Skip to main content

Unconditionally Human? Decolonising Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights Literacies

Part of the book series: Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights ((CHREN,volume 2))

Abstract

Taylor [Modern social imaginaries (p. 12). Durham: Duke University Press, 2003], in a powerful discussion of the nature of social differentiation in modernity came to the conclusion that the “modern order gives no ontological status to hierarchy or any particular structure of differentiation”. The point Taylor sought to make is that where “whole segments of our supposedly modern society remained outside of this social imaginary” (ibid.), like the French peasantry late in the nineteenth century, or women in the family, today these ideas of hierarchy are being comprehensively challenged. Taylor’s summing up of where the world is today in relation to where it had been just 50 years before is not uncritical. Large problems remain both in our social imaginaries and in our political practices. Challenges to both the conceptualisation and realisation of the expanding normative order continue to present themselves. Race, gender and disability are key examples. In this essay, using Jacques Derrida’s ideas of hospitality, I engage critically with Critical Race Theory and Decoloniality to argue that they open up important new insights into the politics of human rights and the dominant universalisms which characterise this politics. There remain, however, blind spots in the ways they conceptualise what it means to be human.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Drawing on Derrida here I am aware of the symbolic implications, in an essay on decoloniality, of using what much of the polemic in the discussion would describe as scholarship’s ‘default’ orientation, or is it ‘occidentation’, towards ‘dead white men’. It is important to acknowledge that the argument could as easily have drawn on notions of Ubuntu or dependent origination in Buddhism, or indeed any of the great world-views of humanity, where much the same ethos of this moment in Greek axiology of unconditionality can be found. They all belong to all of us. Their appropriation for domination, as the supposed European Enlightenment has been manufactured for the project of white supremacy, is rejected here.

  2. 2.

    See Matthew Craven’s (2015, p. 32) argument that the choice between reading that General Act which came out of the Conference as “a success or a failure, or as a colonial or anti-colonial tract is a largely false one in that it fails to attend to the relationship between the apparent aspirations embodied in the text and the modalities for their realisation”.

  3. 3.

    General Act of the Conference at Berlin of the Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Norway, Turkey and the United States. (Retrieved 12.10.2017. http://www.waado.org/colonial_rule/general documents/berlin_act_1885.html).

  4. 4.

    I will use the term ‘disability’ here but am uncomfortable with its normative implications.

  5. 5.

    See Sam Hamad (2016) in an article entitle ‘Zizek on Immigration and the Hypocrisy of the Left’.

  6. 6.

    See the article, Gebelhoff (2016).

  7. 7.

    Again, the point needs to be made that Western cosmology is not alone in its peculiar attitude to disability. In many other cultures it is not unknown for disfigured new-born babies, for example, to be disposed of at birth.

  8. 8.

    In The Racial State, Goldberg (2002) develops an important analysis for how these discourses are instituted. He makes the argument that the state is central. Goldberg (2002, p. 7) argues that the state is neither an instrument of external social forces nor a reflection of an inner internally coherent logic but a structure that is inherently contradictory and internally fractured, “consisting not only of agencies and bureaucracies, legislatures and courts, but also of norms and principles, individuals and institutions”. He develops the argument, however, by suggesting that representatives of the state “in a loose sense” form a class, internally diverse, fractured, but in modern terms “racially patterned” (Goldberg, 2002, p. 8). Struggles take place in this class and with other contestants outside of the state over the form the state is to take. In terms of this, the state is a “more or less coherent and discrete entity in two related ways: as state projects underpinned … by a self-represented history as state memory; and as state power(s)”. With these powers, the state has the power to exclude both within itself and from itself. Having the power to exclude from itself, the state is able to determine who enjoys its protection and who is excluded from its protection. Given these powers, the state lends itself conceptually to be defined as an identity-making formation—talking about race Goldberg says that it has “the power to exclude and by extension include in racially ordered terms” (Goldberg, 2002, p. 9).

    The extension of Goldberg’s argument, for the purposes of revealing his Racial State thesis, is that the state stitches its social exclusions into what he calls “the seams of the social fabric” and by so doing achieves the naturalisation of exclusion. The larger effect of this is for processes of social exclusion to mark social belonging and identification in the state, either as that of enfranchisement or disenfranchisement—citizenship or subjection. This power of definition and delimitation, Goldberg (2002, p. 10) continues, offers the modern state the artifice of internal homogeneity where the status of inclusion is equated with that of membership of the nation and heterogeneity a threat that has to be placed outside of the state.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Crain Soudien .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Soudien, C. (2019). Unconditionally Human? Decolonising Human Rights. In: Roux, C., Becker, A. (eds) Human Rights Literacies. Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99567-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99567-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99566-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99567-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics