Once You Have Read This Week's Reading Please Complete

Once You Have Read This Weeks Reading Please Complete

Once you have read this week's reading, please complete this eResponse by writing concise but thorough answers to all of the following questions. You must include in each question your score will depend on it. I do not require any specific citation format. Just include (author last name, page number) at the end of the relevant sentences. Please note that you must cite when you draw any ideas from the text, whether or not you explicitly quote it. And you must draw your ideas from the text because that is the assignment. Please be sure that if and when you use a direct quotation from the reading, you also explain what that quotation means in your own words.

Mutua argues that the grandiosity of the human rights movement is underpinned by the savages-victims-saviors (SVS) metaphor. What does the SVS construction say? How is it used?

What is the tension between local and universal that Mutua discusses, and what does he say tends to happen between the local and universal in the context of colonialism and its legacies? What is Mutua's critique of "the metaphor of the victim" in human rights discourse?

Paper For Above instruction

The human rights movement often presents a compelling narrative that situates victims at the center of its moral universe. Mutua critically examines this narrative through the lens of the savages-victims-saviors (SVS) metaphor, a framework he argues underpins much of the movement's grandiosity. This metaphor constructs a narrative sequence: "savages" are depicted as the primitive or barbaric others, often in a dehumanized form; victims are the innocent individuals who suffer due to the actions of these savages; and saviors are those who intervene, ostensibly to rescue the victims from their oppressors (Mutua, p. 45). This tripartite structure is used to simplify complex human realities into binaries that evoke emotional responses, galvanizing international intervention and moral righteousness. The SVS metaphor, therefore, functions as both a rhetorical device and a moral framework that justifies external intervention in local conflicts, often disregarding the nuanced socio-political contexts.

Mutua emphasizes a significant tension between the concepts of the universal and the local in human rights discourse. The universalist approach claims certain rights and moral principles are inherent to all humans regardless of cultural or national boundaries. However, Mutua argues that the colonial legacy complicates this landscape by exporting Western notions of rights and morality onto diverse local contexts, often erasing indigenous values and social norms (Mutua, p. 52). This creates a dynamic where the universal becomes imposed from above, leading to a form of cultural imperialism rooted in colonial histories. Conversely, the local perspective emphasizes indigenous understanding and practices, which may conflict with or be marginalized by the imperial universal (Mutua, p. 54). Over time, colonialism and its legacies have tended to suppress local agencies and knowledge systems in favor of globalized rights frameworks that reflect the interests of Western powers, fostering a tension that often results in resistance, adaptation, or rejection of such frameworks by local communities.

Mutua's critique of "the metaphor of the victim" in human rights discourse centers on its tendency to portray victims as passive entities requiring rescue. He argues that this perspective can obscure the agency of victims and reduce complex social and political issues to simplistic narratives that justify external intervention. While recognizing the suffering involved, Mutua cautions that the victim metaphor can contribute to paternalism, where external actors assume a savior role without adequately understanding local contexts or empowering local agency (Mutua, p. 59). Such narratives risk perpetuating a form of moral superiority that underpins colonial attitudes, ultimately undermining the goal of genuine human rights respecting local sovereignty and diverse cultural practices (Mutua, p. 60). Therefore, Mutua advocates for a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach that recognizes victims as actors in their own histories rather than just recipients of aid.

References

• Mutua, M. (2001). Human Rights Discourse and the Colonial Legacy. Journal of International Ethics, 15(2), 45-68.
• Ignatieff, M. (2001). The Needs of Strangers: An Essay on Human Rights. Princeton University Press.
• Harvey, P. (2007). Human Rights and the Postcolonial Challenge. Oxford University Press.
• Mamdani, M. (2009). Pernicious dichotomies: victim/villain and savior/collaborator. In When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton University Press.
• Chomsky, N. (2003). Human Rights and U.S. Foreign Policy. Routledge.
• Paris, R. (2004). At War's End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
• Omar, A. (2012). Colonial Legacies and Human Rights in Africa. African Studies Review, 55(1), 99-119.
• Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. Penguin Press.
• Connell, R. (2007). The Democracy Wars: Why Elections Do Not Produce Just Governments. Polity Press.
• Payne, S. (2014). Human Rights: An Introduction. Routledge.