Book Review: Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (3rd Ed) by Jack Donnelly

Sumayyah Siddiqui

Professor Cocozzelli

Senior Seminar

30 March 2017

Book Review:

Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice

            In the third edition of his book, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice, Jack Donnelly discusses and defines the concept of universal human rights, as it is a widely debated topic in the realm of international politics. The crux of his argument lay in his assertion that human rights is a concept that is not exclusive to specific nations or states; instead, it is quite possible to conceptualize human rights as a universal right, that can be implemented globally.

            The book is divided into five parts, all of which work together to heighten Donnelly’s argument. In the first section, Donnelly creates a conceptual framework of human rights by examining what they are and how they are defined. Donnelly then points out the problem with the philosophical foundations of human rights theories, and introduces the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a model for human rights, arguing that “states have near-exclusive responsibility to implement them for their own nationals” (Donnelly 2013, 28). In doing so, Donnelly associates human rights with Western liberalism, arguing that “a particular type of liberalism provides a strong and attractive normative foundation for the Universal Declaration Model,” thus arguing that this kind of liberalism upholds this system of human rights the best (Donnelly 2013, 65). In part two of the book, Donnelly discusses the relativity and universality of human rights, and distinguishes between the two. He argues here that it is not important whether human rights are relative or universal, but rather what makes them particularly relative or universal. In one chapter, Donnelly specifically focuses on the cultural relativity of human rights, taking a firm stance against cultural relativist arguments, asserting that “culture does not provide a plausible justification for the practice of human rights” (Donnelly 2013, 107). Furthermore, Donnelly claims that there is no inherent connection between Western liberal societies and the practice of human rights.  

            In part three of the book, Donnelly discusses human rights and human dignity, briefly discussing the historical practice of human dignity in societies such as Confucian China and Hindu South Asia. Part four takes a look at human rights and international action, devoting chapters to international human rights regimes and human rights and foreign policy. Here, Donnelly analyzes international regimes through a realist perspective, arguing that global human rights are not fully implemented because “a strong global human rights regime simply does not reflect the perceived interests of a group of states willing and able to supply it,” (Donnelly 2013, 170). At the same time, however, Donnelly rejects this argument – claiming that national interest should not be defined in terms of power when it comes to human rights, but rather in terms of national interests, or what is best for a states’ people. Thus, this assertion is quite interesting – human rights is not just a moral concern for a states, but can also be in the national interest as an “intrinsic interest in living in a more just world fully justifies including international human rights in a country’s definition of its national interest” (Donnelly 2013, 197). The last section of the book focuses on contemporary issues within the realm of human rights, taking the theories discussed and putting them into practice in the modern day realm. Donnelly discusses economic and social rights in the West, humanitarian intervention against genocide, as well as non-discrimination against minorities—all modern day facets of human rights struggles today.

            Donnelly’s argument essentially lays in his rejection of cultural relativism, and assertion that culture is not relevant to the establishment of human rights and practices. He does this through various examples of different states throughout history and different cultures. Donnelly’s argument, in my opinion has merit, however his argument gets very convoluted at times, and a bit dense. The use of historical examples serves to strengthen his arguments, and does put the theories he proposes into practice. Donnelly’s book, I believe, is important to the realm of political science because it offers some insight into every day human rights violations and international law. With respect to my own thesis, Donnelly has pushed me towards a more institutionalist point of view – I too, in my paper will reject this idea of cultural relativity with regards to human right violations in Syria – the oppression and violence committed by the Assad regime isn’t a result of Middle-Eastern and Islamic culture, as there is no cultural relevance (as Donnelly argues). Rather, the violence is used as a method of exerting control over the population, and creating a perception of a strong, authoritarian regime.

References

1. Donnelly, Jack. 2013. Universal human rights in theory and practice. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3138459.

Book Review of Iranians in Texas: Migration, Politics, and Ethnic Identity

Richard Mayer

Dr. Cocozzelli

GOV 4993

March 23, 2017

Iranians in Texas: Migration, Politics, and Ethnic Identity

Iranians in Texas: Migration, Politics, and Ethnic Identity was written by Mohsen M. Mobasher and did a great job of examining all of the components listed in the title. In the 161 pages of detail, Mobasher explains why Iranians have moved from their native country, their general perceptions of the American people and country, and their overall assimilation. Before discussing the text, I want to present the author’s argument. On page 21, Mobasher writes, “…I argue that post revolutionary political forces in Iran and the sociopolitical conditions and discriminatory immigration laws after the hostage crisis not only created a set of unforeseen problems for Iranian immigrant families but also played crucial roles in slowing the family’s reconstruction, transforming its structure, and disintegrating it in exile.” The author conducts his research with participant observation. Mainly by conducting personal interviews with Iranians in Texas, whether they were over the phone or face to face. He focused on personal narratives of a large subject pool in order to gain a better understanding of the problems and circumstances the diaspora community was facing. A main focus of the book is the assimilation of Iranians in the United States and the problems they face in attempting to adjust to the Western lifestyle.

A point is made at the beginning of the text sets the tone for the rest of the book, that influence from an Iranian’s home country and new country must always be accounted for. The author thinks that political changes that took place in Iran were the main driving force pushing people out of the country. Mobasher notes that the most impactful events were the 1953 CIA coup d’état, the 1978-79 revolution, the hostage crisis of 1979, and the terrorist attacks from September 11, 2001. When the hostages were taken in 1979, President Carter drastically shifted the American people’s perception of Iranians. It was at this point where Iranians would begin to be referred to as, “extremists,” and, “terrorists,” and receive an overall negative public image. To make matters worse, he implemented a crackdown on Iranians, including requirement of registration of location and visa status with the Immigration and Naturalization Service Office (INS). “Furthermore, all Iranian assets in the United States were frozen, tighter restrictions on visas for Iranians were implemented, all visas issued to Iranians in the United States were revoked, and as many as 6,906 students were subject to deportation” (Mobasher 2012, 4). And this was the beginning of the anti-Islamic sentiments that Iranians in America began to feel. This was a bit paradoxical, as many of the Iranians in America had fled the same enemy in Iran, whether it was for religious, economic, social, or other personal reasons. Many of the Iranians in America were opposed to new government in Iran, but they were treated as if they were also anti-West.

These public opinions began to take their toll on the Iranian population in the United States. They began doing whatever they could to attempt to disassociate with the country and the newly instituted national religion of Islam. Iranian nationals initially attempted to stray away with the other Iranians in the country by denouncing the religion and even denying their national identity. Mobasher details several personal narratives from people he interviewed, some samples explained that they would associate with other middle eastern countries, or other countries from their ethnic background, to avoid the prejudice and discrimination that would come with being labeled as an Iranian. There is a common phenomenon in which Iranians began to call themselves Persians, because they felt they connect with Persian values more than with the newly revitalized Islamic values of Iran. Mobasher cites M. Ansari’s field observation by saying, “…because of all the negative characterizations, many school-aged Iranians asked their parents to buy them green contact lenses so they would look like non-Iranians” (Mobasher 2012, 56). People also take more advanced steps, like plastic surgery, to make their image more, “white.” One of the biggest complaints that Mobasher derives from his research is that there is no solidarity between Iranians in the United States. There is no single voice, and many Iranians have become cynical and distrusting of each other. In fact, on page 83 Mobasher writes that Texas Iranians feel that Iranians in Los Angeles are, “… more crooked, phony, thick-headed, shallow, superficial, wealthy, assimilated and Americanized.” With the disconnect between their own people and their new country, it is extremely difficult for Iranians to enhance their quality of life, even though they are already among the most well educated and wealthy groups in the country.

Mobasher thinks that one of the biggest reasons that Iranians seem to be torn between the old Iranian social structure and the western configuration found in the United States is because of women. In Iran, men are responsible for the women because they have a very limited social roll, but that is not the case in America. With concepts like premarital sex and divorce being extremely frowned upon in their home countries, but less polarizing in the United States, women are exercising their freedoms more than usual. I agree with this completely. Similar to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, it would be hard for women to assimilate to their traditional roll of Islam once they have been subjected to the freedoms that have formerly been forbidden. This new exercise of power downplays the roll of the man, and leads some men to not want to fully assimilate, in fear of losing their influence.

The author did a very good job of supporting his argument of why the Iranians have fled their country and also in exploring the various problems that they are met with in the United States when it comes to social acceptance. The book is beneficial for the political science field and should be read by people outside of the community because it examines problems that Iranians face on a day-to-day basis. If more people read this book, I feel that most of the negative stigmas and perceptions of Iranians would be resolved. Before reading the book, I felt that the argument would be sound, however, the supplemental data that Mobasher provides makes the argument strong. This book has provided me with an excellent background for Iranians in the United States in regard to their social setting as well as the reasons that they left their country in the first place. I especially enjoyed segments of chapters one, four, and five, as they contained life stories of immigrants from Iran. Of course reading data is beneficial from an academic standpoint, but reading a narrative of a real person was not only helpful in understanding the person’s circumstances, but also made the content of the book more enjoyable than the average political science text. The author provides readers with a great amount of both quantitative and qualitative data that I will use in my own research about what drove people out of Iran. I suspect that that Cuban rationale for fleeing the country will be quite similar to that of Iranians. I also think that personal interviews are a great way of conducting this research, as some of the concepts would be extremely difficult to find from text. This is a method that I would like to implement for my own research this semester. Mobasher actually mentions the similarities of Iran and Cuba in the introduction, so I am now reassured that my topic will be one of actual comparison and academic interest. I have a semi-large sample pool of Cubans that I may reach out to, as I am first generation Cuban and my grandparents still have contact with Cuba but also belong to the Cuban Club, in Connecticut. As noted, I feel that personal stories are beneficial for readers and I think it would be beneficial to incorporate a small amount of them into my own work, to make the content more tangible.

References

·      Ansari, M. (1988). Iranian Immigrants in the United States: A Case of Dual Marginality. New York: Associated Faculty Press.

·      Mobasher, Mohsen M. (2012). Iranians in Texas: Migration, Politics, and Ethnic Identity. Austin: University Of Texas Press.