2. In late modernity, people can see not only the globalization of values associated with
the rapid liberalization of markets, but also the globalization of values that focus on
non-economic areas of the world system. These values have to do with human rights
and democracy in the political sphere, the solidarity to the poor and marginalized
populations in the social space and the respect for cultural diversity in the field of
culture.
Their ‘modernist’ manifestation is obvious since 18th
century, during the transition
from the undifferentiated feudal community in the nation-state. In this period of
‘early modernity’, the industrial capitalism and the nation-state led to a society
characterized by a specific difference: the creation of institutional spaces in which
each individual separately had-potentially at least-its own logic and historical
dynamics.
In early modernity the values mentioned above were emerged through struggles
aimed to overcome the feudal localism and create wider spaces at the level of the
nation state. In subsequent, ‘globalized modernity’, the same values are transformed
through fights aimed to overcome the national ‘localism’ and create a cosmopolitan
framework in which less emphasis is given on nationalist ideologies and more on
concerns and visions that go beyond the narrow state borders.
In other words, the basic values of modernity initially emerged in differentiated
3. institutional spaces of the nation; in late modernity acquire a global dimension. From
this perspective, people could discuss an emerging cosmopolitanism not only in the
economic sphere but also in the political, social and cultural.
II. Can there be a world consensus on human rights?
I focus on the political space where everyone can see the gradual globalization of the
values of democracy and human rights. These values took the most advanced form in
the context of Western European nation-state, but today acquire increasingly a more
universal and global character. This in the sense that they tend to be accepted by
people living in meta-traditional contexts-whether these frameworks are in dictatorial
China, in parliamentary democracies of the First World, in pseudo-democracies of the
Third World or in the mafia republics of the so-called Second World. Although the
democratic deficit is huge in the level of political and social practices, in the
regulatory and ethical level values on human rights play a central and legitimizing
role.
Over the years many and important people have expressed their views on human
rights. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Man is born free but everywhere he is
in chains” (The Social Contract, 1762), while Aberjhani had suggested to “Quote
words that affirm all men and women are your brothers and sisters” (The River of
Winged Dreams, 2010). In addition, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen (1789) declares that “social distinctions may be founded only upon the
4. general good. Men have natural rights to property, liberty and life”.
In his article, A World Consensus on Human Rights, Taylor tries to come to a
conclusion in regards as to whether or not a world consensus on human rights can be
reached. The significance of an unforced worldwide agreement on human rights is
much debated. I assume it might be something like what Rawls depicts in his Political
Liberalism as an ‘overlapping consensus’. That includes diverse nations, religious
groups, civic establishments, while holding inconsistent perspectives on philosophy
and individual inclination might go to an assent on specific standards that should
legislate human conduct.
Jacques Maritain (1949) was quite sure that “his way of justifying belief in the rights
of man was the only way with a firm foundation in truth”. This did not make him
avoid reaching an agreement with people who had a different or opposed view.
I wonder whether this kind of consensus is possible or not. Perhaps because of my
optimistic nature, I think that it is. In any case, I need to admit that the consequences
of such a consensus are not clear enough and predictable. I am just starting to
understand the hindrances that should be overcome on the way there. I want to talk a
bit about both issues.
My initial question was about a worldwide agreement on human rights. Immediately,
there is a first hindrance, which has been regularly brought up. The discussion on
5. human rights has been established in Western society. We cannot expect straight off,
without further examination, that a future unforced world accord could satisfy
everyone. “Jack Donelly discusses human dignity as a widespread value, while
Yasuaki Onuma is a little suspicious of this term, pointing out that human respect has
been itself the most loved term in the same Western philosophical stream that has
expounded human rights” (Taylor 1996).
In reality, the Western rights convention exists at both these levels. From one side, it
is a lawful convention, legitimating certain sorts of legal moves and empowering
specific individuals to make them. On the other hand, it is a theory of social order,
ascribing incredible vitality to the singular and making noteworthy matters turn on
his energy of assent.
Now some Asian people foresee something perilously individualistic and dividing in
this western lawful society. Maybe they are thinking of the capital punishment in the
United States or the high mortality of Iraqi children. The values of human rights and
democracy are characterized as controversial when leading forces like the United
States use them as an ideological tool against their rivals. For example, the criticism
for the violation of human rights and democratic freedoms in China does not take into
account that China has achieved to avoid the Russian style catastrophic disruption
just because it refused to open simultaneously both its economic and political system.
Additionally, they appear to ambush the logic of the West, which professedly offers
power to the person, where apparently a ‘Confucian’ viewpoint would have a bigger
6. spot for the group and the complex system of human relations in which every
individual stands.
The Western societies have introduced and give emphasis on the so called ‘subjective
rights’. Instead of telling that it is not good and legal to kill me, I start to say that I
have the right to life. This played a major role in pre-European communities. In the
meantime, European thought had also a space for a Law of Nature, a body of
standards with considerably more basic status, in light of the fact that they are all
inclusive. I refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At the point, when individuals dissent against the western rights model they should
have the entire package on their minds. Picking it as a whole is not simply wrong,
because the overall philosophy is a piece of what has promoted the great motivation
enjoyed by this legal variety. I think that it would be better to separate them, because
we can easily create situations, in which for all their relationships, the bundle could
be untied and either the forms or the doctrine could be adopted alone. This inevitably
happens when some institutions or ideas improved in one area are borrowed by
another.
“We all know what the problems are and we all know what we have promised to
achieve. What are needed now are not, additional declarations and promises, but
action to implement the promises we have already given” (Kofi Annan, 2005). Many
organizations have dedicated their efforts to protect human rights and give an end to
7. the abuses. In defense of human rights, large institutions have internet pages which
demonstrate violations and request corrective actions both at government’s and
citizen’s level. The support by the citizens and the condemnation of violations is
important for their success, as the organizations for human rights are more effective
when a large number of citizens advocates on their request for restoration.
Around the world, human rights activists are mostly ordinary citizens. Non-
governmental organizations have played a dominant role in focusing the international
community on issues concerning human rights. NGOs monitor the actions of the
different governments and press them to act according to the principles of human
rights. For example, the International Amnesty is a worldwide movement of people
campaigning for the internationally recognized human rights for all. It has more than
2.2 million members and supporters in more than 150 countries who conduct research
to prevent violations of human rights and demand justice for those people whose
rights have been violated.
In addition, the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) is an organization that works to
ensure that all children have equal opportunity in the game. The CDF defends
policies and programs that remove children from poverty, protect them from
mistreatment and ensure their right to equal care and education. I feel that the
different states cannot establish an ‘international police’ in order to protect human
rights. The international organizations-with the help of citizens-should have a more
active role in the implementation of some rules.
8. The cosmopolitan values that I analyzed in my reflection are not only desirable but
also necessary for the survival of our planet. Although they have been obvious in the
global arena, they are still far from domination. To prevail, the basic premise is the
passage from a neoliberal to a new social democratic control system of the global
economy and society. Only on the basis of this control the cosmopolitan values of
human rights will enable to overcome the obstacles of fundamentalism that currently
marginalize them.
