Thinking about the idea of “rights”, I find that I feel it is all talk around defining a social contract for people living together, and that it is useful. For a man alone in the wilderness, it is all nonsense. So I guess I am mostly a utilitarian. A foundational agreement regarding rights is imperative, but where I think we are getting into trouble today in documenting them, is too many words. I agree with Montmorency when he asked that “the declaration be clear, simple, and precise; that it be within the reach of those who would be least able to comprehend it.” (Hunt, Doc. 13) If an article says, “All men are born and remain free…” (Hunt, Doc. 14, Article 1), we can discuss the meanings of the individual words like “men”, and create laws to make them binding, but I think it is counterproductive to pad the wording of the article itself or to have a laboriously long list. Meanings get convoluted and lost. I completely agree with Lafayette’s assertions regarding people’s rights and that they be stated “in truth and precision” (Hunt, Doc. 11, emphasis added by author). The majority of the people in a society are minimally educated and their rights should be defined in such a way that everyone understands. Ideas gain power as they are more widely known and understood, and they are more easily transmitted if the words have the power of simplicity.
T.H. Marshall’s progression of three kinds of rights (civil, political, social) makes sense on first consideration, because in a society that is evolving and becoming more complicated, people want to expand the definitions as they expand their understanding of humanity and highly functional society. But really, it is nothing new. Abbé Raynal used the term “liberty” in the same way. “Natural liberty, civil liberty, and political liberty: that is to say, the liberty of the individual, the liberty of the citizen, and the liberty of a nation.” (Hunt, Doc. 6) Clearly Marshall had read Raynal, and surely Raynal was only reiterating what was discussed in his circles. Marshall’s rights document when the claimed rights were accepted by the culture (civil rights 18th c, political rights 19th c, social rights 20th c), but these had been discussed during the French Revolution. The “Petition of Women” asks that women have a right to access education and fair employment (Hunt, Doc. 9). Condorcet calls slavery a crime (Hunt, Doc. 7). Democratic self-governance was supported by Robespierre. “All citizens, whoever they are, have the right to aspire to all levels of officeholding.” (Hunt, Doc. 17) So you can see that the full breadth of rights and liberties was under discussion, some ideas just did not reach their tipping-point of acceptability until much later.
I have been an expat for four years now, living in France for three and now Canada. There are subtle differences in the language used in each county’s declaration, and they are evidenced in distinct cultural differences after hundreds of years. Just briefly, for example, the US prioritizes personal expression and individuality, as epitomized by “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. It is proof to me of the power of words.
Bibliography
Hunt, Lynn. The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History. Boston: Bedford of St. Martin's, 1996. Print.
"Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript." National Archives and Records Administration. Web. 09 Feb. 2012. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.
Hi Lisa. I enjoyed reading your post. I wanted to discuss your first paragraph because I think you bring up some excellent points in it. The main issue you discuss is why documents that concern rights should be simple, precise, and not terribly long. As you say, “A foundational agreement regarding rights is imperative, but where I think we are getting into trouble today in documenting them, is too many words.” I agree, and I wish all such documents could be clear and accessible enough that the general population could easily understand them. However, I think that unfortunately length sometimes cannot be avoided because detail requires length.
ReplyDeleteSince this module was about the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, I would like to use the Declaration as an example. Compared to similar documents, such as the American Constitution, the Declaration is surprisingly short (the original, unamended Constitution has 4543 words).(1) Thus, I would conclude that the Declaration is relatively more concise and more accessible. However, the issue with the Declaration was all that was left unsaid. Amendment 1 states, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.”(2) At first glance, this seems easily understandable, but upon further inspection, what exactly does ‘men’ mean? Humans in general? What about slaves? What about women? What about freedmen of color? Obviously, the Declaration created gray areas that would need to be defined by future generations. In sum, I am not sure how “rights” documents can avoid confusion unless they are longer and thus more complex.
Footnotes:
1)“U.S. Constitution Online”, http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a5.html (accessed 17 Feb. 2012).
2)Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 77.