Wronging Rights? Re-evaluating the Alternatives
In Chapter Seven, Slavoj Žižek seemingly sets out with more force than any other critic in this book the essential distillation of all of their various critiques of human rights:
But then he continues:
The other ‘half’ of ‘the story’ is that which is laid out with great astuteness by the co-editor of this volume, Alex Cistelecan, in the introductory chapter: ‘Which Critique of Human Rights? Evaluating the Postcolonial and Post-Althusserian Alternatives.’ Here, in the concluding chapter, my aim will be to take issue with Cistelecan’s evaluation of these two alternatives, fi rst by re-evaluating them through a process of revaluating the alleged two halves of the story, and then, subsequently, by devaluating the ‘story’ itself. In this respect, whereas Cistelecan tends to side with the post-Althusserians presented in Part Three of this book, I attempt to justify herein a preference for the positions represented by the postcolonialists in Part One. In the course of this rereading of the alternatives, I will also be led to invert Cistelecan’s assessment of the positions of the authors in Part Two; whereas he identifi es
certain currents of the thought of Richard Rorty (Chapter Five) with the postcolonialists, I provide several reasons for the exact opposite judgement.