Filial Rhetorical Ecology of Human Rights Literature
            Lyon & Olson’s “Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing” characterizes testimonies and witnesses as independent sources of human rights literature in their own regard, separate and informative within the context and also disparate from the cause they respond to. These characterizations draw parallels between Fish’s “Is there a text in this class” and Barthes’ “From Work to Text” in there commentary on the relationship between Text and Work and also the qualities of human rights as a rhetorical construct. These texts complicate and compliment each other and introduce a more definitive characterization of human rights literature as an ecology of exigencies and discourses according to individual interpretation.
            The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states clearly the inalienable rights each human on this planet is entitled do by birth. Looking at the Declaration from Barthes’ perspective of a Work empowers individual testimonies and witnesses as a Text that serve as interpretations from specific perspectives. These contributions to the schema of a human rights discussion bring new discourse to the table. This complexity of exigencies and discourses creates an ecology and supports Lyon & Olson’s emphasis on the relevance of testimony and witness accounts in the scheme of human rights literature. Lyon & Olson states “In fact, rhetoric is uniquely positioned to offer particular insights into the language of human rights claims, laws, norms, aspirations and deliberations” (Lyon & Olson 204). This statement clearly describes Lyon & Olson’s view point on the importance of testimony and witness accounts. They are a source of rhetoric that “offer particular insights”. These particular insights come from unique perspectives and interpretations of events and concepts. Each statement, event, statue, and law resonates differently with each individual and can strike different chords in different people due to our unique experience. These differences between people create an ecology of exigencies to be spoken on which in return create many different perspectives and discourses that speak to these exigencies. To support this claim of ecology, Lyon & Olson states “in addition to concerns with how rights are represented, traditions of rhetoric offer a way into discussing reception” (Lyon & Olson 204).  This quote in particular is one of my favorite points made in all of the human rights literature we have read. This statement places so much importance and value on an individuals interpretation of an experience with a text or an event. It is directly in line with Lyon & Olson’s intention to empower individual perspective in testimony and witness. It also brings to light the many different interpretations of a subject. It broadens the spectrum to include a myriad of exigencies and discourses that otherwise might not be appreciated, validated, or included in the ecology that human rights literature is. More than anything, the empowerment of an individuals interaction with a subject supports Barthes’ claims of the independent nature of a Text from a Work and really helps us unpack the power behind someone’s unique experience with a subject apart from what a law says in a document written 60 years ago.
            Barthes describes Text to have a freedom compared to a work which is bound within the construct of a finished product. He states in the first proposition that “The work is held in the hand, the text is held in language” (Barthes 57). Barthes continues to describe the freedom of a text in the 5th proposition stating that “the Work is caught up in a process of filiation” (Barthes 61) while “The Text, on the other hand is read without the fathers inscription” (Barthes 61). This thinking that text is both held in language primarily and independent from its father Work which is primarily bound in a completed product compliments Lyon & Olson’s opinion of testimony and witness in relation to the UN’s Declaration. Lyon & Olson make the claim that the Declaration will not be the primary resource of human rights rhetoric but that testimony and witnessing will be addressed “as an aspect of human rights rhetoric in the United States and international settings” (Lyon & Olson 205). Not only does this stress the importance of testimony and witnesses as a credible source of rhetoric, it continues to describe the nature of human rights literature as a more fluid and ecological model with many moving pieces, exigencies and discourses due to the difference in perspective and interpretations of first hand accounts.
            Lyon and Olson’s claims in association with the claims of Barthes compliment each other more than anything and serve to provide a clearer definition of human rights literature and all the moving pieces that go into it. An ecological model of this rhetoric empowers individual experience, identification and interpretation while making modern relevance and plurality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland. “From Work to Text.” In The Rustle of Language.  Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986. 56-64.

Fish, Stanley. “Is There a Text In This Class?” In Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP 1980. 303-21


Lyon, Arabella, and Lester C. Olson. “Human Rights Rhetoric: Traditions of Testifying and Witnessing.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 41.3 (2011) 203-212.

Comments