Human Rights are Undeniable (Or at least they should be)

            After reading through Arabella Lyon’s and Lester Olson’s essay I can only agree on how sad it is that we have to debate human rights, but I find it appropriate that we still have to do this. I think of it more as an update, like when you update an electronic device you have. People change, and views on what was written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) become obscured, and twisted for better or worse. The most recent update we have seen would have to be the legalization of Same-sex marriage. In 2015 this was legalized, but this had been swept under the rug for the longest time by people who had no experience of being dehumanized for what they felt was right. My question I am concerned with after reading these articles is that why do we let ourselves get stuck in the past, or get hung up on certain ideas about human rights when we know that progression is undeniable? We see throughout history an idea pertaining to human rights, that has been struck down by people who couldn’t care less or had no knowledge on the subject has been eventually overturned.

            We are lucky in the fact that so many of these Human Rights Movements have already been addressed and solves, while there is still more going on like the “Rhodes Must Fall” movement as discussed in class. Even though we have already had so many in this country we can’t let ourselves discredit any new one that arises just because we ourselves don’t have any knowledge or connections to the matter. Even if we can’t relate we still must consider how other people feel towards issues pertaining to their human and civil rights.

            Lyon, and Olsen talk about how people are trying to get issues resolved by stating, “Public controversies have centered on such basic, open-ended questions as: What are human rights? What principles and reciprocal commitments (?)… From what spiritual, ethical, and/or political sources have communities derived diverse conceptions of human rights? Are certain human rights so fundamental as to be ‘‘universal,’’ as the United Nations proclaimed in 1948?” This has been going on for quite some time now, and people aren’t stopping their movements because they get discouraged. This passage tells us that people will never stop fighting for their rights by the way of how public events have always been centered around such topics (Lyon and Olsen 204).

            Even looking back at what Roland Barthes said when talking about the relation between the work that is made to the text that is in it. Barthes talks about how text has multiple meanings by saying, “The Text is plural. This does not mean only that it has several meanings but that it fulfills the very plurality of meaning: an irreducible (and not just acceptable) plurality.” This is why there is so much legroom when dealing with Human Rights after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written (Barthes 59). If we look at that piece written back in 1948, and how life was structured/lived back then we can see that it may require an update or two. It was just before a lot more human rights movements, such as the Loving V. Virginia case that stopped laws from prohibiting interracial marriage. This case only came 19 years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and there would be more still to come through today. So it is safe to safe there is a difference in how Human Rights was viewed back then to how it is now as we can see based on the authors of the piece.

            The author plays a huge role in how a text is interpreted from when it is written till when it is read last. It is hard to imagine what life was like when reading a piece about Human Rights, and it not cover every major event that has happened while it misses key points throughout history. It is easier to imagine what someone writing about Human Rights in 1948 has experienced throughout their life, and what time period they are in.

             While Foucault talks about the Author-Function in different parts there is a line he states afterwards which reads, “The author also serves to neutralize the contradictions that may emerge in a series of texts: there must… be a point where contradictions are resolved…” and this is interesting because we see Lyon and Olsen talk about how Human Rights are discussed in open forums through other texts which are for debate even though the author of those texts was swaying how they wrote it in a certain direction (Foucault 909). Whether it be for human rights, with extra room in the text for different interpretation. Or no room left to discuss it without talking in circles.

            I am left with no real true meaning on why we let ourselves fall behind on historical Human Rights movements before they are too late. Just that everything is up for debate, even if the author writes it a certain way, there will always be someone who disagrees with it.