The Ambivalent Conjunction of Modernity and Human Rights

W. J. Situma
{"title":"The Ambivalent Conjunction of Modernity and Human Rights","authors":"W. J. Situma","doi":"10.24018/THEOLOGY.2021.1.3.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modernity is a stage in societies’ development that is the corollary of enlightenment. It has variously been conceived to be the ultimate moment in the unfolding of human history in the sense that norms and values, and practices and institutions are nearly or at their most perfect. However, the conceived prelude to or realization of utopia does not accord with reality in many specific modern societies, even those that are generally considered to be the forerunners of modernity. In Africa, the onset of modernity and its extension into the diverse realms of human beings’ lives has entailed norms and values, and practices and institutions that are the genesis of dystopia. This article examines the ambivalent nexus of modernity and human rights in Africa from the onset of the modernization project to date. Using critical theory, the article argues that although modernity is credited with the birth of human rights, in Africa its primary actors, namely capital, the markets, and the state, are either ambivalent to and/or causal to widespread and deep human rights violations. The human rights violations are systemically and systematically cast as incidental and spurious rather than the hallmarks of modernity. Judicial, political, and educational institutions act and reiterate their capacities to address the incidental/spurious human rights violations, despite abundant evidence that, as part of modernity, these institutions are ambivalent to human rights and, therefore, can only mask the reality and perpetuate human rights violations. This general stance is the consequence of the pervasive logic of capital. This article explains how this pervasive phenomenon in its various forms, such as state capitalism and global capitalism, coupled with neopatrimonialism, has impacted the institution and practice of human rights in Africa. The analysis concludes that though modernity is credited with the birth of human rights regimes, its historicity has been causal of significant violations of human rights. The violations unleashed by capital are exacerbated by political elites who, in their processes of policy-making and budgetary deliberation, and implementation, marginally conceive nation-extensive notions of common good. Consequently, violation of human rights is rampant.","PeriodicalId":337472,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Theology and Philosophy","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Theology and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24018/THEOLOGY.2021.1.3.19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modernity is a stage in societies’ development that is the corollary of enlightenment. It has variously been conceived to be the ultimate moment in the unfolding of human history in the sense that norms and values, and practices and institutions are nearly or at their most perfect. However, the conceived prelude to or realization of utopia does not accord with reality in many specific modern societies, even those that are generally considered to be the forerunners of modernity. In Africa, the onset of modernity and its extension into the diverse realms of human beings’ lives has entailed norms and values, and practices and institutions that are the genesis of dystopia. This article examines the ambivalent nexus of modernity and human rights in Africa from the onset of the modernization project to date. Using critical theory, the article argues that although modernity is credited with the birth of human rights, in Africa its primary actors, namely capital, the markets, and the state, are either ambivalent to and/or causal to widespread and deep human rights violations. The human rights violations are systemically and systematically cast as incidental and spurious rather than the hallmarks of modernity. Judicial, political, and educational institutions act and reiterate their capacities to address the incidental/spurious human rights violations, despite abundant evidence that, as part of modernity, these institutions are ambivalent to human rights and, therefore, can only mask the reality and perpetuate human rights violations. This general stance is the consequence of the pervasive logic of capital. This article explains how this pervasive phenomenon in its various forms, such as state capitalism and global capitalism, coupled with neopatrimonialism, has impacted the institution and practice of human rights in Africa. The analysis concludes that though modernity is credited with the birth of human rights regimes, its historicity has been causal of significant violations of human rights. The violations unleashed by capital are exacerbated by political elites who, in their processes of policy-making and budgetary deliberation, and implementation, marginally conceive nation-extensive notions of common good. Consequently, violation of human rights is rampant.
现代性与人权的矛盾结合
现代性是社会发展的一个阶段,是启蒙运动的必然结果。在规范和价值观、实践和制度接近或处于最完美状态的意义上,它被各种各样地认为是人类历史发展的终极时刻。然而,在许多特定的现代社会中,乌托邦的设想前奏或实现并不符合现实,即使是那些通常被认为是现代性先驱的社会。在非洲,现代性的开始及其扩展到人类生活的各个领域,包含了成为反乌托邦起源的规范和价值观、实践和制度。本文考察了从现代化项目开始至今,非洲现代性与人权的矛盾关系。本文运用批判理论认为,尽管现代性被认为是人权诞生的原因,但在非洲,现代性的主要参与者,即资本、市场和国家,对广泛而深刻的人权侵犯要么是矛盾的,要么是因果关系。侵犯人权的行为被系统地、系统地塑造成偶然的和虚假的,而不是现代性的标志。司法、政治和教育机构采取行动并重申其处理偶然/虚假侵犯人权行为的能力,尽管有大量证据表明,作为现代性的一部分,这些机构对人权的态度是矛盾的,因此只能掩盖现实并使侵犯人权行为永久化。这种普遍立场是资本普遍逻辑的结果。这篇文章解释了这种普遍存在的现象如何以各种形式,如国家资本主义和全球资本主义,加上新世袭主义,影响了非洲的人权制度和实践。分析得出的结论是,尽管人权制度的诞生归功于现代性,但其历史性一直是严重侵犯人权的原因。政治精英们在制定政策、审议预算和执行过程中,勉强构想出全国性的共同利益概念,从而加剧了资本释放的违规行为。因此,侵犯人权的行为十分猖獗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信