University of San Carlos Publications

INTERPELLATING HEGEMONIC DISCOURSES ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Author(s): Kathy Nadeau
Source: Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society, Vol. 28, No. 3, SPECIAL ISSUE: PROBLEMS
OF DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL JUSTICE (September 2000), pp. 355-362
Published by: University of San Carlos Publications
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29792467 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 09:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of San Carlos Publications is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Philippine Quarterly of Culture & Society
28(2000): 355-362

REVIEW ARTICLE

INTERPELLATING HEGEMONIC DISCOURSES ON

HUMAN RIGHTS

Kathy Nadeau

In this article, I employ ideas from Peter Van Ness's Debating Human
Rights: Critical Essays from theUnited States and Asia (1999a) as a starting
point to discuss theburningquestion ofwhether, or not, human rightscan be
meaningfully defined from a multi- and cross-cultural perspective. This
question appeared on the internationalhorizon when some scholars began to
claim that "Asian values" were fundamentallydifferentfrom "Western"
understandings of human rights.FerdinandMarcos used such a claim as an
excuse to declare Martial Law in 1972 in the Philippines. Some Filipino
intellectuals andWestern outside scholarswrote about Asian values in sup?
port of his notorious dictatorship.Human rightshas become a heated bed of
contention since the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the
Cold War. This has been especially so in thePhilippines, where rapid and
top-down economic growth and development has served so often to increase
thepoverty, and sufferingthereinentailed, for the localmajority. Van Ness's
collection is remarkable in that itbrings togetherscholars on the subject in
an effortto finda common ground of understanding thatcan help better to
resolve this controversy.

My purpose here is not to review every angle of thedebate expressed in

the various articles inVan Ness's collection forhe does this already in his
fine introduction.Rather, Imake use of some innovative ideas gleaned from
there as a way to discuss my interpretationsof the human rights debate.
Before doing so, I outline thebook.

Kathy Nadeau isAssistant Professor in theDepartment ofAnthropology in theCalifor?

nia State University at San Bernardino. Her e-mail is <knadeau@e-machines.net>.

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY

Peter Van Ness pulls togethera variety of essays thatrepresent the cur?
rentdebate about internationalhuman rights.PartOne of his collection looks
closely at the issues and sets forth theparameters of the debate. Part Two
places thedebate in contextby looking, first,at the situations on theground
inmainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong and, second, at the role of the
United States human rights policy toward China. Part Three generates a
working consensus on how to protect our similar and diverse societies and
cultures as a precondition formaking a mutually beneficial international
human rights agreement. Special attention is given there towomen's per?
spectives inAsia. Part Four looks at how sovereign states,charged to be the
protectorsof citizens' rights,actually performtheirduties and responsibilities
regarding those rights. The following discussion is concerned more with
examining thedifferentsides of thedebate as presented inparts one and four,
thanwith the case studies articulated inparts two and three.
The "Western" conception of human rights as consisting of only individ?
ual civil and political rights is disrespectful and alienating tomost Hindu,
Buddhist, and Islamic societies amongmany other societies and cultures. It
does not include a concept of people being responsible for theweal of human,
animal, and plant life.Aziz (Ch. 2) argues persuasively thatthe idea thatwith
rights come duties and responsibilities to one's community is not part of the
dominant discourse on human rights as it is currentlybeing articulated and
envisioned in theWest. Muzaffar (Ch. 1,p. 29), likeAziz (pp. 32-33), makes
a strongcase to show that,in thevarious and different world religions, there
can be foundmany illustrationsof the idea that"rights"by definition include
thenotion of responsible stewardshipnot only forone's fellow human beings
but forother lifeformsand theenvironmentas well. For example (also noted
by Aziz on p. 42), inMahayana Buddhism there is theconcept of theBodhi
sattvaswho reach nirvana but thenopt to come down again towork in the
world to guide others to enlightenment:

He has gone beyond all that isworldly, yet he has notmoved out of theworld. In
theworld he pursues his course for theworld's well-being, unstained by worldly
taints. (From theRatnagotrayibhaga I, vv. 69-78 quoted by Ishay 1977: 6).

There is also an example from the Judeo-ChristianOld Testament:

He thatopposes thepoor blasphemes his maker: but he thathonors him is gracious

to thepoor. The wicked is thrustdown inhis calamity: but the righteous has hope
in his death. Wisdom rests quietly in the heart of the judicious: but folly in the
breast of fools shall easily be known. Righteousness exalts a nation but Sin is a re

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ARTICLE 357

proach to any people (see Ecclesiastes 14: 31-35 as well as theBooks of Psalms
and Proverbs).

Another excerpt comes from theKoran:

The Society thus organized must live under laws? Based on eternal principles of
righteousness and fair dealing. Cleanliness and sobriety,honesty and helpf?lness,
one to another? yet shaped into concrete forms to suitTimes and Circumstances,
and thevarying needs of average men and women: the food to be clean and whole?
some; blood feuds to be abolished; therights and duties of heirs to be recognized
afterdeath, not in spiritof Formalism, but to help theweak and needy, and check
all selfishwrongdoing; self-denial tobe learntby fasting; the courage tofight inde?
fense ofRight, to be defined; thePilgrimage to be sanctified as a symbol of unity;
charity and help to the poor. To be organized; unseemly riot and drink and gam?
bling to be banished; orphans to be protected; marriage, divorce, and widowhood
to be regulated; and the rightsofwomen, apt tobe trampledunder foot,now clearly
affirmed (Surah 12, 168-242, quoted in Ishay 1997: 42).

Muzaffar, Aziz, and others (Bauer and Bell et al 1999, Forrester 1997)
argue thathuman rights and human freedoms are part of a largermoral and
spiritualworld order. They recollect that theUnited States and her allies,
from colonial times to thepresent, have suppressed human rights and pro
democracymovements invarious parts of theworld whenever it served their
individual and economic intereststo do so.
The main theme of Part Four is thatthe current interestinhuman rights
came on thecoattails of thebreakup of theSoviet Union (1989-91), when the
United States became the single economic andmilitary superpower.Feng (p.
242 inVan Ness) notes thatthefoundationof theUnited States isbuilt on the
combination of a democratic system and a freemarket economy. Thus, the
United States government views the human rightsmission as a means to
these ends. Van Ness {ad passim) provides some concrete instances of the
United States' perceived mission, themost tellingbeing theUnited State's
role in "resolving" the recentAsian economic crisis. During that time, the
United States and the InternationalMonetary Fund offered, to countries
hardest hit by the crisis, bailout loans with strings attached that included
threats of sanctions and embargoes if otherwise not taken. The implicit
intention was topressure them to democratize theirsystemsaccording to the
United States' model. Countries most effectedby the economic crisiswere
pressured to incorporateU.S.-style multiparty voting and individual civil
rights. The structuraladjustmentpackage was patterned after thatoriginally
imposed on thePhilippines in themid-1980s, thePhilippines having been
bankrupted by the corruptU.S.-backed Marcos dictatorship. In thisway, the

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 PHILIPPINE QUARTERLY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY

United States and its allies can be said to be banging an empty-sounding

Human Rights gong tomanipulate other societies and cultures intoconform?
ing to thenewWorld Order. This World Order can be said to be based on a
calculating individual rationalism,not on a sense of, for example, Christian
justice thatseeks toheal broken relationships (see Forrester 1997: 246). Rich
countrieswith theirhighly developed technologyand strongeconomies have
led theway in emphasizing the "Western" understanding ofHuman Rights
as consisting of individual political and civil rights only.What about eco?
nomic, social, and culturalrights? What about therights of other life forms
and thenatural environment?
The United Nations, established some fiftyyears ago, came up with a
comprehensive set of internationalrights: theUniversal Declaration ofHu?
man Rights which was adopted by thegeneral assembly in 1948. In 1966 and
1976 respectively theUnited Nations gave a detailed specification of these
rights in the formof two covenants: (1) International Covenant ofCivil and
Political Rights, and (2) International Covenant ofEconomic, Social, and
Cultural Rights. It called countries to sign and ratifythese treaties tomake
thembinding and legal.By 1995,127 stateshad ratifiedthe covenant of civil
and political rights,while 129 stateshad ratifiedthecovenant for economic,
social, and cultural rights. The Philippine government signed and ratified
both covenants1 but has yet to incorporate these covenants in practice
(Nadeau, forthcoming).The United States signed and ratifiedonly the cove?
nant on individual civil and political rights, and did this as late as 1992, and
it still has not signed and ratified the covenant for economic, social, and
political rights (VanNess 1999: 12).
The United Nations treatieswere co-authored and theyrepresent thepri?
orities of the internationalcommunity.As Van Ness expresses it, therehave
been basically threegenerations of human rights. The firstgeneration in?
volved thecivil and political rights intendedtoprotect the individualfrom the
state. These rightswere rooted in the individualistic traditionsofWestern
Europe and North America. The second generation of rightswere the eco?
nomic, social, and cultural rights that reflected the priorities of socialist
countries andMarxist philosophical traditions, which for example, sought to
address theproblems of thepoor (starvation, illiteracy,disease) and thathad
as an objective the improvementof theirmaterial standards of living. The
thirdgeneration of rights refers to peoples' rights or collectivist rights and
responds to theparticular priorities and realities of formerlycolonized coun?
triesand theirinsistenceon therights to self-determinationand development.
Member statesof theUnited Nations have agreed (on paper) tobe bound

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ARTICLE 359

by the treaties theyhave ratified. But, there is tension between, on the one
hand, theright of individual states to remain sovereign and autonomous and,
on theotherhand, of individual states tobe accountable for theirown human
rights record.Al McCoy (1999: 2) states:
Different nations have trieddifferentways to cope with theircollective burden of
a traumaticpast. South Africa confronted itspast with a non-punitive Truth Com?
mission. South Korea imprisoned its formerpresidents. Argentina tried to silence
itspast until pro-democracy forces forced the formationof a truthcommission that
produced the famed reportNunca Mas "Never Again."

He finds that the currentPhilippine government is tryingto forget that the

Marcos dictatorshipcommittedhuman rights atrocities.This is not surprising
considering that ImeldaMarcos returnedand assumed political office in the
Philippines under the previous Ramos administration; that she financially
backed now president Estrada; and thather children, togetherwith many
formerMarcos' cronies andmilitary henchmen (including notorious tortur?
ers), have re-surfaced todayholding powerful governmentposts. There has
been a trend since the early 1990s, in thePhilippines, of framing ^political
prisoners for crimes likehighway robberyandmurder. This too has made it
more difficultfororganizations likeAmnesty International to campaign on
theirbehalf because political prisoners are re-classifiedas common criminals,
charged for crimes theydid not commit.
Likewise, arguesVan Ness (p. 6), theUnited States is not coming clean
about itshuman rights record.Despite itsrevolutionarytradition,thefact that
ithelped to co-author theDeclaration ofHuman Rights, and itsprovision of
political asylum topeople escaping persecution, theUnited States historically
committed genocide againstAmerican Indian populations, promoted Black
slavery, aggressively colonized thePhilippines, and continues to intervenein
other less dominant countries by allowing thecovert and illicit activities of
itsCentral IntelligenceAgency.
Beneath the surface,a powerful globalizing force is surgingup from be?
low of grassrootspeoples' movements supportedby non-governmentorgani?
zations and organic intellectualswho monitor and reporton human rights
abuses. These researchworkers from below are engaging in independent
analyses and policy debate on the implementationof theUnited Nation's
Human Rights standards.At times they serve as human shields for civilian
populations, as instancedby theNew Peoples' Army in thePhilippineswhen
it came to protect the farmersof barangay Looc inBatangas who had been
intimidated (and threefarmersmurdered) by paramilitary guards of corrupt

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY

politicians and development agentswho were bent on forcing the farmersoff

their land, so thata golf course could be constructed there(Schradie andDe
Vries 2000; forotherkillings related to land conversion, as well as theforced
ejection of 904 farmfamiliesfrom theirlands, inCebu Province see Bersales
1997: 3-5,29-30, 32).
These movements from below are grounded on a growing economic dis?
parity between therich and poor and on the absence of real participatory
economic and political power among themajority of people. They include
environmentalmovements and ecumenical justice and peace movements that
concern women's issues, men's issues, children's issues, sustainable devel?

opment, universal literacy,and liberationof thepoor and oppressed. They all

share a common perspective that is critical of the dominantmodernization
paradigm and counterpoise itwith an alternative bottom-up development
paradigm that (1) identifiesthe interdependentrelationshipbetween culture
and nature, and (2) innovates a theoryof participatory economics through
practice. An example of alternative development is a basic ecclesial commu?

nity of Cebuano farmerswho have decided to develop organic agriculture

based on local resources (Nadeau 1999: 79-82). Movements like thisorganic
farmersmovement, coming frombelow, work to eradicate illiteracy inways
thataremeaningful topeople, forexample, by reading scriptureand applying
lessonsfrom theBible to real situations in theirdaily lives.They are building
networks locally and internationally,and in theprocess theyare helping to
develop an alternative forum forhuman rightsmade up of citizens of the
world.
In short,the contemporaryhuman rightsdebate is a debate over the issue
of how state apparatuses actually perform theirduties and responsibilities as
sovereign states inprovisioning citizenswith theirindividual and collective
social, economic, and cultural rights.Many (including the authors in the
edited collection by Van Ness 1999; see also Bauer and Bell 1999) have
suggested that ifwe look closely atwhat contemporary governments do in
practice we can see thatmost, ifnot all, states (Myanmar, China, Indonesia,
the Philippines and so on) are actually human rights abusers. Indeed, if
human rights are to be cross-culturally and universally applicable, should
theynot be conceptually dynamic and growing, open to debate, and incorpo?
rating culturally-sensitivenotions? Do not human rights entail by definition
duties and responsibilities thatwe have forone another?Modern declarations
on human rightswere not thefirstdocuments on universal rights.Almost all
world religions have such declarations. Even the ancientChinese conception
of themiddle kingdom as consistingof "a multiplicity of states"united on the

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REVIEW ARTICLE 361

basis of an unwritten contract grounded on virtuous behavior entailed such

a notion of responsible stewardship.Moreover, theWestern concept of
human rights thataccounts only for individual civil and political rights is
based on the false premise of colonial (masculine) prowess and control over
other cultures and societies,worldwide. That is, it is based on the fallacious
notion that Western economic modernization, and the forces ofworld capi?
talism and globalisation, offer the best model formore just and bountiful
societies, at least better than themore inclusive circularnotions of histories
of societies thatare culturally in-tunewith nature, such as those envisioned
in ancient Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist epics (of just kings and bountiful
kingdoms) andworldwide indigenous sacred traditions.Such ancient cultures
and societieswere not primitiveformsas depicted byWestern history; rather,
theymade conscious and deliberate choices to co-exist in amutually interde?
pendentmatrix with nature. Such alternativeconceptions of rightsthatentail
a notion of responsible stewardship areworthy of equal consideration.

ENDNOTE

^he Philippines signed the covenant on civil and political rights on December 19,
1966, and ratified the covenant on February 28, 1986, which took effect on January 23,
1987. It signed the covenant on economic, social, and cultural rightson December 19, 1966,
and ratified this covenant onMay 17, 1974, which entered into force on January 3, 1976.

REFERENCES CITED

Aziz, Nikhil
1999 "The Human Rights Debate in an Era ofGlobalization: Hegemony ofDis?
course;" inVan Ness, Peter (ed.), Debating Human Rights: Critical Es?
saysfrom theUnited States and Asia, pp. 32-55. London and New York:
Routledge.

Bauer, Joanne and Daniel Bell (eds.)

1999 Tlie East Asian Challenge for Human Rights. London: Cambridge Univer?
sityPress.

Bersales, Jose Eleazar R.

1997 "Death and Dislocation on theRoad toConversion." Investigative Study
Series 2. Cebu City: Barefoot Media Initiative, Inc.

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362 PHILIPPINEQUARTERLY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY

Feng, Zhu
1999 "Human Rights Problems and Current Sino-American Relations;" inVan
Ness, Peter (ed.), Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from the
United States and Asia, pp. 232-254. London and New York: Routledge.

Forrester, Duncan
1997 Christian Justice and Public Policy. London: Cambridge University
Press.

Ishay,Micheline
1997 The Human Rights Reader: Major Political Essays, Speeches, and Docu?
mentsfrom theBible to thePresent. London and New York: Routledge.

McCoy, Alfred
1999 "Dark Legacy: Human Rights Under theMarcos Regime." Unpublished
paper presented atAteneo deManila University.

Muzaffar, Chandra
1999 "From Human Rights toHuman Dignity;" inVan Ness, Peter (ed.), De?
bating Human Rights: Critical Essays from theUnited States and Asia,
pp. 25-31. London and New York: Routledge.

Nadeau, Kathy
1999 "A Basic Ecclesial Community inCebu," Philippine Studies 47(1): 77-99.

Nadeau, Kathleen
fc. "Countering Social Justice and Environmental
Development Aggression:
Rights Movements in thePhilippines." To appear inKasarinlan: A Phil?
ippine Quarterly of Third World Studies.

Schradie, Jen andMatt DeVries, (directors)

2000 The Golf War (a film documentary at <www.golfwar.org>). San Fran?
cisco: <www.bullfrogfilms.com>.

Van Ness, Peter (ed.)

1999a Debating Human Rights: Critical Essays from theUnited States and Asia.
London and New York: Routledge.

1996 "Introduction" and "Conclusion" inVan Ness, Peter (ed.), Debating Hu?
man Rights: Critical Essays from theUnited States and Asia, pp. 1-24 and
278-281, respectively. London and New York: Routledge.

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.151 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 09:01:38 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions