Important queries and questions asked. I would also further necessitate the questions whose rights and whose terrains. Because we delineate the word “rights/right” so homogeneously and so with discrimination that it becomes pretty ineffable even on its own trajectories. Also we do not understand equal distributions because by “right” we feel we need to make a victor and a loser — we must abscond the rights of another to be victorious in establishing the rights of someone or some group. There is always Either/Or and a Them/Us mentality at work. Should we always perceive things this way?
“The world,” writes Milan Kundera, “has become man’s right and everything in it has become a right.” Indeed! We do not say we want to love, but that we have a right to love. We do not say we want to be friends but that we have the right to friendship. We do not say we want to be happy with each other, but that we have an inalienable right to be happy. OK, good, is anyone going to be happy alone via their individual rights? Every verb, every call-to-action that requires a collectivity has been turned in to a static abstract noun that is caged in the discourse of individual rights.
But before rights, these claims and demands are about our needs and desires. Can we talk ever again about our vulnerabilities and necessities as matters of needs and desires—necessities that are not merely the demand of individuals but…
View original post 11 more words