Abstract
This article argues that continued structural inequality in South Africa should give us pause to reflect on the efficacy of the country's rights discourse. It is not so much concerned with the ineffective application of rights (particularly socio-economic rights) as with the actual nature of the rights. My argument is pursued as follows: The notion of 'right' as we have it today is rooted in the same paradigm that fosters commodification; this lends rights an inherent indeterminacy and they are deployed not only to challenge hegemonic interests, but to defend them as well. This indeterminacy is also tied to the fact that rights are really preferences that cultivate particular types of subjectivity. Such recognition of the nature of rights will generate, I believe, a more sober view of its potential to correct society's iniquities.
Highlights
South Africa has been held up as the first state that is the virtual product of post-World War II’s ‘Age of Rights’
I argue that the indeterminacy of human rights – the fact that, after all is said and done, we construe as a right whatever we want to construe as a right – means that, elementally, the human rights discourse relies on the same logic that sustains the types of activity that may reinforce conditions of structural inequality
The article has pursued the following train of thought: Human rights discourse partakes of the same paradigm that supports commodification. This lends this discourse an indeterminate character and, as such, it can be used to both challenge and protect hegemonic interests. This indeterminacy is rooted in the fact that human rights are, when all is said and done, essentially preferences; preferences are underwritten by a way of seeing the world – a vision of the good life – and so in its statist articulation cultivates a particular type of subjectivity amongst the citizenry
Summary
This article argues that continued structural inequality in South Africa should give us pause to reflect on the efficacy of the country’s rights discourse. My argument is pursued as follows: The notion of ‘right’ as we have it today is rooted in the same paradigm that fosters commodification; this lends rights an inherent indeterminacy and they are deployed to challenge hegemonic interests, but to defend them as well. This indeterminacy is tied to the fact that rights are really preferences that cultivate particular types of subjectivity. Such recognition of the nature of rights will generate, I believe, a more sober view of its potential to correct society’s iniquities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
