|
| Power Dynamics in the Human Rights Movements - Universalism or Relativism |
 PRINTABLE VERSION |
One last point before I start looking at the actual debate: I think there are problems in adopting either of the two extremes in this debate. On one hand, CR can be as arrogant as universalism, for its proponents seem to be telling to a ''morally inferior'' legislative system that they are not advanced enough to be judged with the same criterion as them. Also, cultures are dynamic and contested entities, and thousands of years of intercultural interaction, be it through trade, colonialism or other, make it impossible to isolate a culture that exist on its own. As discussed in previous readings, it is not infrequent to see powerful members of society selecting and manipulating aspects of both their own and foreign cultures to better suit their interests. On the other hand, I disagree with the claim that CR is the easy way out of the debate (Nagengast, 1997). This exercise made me see through an approach to development – the rights-based approach - that I used to adhere to in the past. As an enthusiast of Paulo Freire's teachings of political rights, I was thrilled to see that such a paradigm allowed for more public mobilization and more pressure for accountability by development organizations onto governments, corporations and others. Now, I realize that the apparently fundamental and immutable character of HR makes it easy to justify development activities, and that the HR framework itself is not questionned as a unifying set of standards and common language.
What I now turn to examine is the legitimacy of HR as a universally appropriate paradigm. The fact that the UDHR has originated from the theory of the social contract is interesting in itself, because when it was first written by John Locke, the exit from the state of nature was justified to preserve one's property (property meaning the product of one's labor). No author pointed out the difficulties in interpretation emerging from the fact that, in some cultures, women are considered to be private property and that John Locke himself reserved a Right to Rebellion if the leaders of the state emerging from the social contract were not adequately preserving property (Locke, 1982). Furthermore, no author indicates that the very idea of HR as a tool for international relations is indeed an official and bourgeois concept that values stability and the rule of law without addressing structural discriminations. Consequently, can the HR framework actually respect abused Third World women, considering that these ''victims'' can not even participate to the debate sometimes because it occurs in the public space (Gatens, 2004)? I think that is unfair since they should be consulted since it is their plight that is at stake. In addition, one has to ask whose priority HR are? Should the entitlement to social values such as Confucianism, a moral privileging family over individuals, be relegated to the second plan (Coomaraswamy, 2001), or should ''the right to development in which peoples have the right to choose the kind, direction, and rate of development, in the view of some, takes precendence over the liberal emphasis on the rights of individuals'' (Nagengast, 1997)? After looking at such legitimacy question, I feel more critical on the politics of rescue, and I realize that I as a Western feminist may not always be welcomed as an Ally by other women who might understand my empathy as the imposition of my own value system upon theirs.
Another important point of disagreement in the universalism versus CR debate relates to the limits for enforcement the international human rights (IHR) legislation. One big question is: Should the United Nations (UN) continue to operate according to their non-interference principle or should they breach national sovereignty in order for IHR to prevail everywhere? I think it is hypocritical for a proponent of universal HR to believe the UN should become an intransigent world police and forcively enforce HR legislation on ''criminals'', because the UN as it presently constituted is non-democratic and faces serious issues of representation of the minorities or groups that usually suffer HR abuses. Along the same line of thought, IHR have been designed to deal with states, not individuals, acknowledging that states can be predatory and commit abuses of civil and political rights (Nagengast, 1997). However, a government has its own agenda (for example, staying in office by pleasing the – principally male – electorate) and hence it can be as discriminatory towards women by its inaction in reforming systems that marginalizes women. In that situation where the government is unsupportive of Third-World women's rights, adopting a human-rights perspective and choosing no to comply with tradition or social norms can result in stigma, rejection and alienation leading to further marginalization and represents a huge sacrifice when there are no other alternatives possible. I agree with Elster when she stresses the importance of the emotional aspect in discussing women's HR (Gatens, 2004); what's the purpose of having institutionalized women's HR if there are no structure to support them? What safety net do victims of domestic violence have if there are no women shelters?
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Je suis étudiante en économie du développement au Canada, présentement volontaire en prise en charge socioéconomique des personnes vivant avec le VIH SIDA au Burkina Faso. Je m'intéresse particulièment aux mouvements sociaux et aux questions d'équité et d'oppression.
|
Comments
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
