I spent the past many hours transcribing Michael Horowitz's talk on human rights at this past February's Veritas Forum. I want it backed up somewhere, which is why I'm posting it.
I think Horowitz's talk really accentuates the ambiguity I feel about human rights activism. On the one hand, it's great to have people like him forming coalitions and working for causes to better the world. But on the other hand, I cringe every time he gets to the meta level and makes general statements about religion and politics and history. I've spent the past two years learning how to situate arguments within appropriate contexts and to deconstruct problematic arguments, and Horowitz's premises (and it appeared his worldview as well) consist of red light flashing, siren sounding unqualified assumptions that often lead to negative ramifications even in the face of improvements resulting from human rights or humanitarian actions.
I'm still ambiguous about advocacy groups. It's not that I think the solution lies in locking ourselves in the ivory tower to dissect the validity of one form of intervention over another—that does nothing when what the Admnistration listens to are not studies by scholars in academia, but by think tank big shots. But to dive head-first into human rights activism like a bull dog ... I don't know, Horowitz's perspective is too American-centric and too "modern, civilized West" minded for me.
( Michael Horowitz transcript (long) )
I think Horowitz's talk really accentuates the ambiguity I feel about human rights activism. On the one hand, it's great to have people like him forming coalitions and working for causes to better the world. But on the other hand, I cringe every time he gets to the meta level and makes general statements about religion and politics and history. I've spent the past two years learning how to situate arguments within appropriate contexts and to deconstruct problematic arguments, and Horowitz's premises (and it appeared his worldview as well) consist of red light flashing, siren sounding unqualified assumptions that often lead to negative ramifications even in the face of improvements resulting from human rights or humanitarian actions.
I'm still ambiguous about advocacy groups. It's not that I think the solution lies in locking ourselves in the ivory tower to dissect the validity of one form of intervention over another—that does nothing when what the Admnistration listens to are not studies by scholars in academia, but by think tank big shots. But to dive head-first into human rights activism like a bull dog ... I don't know, Horowitz's perspective is too American-centric and too "modern, civilized West" minded for me.
( Michael Horowitz transcript (long) )