Human rights as mockery of morality , manifesting morality , and moral maze

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Shadi Mokhtari
{"title":"Human rights as <i>mockery of morality</i> , <i>manifesting morality</i> , and <i>moral maze</i>","authors":"Shadi Mokhtari","doi":"10.1080/14754835.2023.2249931","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article develops and applies a typology of marginalized non-Western populations’ experiences of and engagements with human rights, drawing from Egyptian and broader Middle Eastern experiences of human rights over the last three decades. The experiences laid out are of human rights as (1) mockery of morality encompassing practice flying in the face of human rights’ emancipatory promise, (2) manifesting morality encompassing practice embodying human rights’ emancipatory promise, and (3) moral maze, the morally fractured space in between where human rights politics increasingly play out. Through the typology and its application, I argue that popular dispositions toward, and meanings accorded to human rights in marginalized contexts are varied, complex, and stem not just from popular evaluations of the human right framework’s content (the values, moral claims, or rhetorical promise), but also from these populations’ experiences of, judgements on, and emotional reactions to the morality of the practice of human rights unfolding around them. The research presented demonstrates that contrary to assumptions underlying both mainstream and critical scholarship, the content of human rights can be highly resonant to marginalized non-Western populations, yet they may choose to keep a distance from the framework because in its practice, is not persuasive to them.","PeriodicalId":51734,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14754835.2023.2249931","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article develops and applies a typology of marginalized non-Western populations’ experiences of and engagements with human rights, drawing from Egyptian and broader Middle Eastern experiences of human rights over the last three decades. The experiences laid out are of human rights as (1) mockery of morality encompassing practice flying in the face of human rights’ emancipatory promise, (2) manifesting morality encompassing practice embodying human rights’ emancipatory promise, and (3) moral maze, the morally fractured space in between where human rights politics increasingly play out. Through the typology and its application, I argue that popular dispositions toward, and meanings accorded to human rights in marginalized contexts are varied, complex, and stem not just from popular evaluations of the human right framework’s content (the values, moral claims, or rhetorical promise), but also from these populations’ experiences of, judgements on, and emotional reactions to the morality of the practice of human rights unfolding around them. The research presented demonstrates that contrary to assumptions underlying both mainstream and critical scholarship, the content of human rights can be highly resonant to marginalized non-Western populations, yet they may choose to keep a distance from the framework because in its practice, is not persuasive to them.
人权是对道德的嘲弄、道德的彰显、道德的迷宫
本文借鉴了过去三十年来埃及和更广泛的中东地区的人权经验,发展并应用了一种边缘化的非西方人口的人权经验和参与的类型学。书中列举的人权经验是:(1)对无视人权解放承诺的道德实践的嘲弄,(2)体现体现人权解放承诺的道德实践,以及(3)道德迷宫,即人权政治日益发挥作用的道德断裂空间。通过类型学及其应用,我认为,在边缘化背景下,人们对人权的倾向和赋予人权的意义是多样而复杂的,不仅源于人们对人权框架内容(价值观、道德主张或修辞承诺)的普遍评价,还源于这些人群对围绕他们展开的人权实践的道德的经验、判断和情感反应。所提出的研究表明,与主流和批判性学术的假设相反,人权的内容可以引起边缘化的非西方人群的高度共鸣,但他们可能选择与框架保持距离,因为在实践中,对他们没有说服力。
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
21.10%
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