Combating Violations of Human Rights with Rhetoric

 “Thus, Rich’s concern about the inheritance of oppressive language informs even milestones in the history of human rights (e.g., provisions in the Magna Charta concerning the use of testimony by a woman or, in UN’s Universal Declaration, language that by today’s standards is sexist in the usage of the generic ‘‘he’’).” (205-206)

“After discussing Burke’s work in depth last class, it became clear to me that when it comes to human rights rhetoric, his identification theory directly relate to how an audience may view a human rights text. After reading Lyon and Olson’s essay Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing, I immediately questioned their premise on how rhetoric and open discourse serves as the best way to improve, understand, and expand our knowledge on what constitutes a ‘human right’.

Discussing Burke’s work in class provided me insight into how people discuss human rights in an open, intellectual discourse, and the pitfalls that accompany it. While it can be a productive tool in advancing human rights, the language used in rhetoric poses a significant problem, which Lyon and Olsen address, “The risks and limits of a rhetorical approach to human rights fall into three broad categories: (1) a limited perspective on language and symbolism rather than their entwined relationship to material and historical conditions that clearly extend beyond such representations…” (206). One of the issues of that I have noticed, not just in this class but in others like it, is the inability to truly capture the nature of a violation of human rights in words. Its incredibly difficult to articulate this occurrence, especially into a way that can easily be digested by someone who has had the luxury of not going through a similar experience; someone who has not lived through it. I do see this as only a minor issue with a rhetorical approach to human rights, but it is a challenge nonetheless. This seems to be especially true when considering today’s political climate. People are talking, but no one seems to be listening. Whether this is a lack of empathy, the inability to communicate effectively, or a true difference in ideals, the use of rhetoric as a vehicle for advancing human rights seems to not be 100 percent effective.

“Human rights can be declared, advocated, and debated only through symbolic representations...” (205)

Burke discusses the appeal of text as a symbol, or “verbal parallel to a pattern of experience”. This somewhat relates to Lyon and Olson’s views on how human rights are discussed as “symbolic representations”. When it comes to any human rights movement, the symbolization of a violation seems to be the creator of the movement. The act itself represents a larger issue that people want to follow, which Burke would see as the appeal of the text.