The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History

Samuel Moyn's argument in The Last Utopia suggests that the origins of human rights, as a "utopian program" to transcend national bounderies, is a contemporary idea (5). It is utopian because the movement's nature is politically neutral while implemented universally beyond ethical and national law standards. Through an explanation of classical Greek concepts, revolutions, and the Enlightenment, Moyn successfully discards previous scholarship that attempts to `date' human rights. Rather, he claims the recent human rights movement only manifested in the 1970s during a time of failed utopias such as communism, fascism, and socialism (3-5). Moyn's reasons that the origin of human rights' importance is to assist scholars in realizing human rights as a last utopian ideal and movement (214). For, "if the past is read as preparation for a surprising recent event," then it is that both the past and the present notions concerning human rights that are "distorted" (11). Yet, Moyn's seeking to discard previous interpretations of philosophy and historiography to establish a contemporary origin for human rights impedes `rights' work already established. In other words, all the world's revolutions and era of Enlightenment have facilitated in setting humanity upon the course toward recognizing human rights. Each step was a gradual shift toward realization. To discard that rhetoric simply for the sake of `dating' human rights in the 1970s, and through an American perspective no less, seems a bit arbitrary as each historical era appears to have interpreted `rights' differently.To emphasize his points each chapter is constructed to flow chronologically to provide crucial insight into his argument. The treatise opens with a focus on classical rights talk that influenced the revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Moyn shows that the contemporary origins of human rights is not within these earlier ideas. Rather, he claims earlier motivations of individual rights and civil rights were inspired by the creation of state sovereignty. Therefore, the setting of state boundaries were not the same as setting the boundaries for universal human rights. Yet, through Moyn's backward-looking trajectory of history, where he utilizes a contemporary understanding of human rights against earlier constructs, inhibits us from identifying `human rights talk' within original individual rights of man philosophy. That is to say, that Moyn's contemporary definition of human rights does not fit those of ancient history. However, Moyn's transition to the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights at the start of the Cold War falls in line with the recent international trends in the historiography as he shows that human rights became marginalized in order to preserve global national and corporate interests (68-71).Moyn then explains why the origins of human rights do not rest in the 1940s. He concludes that human rights did not take off during this era due to the creation of new nation-states and the partition of Europe at the onset of the Cold War. It, however, seems more likely that the number of stateless people who roamed Europe in the 1940s, as postulated by Hannah Arendt, also worked against the establishment of a universal human rights movement during this era as well. He attributes the marginalization of human rights to European decolonization and anticolonialism efforts of Middle Eastern nations to claim sovereignty through self-determination as new nation-states.Moyn is adamant about showing decolonization and anticolonialism in the Middle Eastern nation-states was more about a proclamation to self-determination than it was about disseminating human rights (85). But it stands to reason that if an eventual focus on the individual is forthcoming, then an organization of nation-states is also warranted. That is to suggest that if human rights are to going to find success internationally and universally, the world organization of nation-states must first be established ans consequently stabilized. Nonetheless, Moyn proves again that the origins of human rights are not found in the anticolonial movements either as self-determination toward statehood was their primary goal.The true utopian project of human rights does not manifest until the 1970s with the inauguration of President Jimmy Carter. Where his inaugural address marked the first time in (human?) history that a leader claimed to embed human rights within foreign policy. To be sure, Carter specifically incorporated human rights rhetoric as an umbrella to encompass, democracy promotion, genocide prevention and a host of other American ideals (158). As Moyn posits, discussions that concerned US foreign policy "were permanently altered, with new relevance for a `moral' option that now referred explicitly to individual human rights" (158). The "moral" turn in US foreign policy was soon corrupted, first by Carters insistence on looking the other way concerning leftist political dictators, and then by the Reagan Administration who conversely went after them. In the later years, human rights became a political device used to justify US foreign invasion (173). In locating the true origin of human rights, Moyn allows future historians to assess the progress of human rights and their consequent mutations. For it is the inevitable outcome that for an egalitarian ideal such as human rights, in order to universally manifest as the law of the land, must be embedded into the absurdity of politics where it must undergo the careful scrutiny of self-interested lawyers and businessmen.

If this is an alternative history of human rights it is because Samuel Moyn makes us examine the development of human rights in spite of the missed opportunities such as those that accrued in past struggles from colonialism to independence. Why was it that Ho Chi Minh failed to grasp the straw that the declaration of Human Rights 1948 offered him? How was it that in spite of all the missed opportunities human rights managed to add flesh to the civil rights movement? He examines the American turn in which the Reagan and Carter administration managed to make human rights a distinctly political rhetoric and from there to the modern flash in which human rights became a universal and prolific cry. Yet, in spite of all that, we are far from the utopia that human rights hold such promise. That might well be because "Human rights were the victims of their own vagueness". The deep and intellectual study carries with it a pessimistic outlook, but one can see a glimmer of hope - provided that we understand what it means and how it should be.

I found the book useful as a reference to other writings on the origin of modern human rights, heavy on listing names and light on a discussion of policies. I was also holding off on a review of a similarly themed book by James Loeffler, “Rooted Cosmopolitans” which is not only more recent but IMV a better read.Moyne contends that the rise of human rights doctrine is very much a 21st century phenomenon. Like Loeffler he notes that early attempts such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) were disappointing in that they gave definition to the idea of human rights but lacked a mechanism for enforcement, effective or otherwise. Hannah Arendt held that human rights only existed in the context of a State (p30-31), leaving 750,000 million stateless individuals without legal protection. The Bandung Conference (1955) emphasized Wilsonian anti-colonialism and national determination as basic to human rights, the result, unfortunately demonstrating how easily human rights advocacy could be corrupted. As Rupert Emerson (p118) put it, “the wholly legitimate drive against colonialism and apartheid was in some measure called into question when the new countries habitually shrugged off any concern with massive violations of human rights and dignity in their own domain”. Moyne continues by quoting Arthur Schesinger Jr (1977): “states may meet all the criteria of nationali self-determination and still be blots on the planet.”If governments and the United Nations cannot be relied on to establish human rights, who can? Moyne then hopefully discusses grass roots organizations such as Amnesty and Human Rights First which employ the tactic of naming, shaming and public relations. Jeri Laber, one of the founders of Helsinki Watch, the precursor to Human Rights Watch, created a formulaic approach, “I began with a detailed description of a horrible form of torture, then explained where it was happening and the political context in which it occurred; I ended with a plea to show the offending government that the world was watching.” (p148).The difficulty with lofty ideals is that they can easily be corrupted from within when rhetoric overcomes substance. Christian charity and mercy becomes the Auto-da-fé of the Inquisition. Lafayette’s Rights of Man, written with the assistance of Thomas Jefferson(!) (1789, p24) is followed by France’s Reign of Terror (1793-1794) which justified its witch hunts as a defence of human rights The successor States of the postcolonial era, including the Soviet Union (now Russia), China and many of the countries of Africa, South America, occupying key positions UN\s Human Rights Council trade their votes to obscure their own violations. NGOs such as Amensty and HRW who’s founding principles were that they would eschew politics in favor of individual rights have reversed course and become intensely political.The takeaway is that while the modern concept of human rights is worthwhile it is simply one of a succession of utopian ideals that have as yet not fully delivered on their promises. The ethical halo of moral ideals may, if we are not careful, turn into series of facades. Quis custodiet ipsos custode?

Purchased this book for a required class text.Although Samuel Moyn's writing is a little difficult and complex, it was overall a worthwhile text.

Perfect condition

Pretty deep stuff

Estudiarlo. Es interesante. Inteligente, fácil de leer.Autor con bastantes más obras.

Really interesting reading. I've used it to get some ideas about my master's thesis, and I really found it interesting and stimulating.Suggested reading.

Good

Libro muy interesante para comprender el discurso de los Derechos Humanos en las últimas décadas. Libro imprescindible para cualquier persona interesada en este campo de acción política de la esfera internacional