“What is at stake here,” the Lebanese United Nations delegate Charles Malik wrote of the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), “is the determination of the nature of man.”1 As a student of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger, Malik was intensely attuned to the philosophical significance of the attempt to formulate a list of basic rights.2 Reflecting on his own participation in the drafting process, Malik, who drafted the declaration’s preamble, noted that this posed three central questions: Is man an animal like any other? What is the place of the individual human person in modern society? And which is prior, the individual or the state?3 Unsurprisingly, these questions came to the fore during debate in the General Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee about what is now Article 29 of the Declaration, which concerns the relation between the individual and the community. More surprisingly, this debate revolved around the figure who epitomizes the myth of “natural man”: Robinson Crusoe. Article 29 was envisaged as what one delegate fittingly termed “an escape clause”: that is, it was to stipulate the conditions under which the rights in the Declaration could be limited.4 As the Committee met to debate a proliferation of amendments, all the philosophical and political disagreements between the parties crystallized around the grounds for limiting these rights. Were the needs of the democratic state sufficient for derogating from them, as the Soviet delegate claimed? Were these rights subordinate to the requirements of public order? And, if so, how was this order to be defined?5 As delegates argued over these questions, the stakes of the debate became clear: at issue was that “determination of the nature of man” that Malik had astutely suggested underpinned the drafting process. This was an argument about whether this “man” was endowed with a human personality and individual rights by nature, or whether this personality could be developed only in a community and these rights granted only by the state.
Follow Us On TwitterMy Tweets
Our new issue features a conversation between Jasbir K. Puar and Oishik Sircar, available open-access on the Humanity journal website. The issue also includes essays on the politics humanitarian architecture and the Parisian “Yellow Bubble,” family planning projects in postcolonial Morocco, how Amnesty International's formative years shaped professional human rights activism, and the linguistic and affective labor of field interpreters for UN missions. It contains review essays on theories of political violence and on global histories of slavery and indentured labor.View entire issue >
Recent Blog Posts
This essay is part of a symposium on Yogita Goyal’s Runaway Genres. All contributions to the symposium can be found here. In his now classic essay published in NLH in 1976, “The Origin of Genres,” Tzvetan Todorov famously articulated the following: “It is because genres exist as an institution that they function as ‘horizons of expectation’ for readers, and as ‘models of writing’ for authors.” He goes on to argue that “Genres communicate with the society in which they flourish by means of institutionalization,” and Continue reading →
This essay is part of a symposium on Yogita Goyal’s Runaway Genres. All contributions to the symposium can be found here. Which forms are most amenable for narrating the afterlives of slavery and why? Which configurations of race and power come to the fore and which recede when contemporary Afro-diasporic writers take up the slave narrative to address contemporary human-rights violations in Africa? What happens to the mutually constitutive relationship between race and form across different spaces and times? These are the questions that animate Continue reading →