The Author of Human Rights Is Meant To Be the People

The study of human rights in the context of rhetoric is a complex one that requires many different interpretations to fully and critically analyze it. While several of the authors we have read over the past few weeks have made similar claims, I feel those made by Foucault and Lyon and Olson support one another.

The way in which Foucault describes and defines an author's work supports the similar claims made by Barthes when offered an explanation of the differences between a work and a text. Foucault's description of an author, however, has many facets. He argues that many associate an author with their name, and all their works are then associated with that name. This brings about the argument that sometimes an author must be disconnected from their work for one to truly study the work and understand its meaning. This supports the argument made throughout Lyon and Olson's piece, that human rights in a rhetorical situation must not be affected by the author, but rather by the audience that is meant to make the change that is trying to be brought about. Lyon and Olson state, "certain forms of academic labor can actually deflect people's attention from human rights" (207). This can mean that those attempting to speak about human rights can detract from the meaning of their words, simply by having their name attached to them. Would you be more likely to listen to an elite politician speak about human rights, or a well-known activist that has been able to illicit change in the past?  While this may be the way we think in our current political climate, Foucault would rather have us be able to separate the author from his or work, in order for us to focus on the work, rather than scrutinizing its author. Lyon and Olson would argue that the point of view of the author can take away from the human rights movement if they are coming from a certain place that does not have the best intentions in mind. As the art of rhetoric often calls upon the influence of ethics (ethos), an ethical author must be put into place to forward the movement that is attempting to be made.

 An example of this can be found in a currently controversial person: Melania Trump. The problem plaguing America that the First Lady has chosen to crack down on is cyberbullying, a cause many have found laughable, as the President is known for this behavior. Because many people do not believe Melania is coming from a sincere standpoint as she says, "Nothing can be more urgent nor worthy a cause than preparing future generations for adulthood with true moral clarity and responsibility. Therefore, we must teach each child the values of empathy and communication that are at the core of kindness, mindfulness, integrity, and leadership, which can only be taught by example" it is very difficult for her words to make change in this situation. Were we to separate Melania as the author of these words, they would then take on a new meaning to her audience. This may be a much smaller scale of human rights, but it is still an issue that has an impact on society and needs to be addressed in such a manner, just perhaps by a more reputable source.   

Burke's theory of identification adds another layer to this argument, as the author can identify and define his or herself in a variety of ways that may affect their rhetoric. If the author defines themself as a rhetor, their rhetoric will be read or heard differently, the same way an activists words would be heard differently than a politician's. Although Foucault says, "literary criticism once defined the author," (909), it is now up to the author to define themselves and for the audience to then incorporate that into their interpretation of the author's work. In order to improve human rights globally, we need authors who are capable of doing so in these situations. 

Isabel Russo

Comments