The Right to Everything - and Nothing

Toward the 'universal and homogeneous state'

The juridical system proposed by Kojève is…explicitly hegemonic. It permits no remainder of custom or justice external to the system of right it proposes. It is universalist and final or, at the very least, points to a final system of regulation in the universal and homogeneous state. Hence, the system of right that undergrids this state will…be almost a sort of surrogate ‘instinct’ or ‘program’ regulating all individuals completely and finally.

Jeff Love, The Black Circle: A Life of Alexandre Kojève (2018)

Stop me if I’m wrong, but we all get the feeling, I think, that we are hurtling down a highway at a rapidly accelerating speed. But where does that highway lead? What is it that we are hurtling towards?

For clues, it is helpful to keep an eye on what is being discussed at the United Nations, whose officials are not accountable to electorates, and who therefore do not have to even pay lip service to the exigencies of domestic politics. Their interest is purely in the internal politics of the organisation which they work for: pleasing not electorates, but the ‘selectorates’ on whom they rely to keep themselves gainfully employed (and, crucially, funded). Their statements are therefore highly indicative with respect to the ideology which imbues what we might call the global governance set.

And it is important to make clear that it is an ideology; these people are true believers. They are not conspirators - they are (though they would obviously not describe themselves with this word) disciples. They present their ideology as perfectly sensible and reasonable, and indeed to them it undoubtedly seems that way. In their heads it is not an ideology at all, but merely the product of a decent education, good heart, and pure mind. But when examined in detail, it is revealed in all of its strange extremism. It is an ideology that it is appropriate to label a variant of liberalism, in that it presents the central task of government as being indeed to ‘liberate’. But this is a form of liberation that paradoxically involves the total control of state over society: the micromanagement of each and every interaction performed by each and every individual with anybody and everybody else.

The good news is that this nightmarish vision can never achieve full implementation. The bad news is that we are on a trajectory towards it all the same - and a huge amount of damage will be done before the madness clears. We are not, in other words, heading towards a collision with a wall, but we are going to have to keep our fingers crossed that the vehicle on which we are riding maintains its physical integrity for long enough to get back to a cruising speed and change course.

Let me, then, take you through the recent ‘vision statement’ of Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, offered at the culmination of the UN human rights apparatus’s year-long celebration of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Türk is a consummate insider - if he ever had a job outside of the UN I can find no information about it anywhere (though I suppose it’s conceivable he once had a paper round) - and is great mates with the UN Secretary-General himself, Antonio Guterres. You couldn’t, in other words, find a better exemplar of what I earlier called the global governance set. And in this statement, delivered precisely to his ‘selectorate’ of diplomats, UN rentiers and sinecurists, and NGOs (no ordinary person will come within a ten foot pole’s length of reading it) he is providing the perfect insight into the ideology to which I am referring.

Written in that pecular species of awkward, bland global English which is the new lingua franca within the circles in question, Human Rights: A Path for Solutions purports to ‘renew our commitment to human rights’. This is on the one hand an almost millenarian message. The UDHR, we are told, ushered in ‘a new era of progress towards human dignity and agency for all’. It confirmed to us that it is ‘through respect for human rights [that?] we craft a better future for “our human family”.’ And what we need is to re-discover that message of hope: to ‘embrace and trust the full power of human rights as the path to the world we want: more peaceful, equal and sustainable.’ This is because we face a ‘precarious moment’:

When the Declaration will reach its centenary, our world will be in so many ways unrecognizable. Reshaped by megatrends, more unknown unknowns and intensifying complexity. Two paths open up. One of enlightened cooperation and solidarity, stable and seeking balance with our natural world. The other, unmistakably dystopian.

I hope you will agree with me that Turk is no great prose stylist. It may seem unfair to pick on him for this, given that English is not his first language, but it illustrates the importance of the point I earlier made - this is not a document which is intended to be read by the hoi polloi, so there was little point in finessing it or even having it properly proofread. But the message is in any case I suppose clear enough: we have two options. We can be enlightened - that is, we can ‘embrace and trust the full power of human rights’. Or we can face ruin.

What, then, as Immanuel Kant might ask, is enlightenment? Well, it means ‘affirm[ing] human rights as protection’ but also understanding them as a ‘propulsive force’, which will unlock ‘fresh ideas and tools’:

For governments, human rights offer a comprehensive, long-term, problem-solving formula – a blueprint for effective governance. Transcending ideologies and divisions, they open up space for productive cooperation. For individuals, rights are a moral and legal anchor for their aspirations to a life in dignity and justice, a profound acknowledgment of their equality and a source of hope. For youth, in particular, they offer reassurance that the social contract can be reimagined for their futures.

Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Human rights, it seems, can indeed solve all of our problems, as the title of the statement suggests:

Human rights must be at the centre of rebalancing our economies so they start working for all people and for the planet. Human rights can also free us from the impasse on addressing the triple planetary crisis [this is the latest buzz-phrase to express concern about the environment] and equip us to manage successfully the technology revolution. We must, at long last, act on their blueprint for ending cycles of bloodshed.

Rebalancing economies so they work for all people and ‘the planet’. Ending crises and helping manage the technological revolution. Ending bloodshed. What more could one wish for? Human rights can do it all - if only we would believe.

This is, as you will appreciate, almost a spiritual message, though in actual spiritual terms it is a house of cards, having no philosophical foundation or theological glue beyond an insistence that it would be terribly nice if everybody was nice to each other and the environment, and had nice things. Where, then, is the beef? How will this utopia, in the eyes of Türk, find its realisation?

Well, we get quite a laundry list. First, there is supposed to be an almost total mobilisation of society. We have to ‘construct alliances between civil society and States on key human rights goals’, with ‘civil society organisations, environmentalists, economists, tech experts, scientists, academics, artists, philosophers, religious leaders, city officials, policymakers, philanthropists and many more’ being enlisted into the fray. ‘Everyone’, we are told ‘must have a say in shaping priorities and action’. The ‘availability of human rights education is critical, empowering individuals’; we need ‘the whole of society’ engaged. To achieve this, we need propaganda by another name:

We must keep working on framing new narratives with widespread resonance, making tools for effective action more accessible, and identifying novel platforms and messengers. The worlds of art, culture and sport hold enormous potential here…

And while it is recognised that suppression of freedom of expression, association and so on are bad, these things must be bolstered too by vigorous centralised action, so as to ‘encourag[e] positive engagement by States with human rights defenders’ and protect said human rights defenders, ‘including environmental activists’, from ‘all forms of intimidation and attack’.

Second, we then get a long, long litany of objectives. Since human rights provide a ‘path to sustainable peace’, we are told, what is needed is to ensure that the ‘human rights ecosystem in its fullness - UN, regional, civil society’ is ‘empowered’ to feed into ‘prevention processes’ by remedying the ‘inequalities’ and ‘grievances’ that can lead to violence. More than that: since gang violence and organised crime can only be solved by addressing the ‘root causes’, human rights must be mobilised to deal with ‘poverty, social and economic discrimination and corruption’. This segues into the advocacy of a ‘Human Rights Economy’, which will require ‘resolute action’ in order to overcome ‘mind-boggling inequalities’ and ‘grinding poverty’. This resolute action will reorient the economy away from ‘profit, the short term, and the interests of the few’ through, amongst other things, ‘participatory and inclusive budget-setting’, ‘optimising progressive tax policies’, ‘maximising official development assistance’, ‘debt relief’, ‘preventing illegal financial flows and corruption’, and ‘reframing the relationship between business and society’.

But it by no means stops there. Next, we are told (inevitably) that ‘environmental action, including on climate change, must be grounded in human rights’. Human rights must be mobilised for ‘global climate finance’ and can also help ensure that the transition to a low carbon economy is ‘just’, by ‘placing people at the core of all policy-making and programmes’. This will be informed, again, by human rights’ capacity to address ‘inequalities’ and ‘tackle unsustainable consumption’.

Next, we are told (also inevitably) that we must have ‘meaningful participation’, and that this again involves utilising human rights so as to ensure that the ‘marginalisation’ of ‘individuals and communities’ can no longer be allowed to ‘corrode our societies’. We need a ‘vibrant civic space’ which is not dominated by ‘hate speech and disinformation’ or ‘polarizing rhetoric’. We need to embrace ‘“more in common” narratives’ and develop ‘connection, community and solidarity’ while ‘rejecting the dehumanization of the “other”’. Freedom of expression and association as always get a name-check, but it is made clear that they can only be realised by ‘timely action by governments and companies to ensure an open, safe and inclusive digital space’. On top of this, for good measure, we must have ‘enlightened leadership on reparatory justice for the legacies of slavery and colonialism’, as well as an ‘international commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of environmental damage’.

I will stop there to pause for breath - I have not yet even got to the subjects of technology and science (‘A human rights approach requires inclusive and participatory processes which empower everyone affected by the roll-out of new tech – the online, the offline and the disconnected – to shape the digital environment’), youth and children (‘We must drive radical improvements in the enjoyment of human rights by children – in every aspect of their lives, from social protection through to the implications of the digital world… Capacity-building and support, including human rights education, are essential to empowering children and realizing their vision of a fairer, safer and happier world for all with human rights at the centre’), or strengthening [read: giving more money to] the UN human rights system itself (‘To enable my Office and the human rights system to work effectively, impartially and transparently, across all human rights…requires a significant strengthening progressively, in a predictable and sustainable manner, of our…budget resources’). You get the drift.

There is not a field of life, in other words, which human rights cannot in some way address - and nor, crucially, a field of life which does not require intervention by the state, working of course alongside and through ‘civil society’ groups and international organisations such as the UN itself and its various agencies. No problem cannot be resolved by giving the affected individual a right, and a corresponding duty on the state to realise it, whether directly or indirectly (through, for example, using the law to impose obligations on businesses or other individuals). The document ends with a revealing flourish:

Through putting trust in our shared values and in each other, we can resolve to curb our most damaging reflexes. Choosing, instead, to keep moving, with even more conviction and ambition, towards the goal of individuals, societies and a global community thriving in alignment with our deepest values. We must seed that better future now.

I hope you didn’t miss that: individuals, societies and a global community thriving in alignment with our deepest values. All of us thriving, yes, but more importantly, all of us in alignment with our deepest values.

That we might have different values is not entertained. Nor is the idea that treasured values might not perfectly align with one another and there may need to be trade-offs, or indeed that there may be misalignment between individuals, societies, and the global community. This is, then, a liberating vision - seeking to achieve ‘human dignity and agency for all’ - but, at the same time, utterly totalitarian. It seeks to unite humanity, but only around those ‘deep’ values which are shared. And the implication is that those who do not share in those values must be brought into alignment by hook or by crook - or, perhaps, excluded entirely.

Türk’s ‘vision statement’, then, in some respects posits human rights as the solution to any and all problems. Are you poor? We’ll remedy that with the right to development. Are you at war? The right to peace will deal with that. Marginalised? Rights to equality and participation. Hungry? Right to food. Disempowered? Right to human rights education. And so on and so forth: we all of us have rights to everything and that is how we will indeed in the end get everything that we could ever want or need - jam today, tomorrow, and forever. (Under the previous UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, the Office of the High Commissioner even used to call its ultimate end goal: ‘All human rights are achieved for all.’)

At the same time, however, the statement envisions - unintentionally, I think - the total administration and control, and hence really total ownership, of society and all of its resources on the part of the state. What one can say, think, or do is to always be overseen by, and mediated through, the state apparatus. This is because there is always and everywhere the danger that people might say, think or do things that are not held to be ‘in alignment with our deepest values’ by the people who get to decide what those values are. To allow this to happen would be to undermine the whole project and cause a hindrance to meeting the ultimate goal. Contrary speech, thoughts and actions must therefore be suppressed, excluded, or ‘educated’ out of people. It must be made impossible to fail to comply with the grand alignment with deepest values in which we are all being enlisted.

We will in other words all have rights to everything. But that obviously is tantamount to saying we will have rights to nothing. We will have rights, as long as the things that we have rights for, and the ways in which we intend to use them, are in accordance with what those in charge of defining the ‘deepest values’ decide to be in our interests. Regular readers will know that I am fond of citing, in this regard, Ronald Dworkin’s old observation that this is kind of thinking is equivalent to saying that we will not have any rights at all. A right is only a right if it can be exercised against what the authorities believe to be in the public interest. If one only has a right so long they can be exercised in ‘alignment with deepest values’, then all that one has a right to is whatever the authorities think those deepest values are and how best to achieve them. And that is not a right. It is in fact a duty: to do what one is supposed to do, and not to vary from it.

Türk’s vision, then, is, paradoxically, a recipe for perfect hegemony of thought and action. And it is as aptly described as imposing a system of duty as it is of rights. These will not be duties that have been freely chosen through a system of contract, nor of duties that are created by any theory of natural law - for example, the duties that are owed by family members. Nor will they be duties that arise in relationships of love, loyalty, community or shared interests. They will be duties which are dreamed up by those in power - that very same global governance set I mentioned - and simply handed down to us to obey or ‘align’ with.

The final result is something along the lines of what Alexandre Kojève (possibly simultaneously the most influential and least-read major thinker of the 20th century) was wont to call the ‘universal and homogeneous state’ - one in which each and every individual is perfectly equal, and hence in which everybody is for political purposes identical and where the only tolerable differences are cosmetic. I doubt very much that Volker Türk has read Kojève, but his vision of total mobilisation of society could only be realised in something like it: a complete subsumation of state and society such that the latter disappears, and all that remains are individuals, whose every interaction is carefully modulated so as to ensure that no outcome can disrupt the perfect equilibrium of equality - the perfect alignment of deepest values - that has been hitherto achieved. This bizarre and lurid fantasy (it says a lot about modern intellectuals that Kojève’s ideas ever caught on) purports to be liberating, but it would if realised of course be the most desperate and powerful of tyrannies. That Volker Türk, the man who, to quote the Guardian piece I linked to earlier, is ‘charged with protecting the world’s human rights’ unintentionally seems to be very much in favour of such a concept speaks volumes about the strange political situation that late modernity finds us in.

The good news, as I earlier said, is that the vision cannot be realised. Human societies are not perfectable, and the attempt to make them so will inevitably end in disaster. History has, if nothing else, taught us that much. Disaster will, then, luckily for us, come to our rescue long before anything like Türk’s ‘vision statement’ could ever come to fruition. It’s rather cold comfort, though, for disaster to be the only thing that we hope for in order to rescue us from our surreal predicament. We’re not going to get perfection - the universal and homogeneous state is (spoiler alert) a phantasm. But the global governance set, animated by their ideology of totalitarian hyper-liberalism, are going to try damned hard to realise it. And there are going to be an awful lot of broken eggs before they finally give up on making the omelette.