Keenan talks about Foucault’s implicit definition of human rights as that which runs opposed to notions of governance. Although this notion is coherent when dealing with classical and modern modes of governance (in which one’s individuality is clearly distinct from the Other of ‘authority’), however, what happens when notions of self-governance or sovereignty are introduced.
“We are all governed” — and without seeking to become governors, we intervene,
address those who govern, hold them accountable, act where they refuse. The politics
of human rights is, in this sense, largely a “politics of the governed” — not a project that
aims to govern, precisely not that (67).
If human rights is, by definition, opposed to all forms of governance, and acts where ‘governors’ refuse, are they, fundamentally unattainable?.
Born in Flames elucidates the the problem of human rights by showing the post-liberation ‘Revolutionary’ government (a, at the very least, peculiar combination of the two concepts) as still, fundamentally oppressive to marginalized groups. In the film’s world, did The Party replace, or supplement (both as an addition and substitute), Nationalism (which, as we remember, replaced Nationalism?
No comments:
Post a Comment