Neoliberalism and Production of Subjectivity MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Neoliberalism and Production of Subjectivity. Answer: Introduction All the human beings are entitled to the basic rights and freedom. These rights are called human rights and include the political, civil rights, and right to life, right to liberty and equality before law and economics, freedom of expression, social and cultural rights and the right to education (Fein, 2015). The human rights in all countries are meant to follow equally and it applies to everyone irrespective of religion, race, abilities and nationality (Donnelly, 2013). However, there is an intense debate related to the lack of consensus on what should or should not be declared a human right. The essay deals with the sociology of human rights. The paper highlights the development of the sociological human rights discourse in the 20th century. Using different sociological perspectives the paper discusses the role of human rights in society. Further, the paper outlines the views of rights of Durkheim, Marx and Weber. The paper further indicates the contributions of the classical socio logist to contemporary sociological inquiry of human rights. In this context the paper also outlines the debate between Turner and Waters, Sjobergs interpretation of human rights and Luhmanns conceptional framework of human rights. Sociological enquiry has neglected that human rights form a complex moral and social issue. In terms of empirical research there is a little attention paid to the human rights by the sociologists. The theoretical underpinnings have also been neglected and instead the sociologists have focused more on the issues related to the human rights, such as genocide. In various studies by the classical sociologists the ideas of universal rights were not favoured (OByrne, 2012). The growing interest in sociology of the human rights is due to the recent changes in the nation state, globalisation, social changes with regards to the family life and technological innovations. These changes have put human rights on political and the social agendas (Woodiwiss, 2009). Some sociologists have focused on rights with scepticism and on the other hand some of them have rejected the foundational theories underlying the human rights. However, the contributions of classical sociologists such as Max Weber, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim to the human right have great value for contemporary discussions (Royce, 2015). Therefore, the paper aims to briefly discuss the contribution of Marx, Durkheim and Weber to the sociology of rights. Durkheim was a traditionalist social thinker and a defender of human right. In his studies the idea of the universal rights were prominently critiqued. He considered human rights as inalienable. According to him, these rights are external constraints on individual. His interpretations lead to greater focus on social facts as thing. (Seidman, 2016) His conclusions from the study of social facts and study on how social life generates collective consciousness resulted in treatment of the rights, norms and laws as factors that eliminate the aspect of social justice from the causal explanations (Royce, 2015). Durkheim studies showed his efforts to overcome the effects of increased individualism. His views helped people to consider human rights as possible source of human cohesion in the modern society. In this context, it can be considered that human rights are those given by the society and it should not be considered a social issue. He contributed to the debates of rights by raising questions related to the fundamental rights and the nature of the public support for such system. He questioned the rights as source of social cohesion and criticised the role of the state in protecting such rights. The approach of Durkheim further contributed to the debate of right by questioning the public support in accepting diversity and if it is possible for liberal freedoms to live together with other culture of thoughts (Durkheim, 2014). Webers ideas were addition to the increase in debate of human rights as he criticised the idea of natural rights. According to him between different conflicting interests rights and laws are nothing but the products of compromises. These arguments paved a way for developing a sociological approach to human rights. He believed in rationality of law and declined the religious justifications, professional training, systematisation, and codification (Weber, 2009). He was in favour of social scientific work that is value free, which means free of all values. Turner interpreted these ideas as the rejection of normative foundation of law as Weber emphasised that political and social foundation should not be judged (Andreski, 2013). In various studies conducted by Weber on bureaucracy, it was found to be related to the human rights. As per these studies bureaucracy can separate the subjective rights of individuals from the objective legal order. Other studies of Weber on class, party, status and the process of social culture can be applied to the administration of citizen rights. His primary concerns were related to competition for scarce resources, domination, legitimation, and authority of state. His interpretations separates the rights from metaphysical identity. According to Turner, the interpretations of Weber upholds the doctrine of might is right (Sager Rosser, 2009). Marxs view was different from that of Durkheim and Weber. According to Marx human rights are social entities and considered it as mere epiphenomena for social relations. He emphasised that the rights of man defines the bound of the social life. He understands that the rights as canonizing individualism (Peffer, 2014). He believed that human rights have originated from a definite social order. In the service of the homo economicus the notion of human rights were developed by Marx (Read, 2009). According to him humans are only concerned with the self interest. Therefore, he viewed that the rights to equality and security based on selfish and egoistic motto as these rights help people fulfil their needs through exchange of property. He also criticised that the right to liberty is the right to freely enjoy and dispose own property without letting others to enjoy (Giddens, 2013). On this context Marx viewed human rights as moral and legalframework for fair exchange of labour power for wag es. In short Marx linked the human rights with the capitalist mode of production (Andreski, 2013). Therefore, Marx view was different from Weber and Durkheim as he did not view human rights as value free model for the social sciences. Instead, Marx considered that human rights cannot be separated from the role it plays in bourgeois society. He criticised rights as bourgeois. His work led to insistence that rights cause conflict between an individuals alienation as human beings and property owners (Donnelly, 2013). Marx believed that the rights are basis of law, mortality and politics. He criticised human rights but it was not restricted to charges of inconsistency, cynicism and hypocrisy (Meyer et al., 2010). Contemporary sociological interpretation of human rights Various scholars have pioneered the field of contemporary sociology and human rights. The momentum was gained due to intense debate between Malcolm Waters and Bryan Turner. The former explained the birth of the human rights and its operation on specific place and time. On the other hand, Bryan Turner was focused towards constructing the moral appeal of human rights (Nash, 2009). Turner like Durkheim considered human rights as inalienable or natural. Labelled as foundationalist, he presented a sociological version of these rights, which he believed to be the source of justice. He presented his theories in his work outline of a theory of human rights (Turner, 1993). His interpretations regard human rights as social claims, which are not rationalised or grounded by any theory, instead meant to offer protection to human frailty. It means in his interpretation, rights are gateway to institutionalised protection (Wolfsteller, 2017). Therefore, he focused on sociological inquiry to analyse the human rights and inherent human fraility, the theory of moral sympathy and risky nature of the social institutions. Therefore, the universal frailty of human can ameliorate the vulnerability of the human through rights or social claims. Thus, in his philosophical anthropology, human rights are a need and its legitimacy transcends the state. Various moral communities coming up are mainly oriented towards the support of others in crisis. It is this collective sympathy that support the institutionalised protection given by the rights (Ramcharan, 2015). According to Malcolm Waters it is the responsibility of the sociologists to explaining the social construction of human rights (Waters, 1996). He believed that sociologists should explain how the human right institutions originated. He perceived that it is the task of sociologists to explain the variation in the historical and the social factors while creating the human rights. He did not emphasise on the universal experiences rather focused on special interest. Malcolm highlighted the key interest that led to the birth of the human rights. It includes the stigmatisation of the defeated nation by the victors of Second World War. The human rights thus eliminated this penalty. Cold War too had its own power as it led to undermining each Human interested those who aimed at legitimizing their interventions in foreign state. Lastly, human rights were in great interest among the disadvantaged members of the society. It is this cumulative motivation from different members of the society tha t drove the moral force of the human rights. Waters defence of social construction against foundationalism: According to Water, the universality of human rights is a human construction. The right is an institution, which is specific to particular historic and cultural context. On the other hand, Turner viewed Human rights social claims for institutionalised protection and relate it to corporate frailty. However, Water did not consider it to be related to frailty. Instead he treated rights as social claims of political and universal nature. It can be said that Waters social constructionist proposition express human rights as product of particular configuration of interests and values (Levy Sznaider, 2014). According to Turner, Waters proposition do not offer theory of human rights and it can be said that positivism offers no solution. Sjobergs interpretation of human rights Sjoberg interpreted that human rights are meant to advance the dignity of human beings. These are claims made by persons in diverse social and cultural systems upon organized power relationships (Levy Sznaider, 2014). According to Sjoberg, human rights offer protection against the corporate power. It is the tool to render the abuses of transnational powerless. He interpreted that human right are tools to reform contemporary nation state. According to him the human rights agenda will be difficult to implement (Young, 2003). According to Sjoberg, there is a danger to defining the human rights so broadly which is losing focus on issues related to basic necessities of human wellbeing. However, the human rights regime has its potential. If successfully institutionalized, it has the potential to provide a standard for containing the power of organizations, broaden the process of participation among the nation states. It also has the potential to reduce the social and economic inequalities pervading the world scene (Sjoberg et al., 2001). His interpretations highlight that implementing the human rights agenda increases the need of restructuring of organizations to resolve the current social problems. Understanding the human rights on global scale will be possible if abstract rights are applied to the concrete social situations. In his study, A sociology of human rights, Sjoberg advanced the reasons for the centrality of human rights and articulated the theoretical framework for understanding the human rights. According to him, the human right discourse assumes that human beings are viewed from the inclusionary standpoint (Woodiwiss, 2009). His findings regard the human right principles as strategic tool to resolve the ethnic and racial cleavages. By adopting these principles, it may be possible to resolve the differences between the contentious ethnic and racial group. He also criticised the growth of transnational organizations such as NGOs as they are not the part of the economy or the state. These organisations are carriers of particular human rights ideals. His framework eliminates the traditional moral categories while discussing the human rights. He interprets that states would be the sole source of human rights violation in future (Young, 2003). Luhmanns conceptional framework of human rights Niklas Luhmann was a German system theorist. He put forward the idea that human rights may be globally secured. He made a clear distinction between the rights of equality and fundamental freedoms (Valentinov, 2014). He developed the conceptual framework of human right. His work showed that human rights existed as central society due to various social processes. His findings showed that the human rights and fundamental freedoms led to dominant structure of the modern society. As per his interpretations, there are various functional differentiations in the modern world society, which led to the development of the human rights (Frezzo, 2014). Unlike, Turner he emphasised that both society and human are in need of institutionalised protection as both are vulnerable. As per Luhmann, human rights have societal functions. He regarded the fundamental rights as multifunctional institutions. He concluded in his studies that the human rights prevent dominance of one segment of the society on th e other (Luhmann Albrow, 2013). Hence, this prevents regression and sets limitations on the political system. Human rights thus protect the structure of the society and institutionalises specific mechanism to ensure that stability and protection of the individual is maintained. It means that the difference in different functional subsystem in society is maintiened by giving equal and inalienable rights to all the human beings (Luhmann Albrow, 2013). His system theory provided a ground for genuinely sociological theory of human rights. His theoretical framework helped in analysing the issues of human rights. Conclusion In conclusion, the paper provided the ideas and views of different sociologists in respect to human rights. From Weberian point of view reducing rights was merely to claim privileges by the social groups contribute to competition. As per Marxs interpretation it will only act as medium of class rule which expresses a possessive, individualistic and egoistic society. This reduction according to Durkheim led to sociologys separation from natural right. The paper has outlined the debate between Turner and Waters. The sociology of the human rights also gave the viewpoint of the sociology of law and treatment in the field of human rights. It can be said that the sociology of human rights is not based on well developed expertise. However, the central themes detected based on the influential programmatic statements includes the sociological tradition, institutionalised human rights, the boundaries of sociology as practice. The paper has further outlines the Sjobergs interpretation of human r ights and Luhmanns conceptional framework of human rights. In conclusion, the review of the sociology of human right raises question on objectives of sociology. Sociology is a useful way to analyse the human rights violation, which are as much the global reality. In this context it can be said that sociology has valuable potential and there is an urgent need to recognise this potential than ever before. References Andreski, S. (2013). Max Weber on capitalism, bureaucracy and religion (Vol. 4). Routledge. Donnelly, J. (2013).Universal human rights in theory and practice. Cornell University Press. Durkheim, E. (2014). The division of labor in society. Simon and Schuster. Eagleton, T. (2011). Why Marx was right. Yale University Press. Fein, H. (2015).Human rights and wrongs: slavery, terror, genocide. Routledge. Frezzo, M. (2014). The Sociology of Human Rights. John Wiley Sons. Giddens, A. (2013). Politics, sociology and social theory: encounters with classical and contemporary social thought. John Wiley Sons. Klein, J. T. (2015). Reprint of Discourses of transdisciplinarity: Looking back to the future. Futures, 65, 10-16. Levy, D., Sznaider, N. (2014). Remembering a sociology of Human Rights. Culture History Digital Journal, 3(2), 013. Luhmann, N., Albrow, M. (2013). A sociological theory of law. Routledge. Luhmann, N., Albrow, M. (2013). A sociological theory of law. Routledge. Meyer, J. W., Bromley, P., Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Human rights in social science textbooks: Cross-national analyses, 19702008. Sociology of Education, 83(2), 111-134. Nash, K. (2009). Contemporary Political Sociology: globalization, politics and power. John Wiley Sons. OByrne, D. (2012). On the sociology of human rights: theorising the language-structure of rights. Sociology, 46(5), 829-843. Peffer, R. G. (2014). Marxism, morality, and social justice. Princeton University Press. Ramcharan, B. G. (2015). Contemporary Human Rights Ideas: Rethinking theory and practice. Routledge. Read, J. (2009). A genealogy of homo-economicus: Neoliberalism and the production of subjectivity. Foucault studies, 25-36. Royce, E. (2015). Classical Social Theory and Modern Society: Marx, Durkheim, Weber. Rowman Littlefield. Sager, F., Rosser, C. (2009). Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of modern bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1136-1147. Seidman, S. (2016). Contested knowledge: Social theory today. John Wiley Sons. Sjoberg, G., Gill, E. A., Williams, N. (2001). A sociology of human rights. Social Problems, 48(1), 11-47. Turner, B. S. (1993). Outline of a theory of human rights. Sociology, 27(3), 489-512. Valentinov, V. (2014). The complexitysustainability trade?off in Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 14-22. Waters, M. (1996). Human rights and the universalisation of interests: Towards a social constructionist approach. Sociology, 30(3), 593-600. Weber, M. (2009). From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge. Wolfsteller, R. (2017). The institutionalisation of human rights reconceived: the human rights state as a sociological ideal type. The International Journal of Human Rights, 21(3), 230-251. Woodiwiss, A. (2009). Taking the sociology of human rights seriously. Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science Perspectives, 47, 104. Young, T. R. (2003). The sociology of human rights. Humanity society, 27(3), 295-312.