Tim Cresswell's message was most interesting. If one thinks of rights as
part of a white, western, male discourse, I think Scott's work on the
everyday resistance of (in his research) peasant peoples is pertinant. His
basic thesis (if I uncerstand it correctly) is that oppressed people do not
necessarially seek to express their opposition to their oppression in terms
of the dominant hegemonic discourse, but often in ways that subvert that
discourse in their everyday lives (non-compliance, jokes, foot dragging
etc.). This has important implications for any attempt to 'give' rights to
people perceived as lacking them.
Having said all this, I think that there can be, as Chris Ray remarked,
something useful in the concept of rights. Perhaps its most useful sense is
that rights have something to do with the ability to flourish, to reach
potential- this again comes back to Tim Cresswell's quotation from Patricia
Williams. Although the idea has oftem been used to refer to 'human
flourishing', this does not necessarially have to be the case, and many
writers working in the field of green ethics/political ecology (eg:
Eckersley) have found it perfectly feasible to extend this to communities,
societies, non-human species and ecosystems as a whole. The only difference
for humans is that we have the concurrent responsibility of respecting and
encouraging the flourishing of others (whether human or otherwise),
particularly those unable to voice that demand themselves.
This still leaves us with many problems, but I think it is a better way of
starting to think about 'rights' than the incremental 'a right to this,
plus a right to that' kind of approach, which like so many human activities
has no concept of the overall picture or its own inbuilt limitations.
I hope this makes some sense to someone!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|