Embodying rights
The idea of rights and my conception of non violence are linked.
At an animal rights presentation I attended last Thursday, I realized the ultimately illusory content of a ‘right.’ The best and only understanding of rights comes from their function, the enactment of the idea of a ‘right’ in practice. Rights act juridically as a form of fiat or empowerment. Rights establish priorities between individuals in various kinds of relationships by reference to some ineffable or inaccessible sphere of dignity/personhood of a rights-bearer. What a right contains, the real reason these things become enacted is harder to access. All humans have a certain corporality. Bodies and the relationships of bodies gives the best access point for developing an idea of rights. The body explains the material conditions of human-ness, of inclusion in life and inclusion in relationships. Respect for the body gives a material foundation for respect for others, and understanding the suffering of the body founds an ethical stance towards another. If you see, hear, experience a suffering body, you know why ethical action is necessary and what demands are placed upon you. Also, I think this relationship (ineffable rights, irreducible bodies) explains the erosion of rights in wartime. The threat that comes to the body and that feeling of life that comes with it, is ultimately more material and salient as a political issue than the inaccessible and vague notion of rights. The body and threats upon it can be known and visualized in such a way that demands relating to the body trump other types of demands.
This also explains why I largely support non-violence. The body demonstrates a threshold of politics that I don’t feel confident crossing. Actions that impact the body and suffering of the body cannot be taken back or rectified in the same manner other actions can. It requires a level of confidence and even arrogance that I don’t want to find in myself. In every possible instance, I would like to avoid proactive violence to achieve an end. I do believe in a need for defensive violence in the face of someone else who feels the confidence or arrogance necessary to act in these terms. Ultimately, if the threshold constructed by the body gets crossed, defense is required.
This gets much more complex.
What about situations where someone becomes motivated to do violence by past abuse or mental conditioning in a situation of political repression? What relationship of the defenders to this person?
What does this imaginary threshold mean for other systems (sexuality in particular)?
How can you determine the point at which defensive violence must be initiated? Can/does this include ‘pre-emption’ in situations of possibly great violence?
At an animal rights presentation I attended last Thursday, I realized the ultimately illusory content of a ‘right.’ The best and only understanding of rights comes from their function, the enactment of the idea of a ‘right’ in practice. Rights act juridically as a form of fiat or empowerment. Rights establish priorities between individuals in various kinds of relationships by reference to some ineffable or inaccessible sphere of dignity/personhood of a rights-bearer. What a right contains, the real reason these things become enacted is harder to access. All humans have a certain corporality. Bodies and the relationships of bodies gives the best access point for developing an idea of rights. The body explains the material conditions of human-ness, of inclusion in life and inclusion in relationships. Respect for the body gives a material foundation for respect for others, and understanding the suffering of the body founds an ethical stance towards another. If you see, hear, experience a suffering body, you know why ethical action is necessary and what demands are placed upon you. Also, I think this relationship (ineffable rights, irreducible bodies) explains the erosion of rights in wartime. The threat that comes to the body and that feeling of life that comes with it, is ultimately more material and salient as a political issue than the inaccessible and vague notion of rights. The body and threats upon it can be known and visualized in such a way that demands relating to the body trump other types of demands.
This also explains why I largely support non-violence. The body demonstrates a threshold of politics that I don’t feel confident crossing. Actions that impact the body and suffering of the body cannot be taken back or rectified in the same manner other actions can. It requires a level of confidence and even arrogance that I don’t want to find in myself. In every possible instance, I would like to avoid proactive violence to achieve an end. I do believe in a need for defensive violence in the face of someone else who feels the confidence or arrogance necessary to act in these terms. Ultimately, if the threshold constructed by the body gets crossed, defense is required.
This gets much more complex.
What about situations where someone becomes motivated to do violence by past abuse or mental conditioning in a situation of political repression? What relationship of the defenders to this person?
What does this imaginary threshold mean for other systems (sexuality in particular)?
How can you determine the point at which defensive violence must be initiated? Can/does this include ‘pre-emption’ in situations of possibly great violence?
posted by Duncan at 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home