, and they prevent contradictions from creating disaster, but within social practices (cultural habits, customs), people don’t actually think carefully about the things, but they do it by habit; in this sphere, there are no specific procedures which can prevent what can be a contradictory behavior. Social practices can be weird because they produce contradictions. See the working of rights lead to understand the subjectivity satisfaction of our expectations. Social interaction accepts all expectations. While in the legal sphere everything is ruled by the rules, in the social one there is more room for experiments (of course depends on the environments).

History of political thought

• Political theory: a theory is a model constructed for the purpose to make sense of something. Honneth wants to develop criticism.
• Political philosophy: Foundation / foundations-> the grounding of something, the basis. It’s a relative concept.

Foundationalism

Human rights have objective grounds to be discovered on natural reasons and universal; we cannot think there are two grounds of human rights, they don’t depend on our will. Objectivity is the pillar, there is something objective to be discovered.

• Orthodox foundationalist: there are values which are always (“Values per se and in se”good Latin quote) and others bad. Values per se and in se-> the justness of something needs its legally (iustum quia iussum=recognition just because declared just and Iussum quia iustum= just). Declared just because in the current situation a lot is regulated by the latter principle of “declared just because just” in the basis of the court’s decisions. Something can change this stage which is struggle for recognition= if groups are not satisfied, maybe they can change the law.
• Moderate foundationalist: values are the manifestation of interests=human interests; must not necessarily reflect needs.

Interest-based values vs. needs-based values: Does who don’t like the vision of “interest”, defining it in a capitalist sense of “self-perception”, talk about needs (anti-capitalists). The latter perceive human being to the simple, humble way, considering the fundamental needs. Marx-> everybody has an equal right to the best quality commodities. Anti-Marxist: consumerist society in which commodities are in a large quantity. Needs are minimum standards, basic needs. Honneth tries to combine interest-based values and needs-based values (more open to interests/preferences though).

Honneth and Sartre

H. like S. points out that the foundation of human rights exists for its existence prior to essence. Sartre we are confronted with a possibility of choice, even in the most difficult situation (free choice); Man is responsible for what is-> my identity is a result of what I want and what I do. Honnet argues that man is responsible for what he is in the context of subjectivity. Being and being responsible for: Sartre= matter of individual concern. H. Both individual and collective concern.

Historical foundationalism

Objective grounding of human rights consist of being positive derivable through a method of normative reconstruction from struggle, from recognition that people in a specific time find. For example: communism -> few, small group derived from a specific time. In the struggle for achieving something, there’s always something more about struggling (peacefully or violently). No reference about metaphysics, no direct reference to nature. The construction of the struggle is a matter of meaning and symbolism. In isolation, we can think whatever we like, but in a social environment not. This approach is not the only kind but has the wish to push us to what’s going on social interaction, intersubjective plan.

Anti-foundationalism

Anti-foundationalism is obviously the opposite. Objectivity comes only in a particular moment and at a specific time. There is no ground or we cannot find it. They consider the normative component but it takes into consideration free will. Naturalis f.: the objective ground of human rights consists of their being logically derivable from natural effects, human behavior which shows facts.

Competition between theories

Competition between theories of human rights and theories about human rights: the first are concerns with guiding actions, the second one consists on lists of human rights (enumerated), foundation of the very idea of rights.

• Of: models, standards= how many rights it is convenient to have? What should be named as a right?
• About: not guiding actions; why do we need to have rights at all? What’s the purpose? Extension?

Who are the people? Human beings living in a particular territory? -> people then are all inhabitants of a country (not necessarily citizens, so such a definition meets problems politically). If you are a ‘citizen’ you are different from the others: different kind of people. People working people? Inhabitants? Citizens? Foundationalist vs non-foundationalist. Particular view on the nature of the grounding of human rights; Freud criticized this approach ‘the other’ is different and might want an action to be different (private concern) whereas the duty wants you to do that action. On the other side, Kant’s deontology outlines the correctness of performing something based on personal voluntee. It’s about intentions. Whatever we do to other people must be entirely intended to do so, if not then it’s bad.

Foundationalist view

1) From Foundationalist’s view words have a specific meaning. 2) Here meaning is given from what people mean. Honneth’s foundation is an historicist one = there is an objective foundation which makes things right, in this case they can be discovered (not form religion or nature) from history. The judge is society, customs, social practices. Within history there is one particular element we need to pay attention to: the struggle for recognition.

Recognition is put into discursive practices. According to Honneth, it’s something we give and take of others in daily discursive practices, they offer something more, which is approval to what people conceive as basic needs. For example: talking about a murder it’s a choice of the media, based on personal detection, interpretation of the case as a need. It has a welcoming attitude towards others. In Honneth this recognition means commitment, it’s not just making statements, they are expected to be followed by action. Each of us can be a small welfare state. What we redistribute is not benefits in material sense but benefits in psychological sense (some people call it empathy). Example: perception of terrorists and criminals. Power is not just power, it is accompanied by negative or positive recognition.

Ontological approach

• Epistemological: insists on the way we know and perceive things (it gets more popularity than the other one)
• A.Kojéve -> like Hegel he said when we operate in the social political sphere, the perception of ourselves is determined by the kind of interaction it established with other people; Recognition is always present in interaction.

Dignity= allowed to make claims in public without shame. Not necessarily correct but welcomed by the public. All struggles for recognition are moral. (We cannot distinguish between good and bad struggles, both for foundationalists and non-foundationalists because they all contain morality)

Moderate realism

-> Even in historical events, we can establish difference between Nazi and non-Nazi on the basis of some fixed values. All struggles are there for a reason, but in the name of what are they struggling? Depending on the answer, we can establish the degree of morality: Honneth mentions that Asian values are indeed an option and there is no a huge gap between western and eastern values (no relativism between values).

22/03/19

Constructivism, structuralism and post-structuralism

Constructivism

It is a balance between objectivity and subjectivity. It’s a general epistemological doctrine, whereby there is nothing which has essential elements. Everything is a combination of instances. Those instances are the right for our capacity to interact and communicate about our interpretation. It’s a dynamic process. Think about gender issues: the given oriented pictures will say that there is a substantial difference between males and females. The superiority of one gender above the other is a social construction.

Structuralism

It contests the validity of an objective knowledge. Social political reality is a construction = this means that in the social life nothing is given by the nature (for example, solidarity), so all we have is the product of doing something or not doing something at the social level. How do we form our opinion about the world around us? -> By something which is given in our daily interactions; we create pictures of the environment around us. The main point is that we need to determine what are the basis of our knowledge because they are going to influence individual and collective actions; the basis of our knowledge are interpretative. Everything which expresses society is a matter of perception and interpretation. These latter two concepts here are synonym, whereas in psychology ‘perception’ has a very specific meaning.

Post structuralism

It’s a label created in American Universities between the 70s and the 80s with the purpose of indicating – by making use of effective labels - French philosophy of the 50s and the 60s, especially the philosophy which was trying to overcome structuralism. There is an emphasis on subjectivity.

Summary

To sum it up, within structuralism, societies are a human creation (so it’s not a matter of nature, God nor individuals doing great things). For a long time, a number of historians was concerned with the power of great political leaders on the assumption that they do change the course of history. A structuralist will claim that individuals with special capacities cannot change the course of history, it’s very rare. Instead, conditions can make certain moves possible. Then our success or failure is determined by pre-established conditions, even though what people do is important.

Example: M. Weber claimed that one of the reasons why people obey rules and rulers is the charismatic character of the leader – no matter how crazy that sounds; people believed in the charismatic features of the particular leaders. Think for example about Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler. Under particular circumstances people and the leaders believed in the charismatic features.

Constructivism and structuralism are two different perspectives which have much in common and don’t exclude each other: constructivism does not include a subjective approach but at the same time does not discourage it, because it’s up to us to determine whether a social construction is more a matter of individual achievement or a collective one; post structuralism was the intention to go beyond the understanding of society through rigid structures. So, post structuralism is a more flexible view which gives less importance to individuals’ influence in the society and more importance to subjectivity. The post structuralist never identified himself with one of these labels, like the post structuralism one; we actually place these figures in the groups we like.

Post structuralism

Post structuralism turns around the ideas of the enlightenment tradition, which believed in the “tribune of reason” because reason was the judge. Reason has been a sovereign, ruling everything, but post structuralism does not find it reliable. Instead, the elements which play the main role are subjective. Sarte, for instance, said: “the world is my own making”. This does not mean that “my own making” is always successful, but that I am responsible of my actions even if I fail. A structuralist would say that winning something is not really your achievement.

Structuralism has developed within linguistics focusing on language. A famous quote by a linguist: “there is no private property in language, we cannot create - even if we want to - a private language” language is an impersonal product, there is no one who made it; everybody contributes to its making. If everybody contributes to its making language is nobody’s. Authorship does not play any role. We can play with language but yet there is a point in which the play element has limits. The meaning of words can change because the association between words meaning and concepts is largely arbitrary. Post structuralists say this is a great opportunity to reform language.

So, the two options overlap, even though constructivism has a longer history than structuralism. Post structuralism school instead was never founded, it was only a label.

One of the points that these two phenomena share is language: definition play some importance. Definitions are man-made, so how permanent are these expected to be? Forever? But the way we use words modify the meaning of a particular word (the use of metaphors and metonymy are an example that the meaning shifts). This stresses the importance of interpretation. Another example is references: it’s a way to rearrange the whole picture.

In the article we have to read it’s pointed out that in order to consolidate identity information we will have to accept that we are not just ‘one thing’ but a plurality of things, there are many ‘me’ as much as I like or as much as I am prepared to accept. If I’m somebody who’s very worried about contradiction and self-contradiction I will think I am only one; if I am open to deal with contradictions, I will be prepared to accept that ‘me’ is a combination of ‘me’. In Honneth, he borrows this term for post-structuralism, there is polyvocality: there are many voices in me and all of them are representing me, even when they are in contradiction.

Conclusion

Constructivism and post structuralism are ways of thinking that emphasize the instability and plurality of meaning. Who they are? What they care about? It’s all a matter of interpretation and this is the core of anti-foundationalism. The broad area of interpretation puts limits on the validity of concepts: for example, who says that we have to determine our gender (F/M) in the forms to fill out? Words is all we have. There is a tension between legal system and common sense on the one hand and polyvocality on the other hand. If it’s important to determine a sense of the ‘self’, then everything goes. We can question the assumptions because we are free (contractual freedom when we sign a contract). At the Strasburg court there are funny situations, for example a person was arrested for indecency in public (for making love on his bicycle) and this person claimed he was free on his bicycle this is an anti-foundationalist perspective.