Human Rights Violations: Widespread But Not Uniform

Human Rights Violations: Widespread But Not Uniform  

       The discourse surrounding human rights controversy is built upon a foundation that essentially questions “Who is to judge?’ Being that human rights vary from country to country, culture to culture, it’s become exceptionally difficult to pinpoint a concise definition on what humans are entitled to and what they aren’t. Rhetoricians have been there to express their own personal beliefs on the controversy but this still leaves room for the audience to question how it applies to them personally. Foucault’s development of the role of the author in What Is an Author is applicable in this situation, he explains that the author’s presence is embedded in the text in a way that makes the writing subject disappear (in this case, the textuality of human rights.) Through the use of language and symbols the author can formulate his/her stance on a subject without explicitly writing it. The author “pin[s] a subject within language, creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears.” (905) Doing this, he/she isn’t confined to a boundary of expression and doesn’t have to adhere to any guidelines.

“In general, a rhetorical approach to human rights considers the human rights implications of language and symbolism by examining the hierarchical significance of words, definitions, redefinitions, symbols designating social groupings, myths, rituals, symbolic images, and the like.” –Lyon and Olson (905)

         For example, in “The real meaning of Rhodes Must Fall”, the reader is clearly able to note Amit Chaudhuri’s position on the controversial statue of Cecil Rhodes without a clear opinion from Chaudhuri himself.  He begins the article objectively, presenting the discourse from an omnipresent point of view. He explicitly states the context of the discourse, detaching himself from the writing. This is an attribute that Foucault stresses is necessary for the audience to then be moved to action, he explains this as the “author’s disappearance,” where the authors existence is subtly preserved. This exigence allows for the reader to begin to formulate his/ her own thoughts as a result of the content presented to them. However, Chaudhuri delves further into the discourse and reveals his stance on the human rights issue (subliminally)through language and examples that depict his disfavor for the statue of Cecil Rhodes. Thinking about it through this lens brought me back to what I learned in Rhetoric last semester. Burke argues that rhetors view the world through terministic screens and use language to direct and deflect our attention, altering our perception of symbols. Chaudhuri directed the subject of the article towards a specific viewpoint and deflected away from the opposing argument. If we were on the side that supports the statue he wouldn't have mentioned institutionalized racism, oppression, etc. He emphasized global privilege and inequalities amongst minorities, highlighting his position.

        Lyon and Olson further explore why people might have dissenting opinions in Special Issue on Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing.  Lyon and Olson explore human rights as a broad spectrum, indicating that it does vary across cultures. This is important to note in Chaudhuri’s article because he allows the reader to see it from the perspective of the culture that was impacted by this statue. He unfolds the historic context and places the reader in the position of those oppressed, invoking a role for him/her to take on when he explains apartheid and its impact on a minority. In this way, the reader takes the rhetoric and can articulate their own view of the situation. Reading this narrative allows for readers to be influenced and persuaded subtly, he allows them to view this contingent issue from a viewpoint that is outside their own culture. This gives the text meaning, bringing it to life. Foucault would argue that Chaudhuri is “making the text point to a figure that is outside it and antecedes it” (904), but without explicitly saying “This is how these people suffered, and this is how you should feel.” By providing several narratives throughout the course of the article, Chaudhuri makes the article more intimate and provides an identity for the reader. Lyon and Olson stress how the argument posed in human rights issues is particularly tied to cultural, situational characteristics. They explain the extent to which human rights discourse varies across the globe, and can become problematic once its written in fine print. “Declarations of rights, such as the UN’s Universal Declaration, tend to affirm in public life the aspirations, ideals, or standards that members of communities expect reciprocally of themselves and each other. At times these guidelines are translated, however fallibly, into national and international laws, whose enforcement depends on political will and commitments of material resources.” (206) I interpret this excerpt as being a clear demonstration of how one human rights law in one country might not apply to one in another. The personal experiences and judgements of peoples of different cultures are not uniform so it is unfair to enact institutions where they might not be applicable. “Certain forms of academic labor can actually deflect people's attention from human rights" (207) This is where Chaudhuri thrives in his article; he does not clearly impose “right and wrong”, he just offers context and implies opinion by appealing to ethos.
Ignacia Araya