Vulnerability and Human Rights
Penn State Press, 10 aug. 2006 - 160 pagini
The mass violence of the twentieth century’s two world wars—followed more recently by decentralized and privatized warfare, manifested in terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and other localized forms of killing—has led to a heightened awareness of human beings’ vulnerability and the precarious nature of the institutions they create to protect themselves from violence and exploitation. This vulnerability, something humans share amid the diversity of cultural beliefs and values that mark their differences, provides solid ground on which to construct a framework of human rights.
Bryan Turner undertakes this task here, developing a sociology of rights from a sociology of the human body. His blending of empirical research with normative analysis constitutes an important step forward for the discipline of sociology. Like anthropology, sociology has traditionally eschewed the study of justice as beyond the limits of a discipline that pays homage to cultural relativism and the “value neutrality” of positivistic science. Turner’s expanded approach accordingly involves a truly interdisciplinary dialogue with the literature of economics, law, medicine, philosophy, political science, and religion.
Rezultatele 1 - 5 din 41
The tensions and contradictions between states, citizens, and human rights constitute much of the content of contemporary international dispute and conflict, and yet theories of human rights have often failed to consider the ...
Understanding the relationship between citizenship and human rights is key to understanding the precariousness of political and legal institutions, such as the rule of law, in many conflict-ridden societies.
From a Hobbesian perspective, a strong state is required to enforce agreements between conflicting social groups. Another way of expressing this idea is to argue that we need to maintain a distinction between the social rights of ...
Human rights force us to adopt political positions because we are compelled to take sides in political conflicts, but adopting political positions does not mean that we have to convert the ''advocacy revolution'' into a modern idolatry.
I want to push this discussion further back to the violent encounter between colonial settlement and aboriginal people. These colonial conflicts were features of the land rush that formed the modern world between 1650 and 1900.