Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Deconstructive Reading of UN Human Rights

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Deconstructive Reading of UN Human Rights

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Deconstructing the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Using solely this page here [How to do Deconstruction] as reference on how to use Deconstruction to "Astonish Friends & Confound Enemies", I'll see what a deconstructive reading of the UN UDHR looks like.

[quote]Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [/quote]
Our sense of freedom and equality is shaped by our negative conceptions of servitutde and inequality. If everyone acted towards each other in a spirit of brotherhood, no one acts towards each other in a spirit of brotherhood.

Quote:

Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

If people were entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, then there would be no need for Article 2.

[quote]Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. [/quote]
Life, liberty and security of person only make sense when opposed to death, slavery, and constant harm. Without these latter three, the former three would not exist.
[quote]Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. [/quote]
Freedom is a special or perverted type of slavery. Prohibiting slavery would mean prohibiting freedom.
[quote]Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. [/quote]
Our conceptions of torture and cruel treatement is derivied from our conceptions of pleasure and pleasurable treatment. If no one was subjected to torture or cruel treatment, they would not know what pleasure is.
[quote]Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. [/quote]
Rights are dependent on having no rights. If everyone had rights, no one would have rights.
[quote]Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. [/quote]
Equality is merely a pervered form of inequality. Thus, equality is derived from inequality and if there were no inequality, there would be no equality.
[quote]Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.[/quote]
This right only exists if there were ineffective remedies by national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted by law. If there were no ineffective remedies, this right would not exist.
[quote]Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. [/quote]
Our conceptions of political and personal freedom and community are derived from our conceptions of arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Without arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, we would not understand political and personal freedom and community.
[quote]Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.[/quote]
Independence and impartiality depends on our conceptions of dependence and partiality. If all tribunals were independent and impartial, we wouldn't know dependence and partiality and thus we wouldn't know independence and impartiality.
[quote]Article 11: Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. [/quote]
Innocence is a perverted type of guilt werein the guilt is non-existent. If we presumed innocence, we must also presume guilt.
[quote]Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.[/quote]
Being subjected to arbitrary interference with one's privacy, family, home or correspondence, and attacks upon one's honour and reputation, is derived from not being subjected to arbitrary interference with one's privacy, family, home or correspondence, and attacks upon one's honour and reputation. If no one was subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation, Article 12 wouldn't exist.
[quote]Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.[/quote]
Without constrained movement, there would be no freedom of movement, because the latter is based on our conceptions of the former, and without the former, there would be no latter. If everyone had the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, no one would have the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
[quote]Article 14: Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. [/quote]
Freedom exists only because of its opposition to slavery. Asylum from persecution is a state of being which disguises the fact that it's persecution.
[quote]Article 15: Everyone has the right to a nationality.[/quote]
Rights exists only because of our conceptions of lack of rights. If everyone had rights, no one would have rights.
[quote]Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. [/quote]
Ditto with Article 15.
[quote]Article 17: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. [/quote]
The idea that people ought to keep their stuff is a result of people being arbitrarily deprived of property. Article 17 depends on and is derived from people being arbitrarily deprived of property.
[quote]Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. [/quote]
Our conceptions of freedom of thought depends on limited thought. Without limited thought, there would be no freedom of thought that breaks free of its limitations.
[quote]Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. [/quote]
The idea of freedom of expression cannont exist without state censorship and propaganada. Denying state censorship and propaganada would entail denial of freedom of expression.
[quote]Article 20: No one may be compelled to belong to an association. [/quote]
Freedom of association cannot exist without compelling people to belong to associations.
[quote]Article 21: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. [/quote]
Taking part in the government of one's country is dependent on leaving the government alone.
[quote]Article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. [/quote]
Having rights to social security is depends on being denied access to social security. Without the latter, how can the former exist?
[quote]Article 23: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. [/quote]
Employment is a perverted kind of unemployment. Without unemployment, there would be no employment, so protecting aganst unemployment means protecting against employment.
[quote]Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. [/quote]
Rest and leisure depends on our conceptions of slave labour. If there were no slave labour, how can we ever know the value and importance of rest and leisure?
[quote]Article 25: Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. [/quote]
Motherhood is a conception derived from fatherhood and childhood from adulthood. If Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance, then fatherhood and adulthood must be entitled to special care and assistance.
[quote]Article 26: Everyone has the right to education.[/quote]
Without denial of rights, how can we know rights?
[quote]Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. [/quote]
Participation in the community depends on some people being denied participation in the community.
[quote]Article 28: Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. [/quote]
If everyone is entitled to a social and international order, then no one is entitled, because people being granted entitlement depends on people being denied entitlement.
[quote]Article 29: Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. [/quote]
Duties cannot exist with slacking off. Slacking off is an important aspect of personality.
[quote]Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. [/quote]
Interpretation is subject to an interpretor with the rights and freedoms to interpret. If this Declaration cannot be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein, then the Declaration is denying the rights and freedoms of an interpretor.

Thus, using the deconstructive reading, I have now stated why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a Non-Universal Denial of Human Rights. Without suffering injustice, how can we ever know justice?

@Victor Eremita,

A little strained at points, but pretty cool overall.

If you want to see a big name actually at work doing something like this, check out a Jacques Derrida article called "Declarations of Independence" (if you can find it).

@Victor Eremita,

Why would you deconstruct something that is a statement of principles and not a formal demonstration of them? It's like deconstructing the 12 steps at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, or deconstructing the Ten Commandments, or deconstructing the menu at McDonalds.

@Aedes,

Aedes;73693 wrote:

Why would you deconstruct something that is a statement of principles and not a formal demonstration of them? It's like deconstructing the 12 steps at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, or deconstructing the Ten Commandments, or deconstructing the menu at McDonalds.

The difference between the McDonald's menu and the Ten Commandments is that the McDonald's menu doesn't serve as its own source of authority. If nobody had ever written down the McD menu, people could still learn the prices of McD food. How? Just ask anyone who knows. There's nothing about the information conveyed by the menu that makes it essential that it be written down. That is, the menu information can exist with or without being written down.

The Ten Commandments, on the other hand, along with the UDHR, could not exist without being written down. They need authority to function, and that authority is granted from being written down. They would be worthless if they were only spread by word of mouth.

I'm not sure how the 12 Steps list functions here. That's a tough case.

@Victor Eremita,

The point is that the contents of the Ten Commandments, the McDonalds menu, the 12 Steps, are laid down without any formal exposition as to how they were chosen. You can deconstruct the authority of god; you can deconstruct the logic and therapeutic value of the 12 Steps, and you can deconstruct the process of menu choice. But you need a reasoning process to analyze, because otherwise they just are what they are.

@Victor Eremita,

Deconstruction is concerned with the extra-textual logic. There doesn't need to be a "reasoning process" explicit in the text for something to be going on. In the case of the Ten Commandments, the text itself function by way of its own inscription despite the fact that there is not an addendum that says "By the way, the preceding ten commandments are the sources of their own authority."

@Victor Eremita,

Ah, your preceding post makes more sense to me now, thank you (yes, the menu is a bad example).

What still confuses me, though, is how we can make inferences about the extra-textual logic of something with philosophical implications but without revealing the process by which those were derived. The mission statement of a company might be an example.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Deconstructive Reading of UN Human Rights

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Deconstructive Reading of UN Human Rights

Quick Links

My Account

able2know