Today the discussion of human rights does not just have as its goal the supply of a substitute ideology after the collapse of the ‘grand narratives’. By seeking to impose a particular moral norm on all peoples,
it aims at giving the West a good conscience once again by allowing it to install itself once more as a model and to denounce as ‘barbarian’ those who refuse this model. In history ‘rights’ have only too often been that which the masters of the dominant ideology had decided
to define in this way. Associated with the expansion of markets, the discussion of human rights constitutes the ideological armour of globalisation. It is above all an instrument of domination, and should be regarded as such. #Benoist
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Freedom is not only a personal power. It needs a social field to exercise itself. That is why one could not be satisfied with the definition figuring in Article 4 of the Declaration of Rights of 1789: ‘Freedom consists in being able to do anything which does not harm others’.
2/ On the one hand, individual autonomy & the free expression of capacities & merits are not subjective rights but correspond, on the contrary, to an imperious political & social necessity. (Public education, for example, is not at all the result of some ‘right to education’
3/ without which it would be free, but optional. What makes it obligatory is the recognition that instruction constitutes a social good.) On the other hand, individual freedom is never accomplished in a society that is not free,
1/ The first theoreticians of human rights were not wrong to refer to human nature. But it is the notion that they formed of it that was inconsistent. One knows today—one has known it for a long time—that man is a social being,
2/ that the existence of men did not precede their coexistence; in short, that society is the perspective in which, from its origins, the human presence in the world has been recorded. Just as there is no spirit that is not incarnated,
3/ there is no individual that is not situated in a determined socio-historical context. Membership in humanity is thus never immediate, but mediated: one belongs to it only through the intermediary of a particular collectivity or a given culture.
1/ We know that it is difficult to prioritize information when we are bombarded with news, comments & images that follow one another at breakneck speed. This is the problem of "infobesity". This is nothing new, but the phenomenon has obviously accelerated in the postmodern era.
2/ The transformation of political life into a spectacle, that is to say into a contest of appearances, the flood of images, fraudulent commercial practices, false advertising, the advent of the blogosphere and social networks, the reign of reality TV and "infotainment" (mixing
3/ information & entertainment), the role played by "spindoctors" specializing in the art of telling stories ("storytelling"), the use of algorithms & "filter bubbles", even the rise of narcissism (any individual can become a source of information or disinformation), have greatly
1/ From the Right, apart from individual developments, there is obviously nothing to expect. If today it has not moved entirely to the side of money, at least it does not stop maintaining a scarcely artistic blurriness around the omnipresent reality of capital.
2/ In this way, the customary reluctance it feels with regard to society is added to a complete incomprehension of the historical period in which we live. Except in some small circles, the Right has abandoned what in the past could have constituted its legitimacy:
3/ its fidelity to the ethic of honour, charity, and disinterestedness. The Right has come to possess and thereby it has been dispossessed. It has stopped reading Sorel and Proudhon. It prefers the predators of the CAC 40 to Bernanos and Péguy.
1. Modernity is characterised primarily by five converging processes: individualisation, through the destruction of old forms of communal life; massification, through the adoption of standardised behaviour and lifestyles; desacralisation, through the displacement of the great
2. religious narratives by a scientific interpretation of the world; rationalisation, through the domination of instrumental reason, the free market, & technical efficiency; & universalisation, through a planetary extension of a model of society postulated implicitly as the only
3. rational possibility & thus as superior. This movement has old roots. In most respects, it represents a secularisation of ideas & perspectives borrowed from Christian metaphysics, which spread into secular life following a rejection of any transcendent dimension.
1/ The tendency to overexpansion & concentration produces isolated individs. who are thus more vulnerable & defenceless. Widespread exclusion & social uncertainty are the logical consequences of this system which has wiped out almost all possibilities of reciprocity & solidarity.
2/ Faced with traditional, vertical pyramids of domination that inspire no confidence, faced with bureaucracies that are reaching more and more rapidly their level of incompetence, we enter a world of all sorts of cooperative networks.
3/ The former tension between a homogeneous civil society & a monopolistic Welfare State has, little by little, been reduced by the existence today of a whole web of organisations supportive of deliberative & well-functioning communities which are forming at every level of social