The Translingual Practice of Human Rights: Value Tyranny and Overlapping Consensus of Cultures

MENG Qingtao

I. The value tyranny of the universality of Western human rights discourse.

From the perspective of history, human rights discourse originating in the West is first of all a kind of special discourse, rather than universal words. “Human rights discourse is a language of rights, which is a language of Western culture. Therefore, in terms of concept, there is no concept of ‘human rights’ in traditional Confucianism, not even the concept of ‘rights’. In this sense, the concept ‘human rights’ is a product of typical Western culture, although it appeared in modern times and it was the outcome of the development of civil society and democracy.”1 Marked by unique Western color, human rights discourse originated from the special Western economic, political, historical and cultural background and has its unique consciousness of problems and practical direction. For example, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens of France and the Declaration of Independence of the United States have interpreted the concept of human rights with clear political intentions. Although discourse on Western human rights is in the first place special, it has been described by discourse advocates as universal. The Declaration of Independence believes in the name of God that the proposed “social contract” is a “self-evident” truth, which is a significant example of the universality of human rights it has understood.

An undeniable fact is that the initial spread of Western human rights discourse was accompanied by colonial activity. With the establishment of Western dominance around the world, human rights discourse experienced the transition and expansion from locality to universality. The process of “de-Westernization” in which human rights were transformed from Western discourse to a global one, is in fact the process of carrying out value tyranny by Western human rights discourse. Based on the fact that leading Western powers dominate the international community, under the expression of universality of human rights discourse, the specific criteria for human rights are actually formulated by the subjects of human rights discourse. Therefore, in the process of human rights being raised to a universal concept, the negation and violation of universality toward particularity, and globality toward locality of human rights discourse are implicit, thus Western-originated human rights discourse constitutes the domination of non-Western human rights discourse in the disguise of universality.

II. Overlapping cultural consensus on the universality of human rights discourse.

All ideas recognized as universal have translingual experience from the perspective of language. The process of human rights discourse rising from locality to universality will inevitably experience translingual practice. However, in the translingual practice of human rights discourse, the discourse of Western human rights was confronted by the resistance, acceptance and reinterpretation of different cultures, which in fact have partially digested and decomposed the value tyranny of Western human rights discourse. In this process, “commensurability” has made it possible for different cultures to understand and communicate with each other on Western human rights discourse, and it is on the basis of commensurability that the universality of human rights discourse has been built. For example, “human rights” was first translated by Ding Weiliang as “the natural rights of common people.” “Ding’s approach was to find a common ground between Chinese traditional values and Christian values to make readers understand the significance of translation.”2 The commensurability he found between Chinese and Christian cultures is “methods” and “natural rights.”Obviously, Ding has grafted the concept “nature” in the Neoconfucianism of the Song and Ming dynasties onto the word “natural” in English, leading to the separation from their respective cultural contexts of the two terms. It means that the universalism of modern international law cannot be realized within the Western law traditions by itself, neither can it be realized within China’s knowledge traditions alone. It needs to develop a more extensive and universal space. Based on the close relationship between the Western concept of “human rights” when it was originally spread to China and “international law,” we can also believe that the universalism of modern “human rights” has deviated from the Western and Chinese cultural contexts to a certain extent. At the same time, based on the circulation of languages, the corresponding relationship of the same concept will become incoherent in different languages. The same English term “human rights” was usually translated in later Chinese publications as “tianfurenquan.” “This is not appropriate, since the Chinese term means ‘natural and human rights’ (or heavenly endowed human rights) in English, which is clearly a repetition. It can only be translated into ‘natural rights’.” However, the concept of nature is complicated in Chinese language, therefore, the explanation of “human rights” in Chinese will in fact sinicize its meaning.

The actual result of the translingual practice of “human rights” from the West to China is that “human rights” discourse has been admitted by China, and the universality of “human rights” has been realized. From the perspective of language, this realization appears to be the establishment of a corresponding relationship between “human rights” in English and “renquan” in Chinese, but deeply it is the overlapping consensus of the meanings of the two terms in different cultural contexts. Language is not a simple communication tool, and symbols of language are a kind of cultural code; therefore, the exchange, communication and collisions of different languages are in fact the communication between different cultures. Human rights discourse has been generally recognized, which is the result of overlapping consensus among different cultures. The so-called overlapping consensus refers to the understanding of human rights discourse, which means concerned parties have reached a consensus on commensurability while reserving recognition of noncommensurability in different cultural contexts. Therefore, the universality of human rights is actually based on different cultures “seeking common ground while reserving differences.” From the perspective of thinking, it is common for people to think their own theories are universal. However, the existence of overlapping consensus has broken the barriers of absolute value and provided the possibility for human rights dialogue among different cultures. From the modern perspective, it is a fundamental feature of modern society that value transforms from absolutism to relativism. Cultural relativism, which is the recognition of all cultural localities, is also a recognition of the reality of culture diversity. Cultural diversity constitutes the basis for the formation of cultural exchange and overlapping consensus, and tolerance is a rational attitude in the reality of cultural diversity.]

III. The construction of the universality of human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics.

The basic idea of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects the characteristic of overlapping consensus among different cultures. It is in the text of the human rights declaration with universal pioneering significance that the value tyranny of Western human rights discourse has been surpassed: “Human rights is no longer based on God or natural law, but based on the consensus of human civilization and morality. It goes beyond the abstract human rights theory of natural rights and the regional human rights theory of fundamental rights and establishes the human rights theory of global moral consensus.”3 Zhang Pengchun explains the basic meaning of human rights with the traditional Confucian idea of “Benevolence,” making important contributions toward the truly universal significance of human rights.

Today, China has achieved a great deal in human rights practice. From its own historical development, China has scored unique achievements in human rights. Even in comparison with all developing countries, China comes out in front in terms of human rights achievements. In the current world system, although developing countries are in the majority, developed countries dominate human rights discourse. The human rights discourse of developing countries is not in the state of aphasia; however, it sends out only a faint voice. At least in terms of China, human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics that can fully illustrate and interpret China’s human rights practices is in the process of formation, and a universal system of human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics has not been established. China has made progress in the practice of human rights under the guidance of Marxist theory, which at least indicates that the Marxist theory of human rights has strong vitality and practical instructive significance. We may draw the basic conclusion from the reality of China’s situation: The system of human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics is not simply created conceptually, but is constructed under the guidance of Marxist human rights theory, and through a study of a great number of cases and by means of the correct description and sorting out of China’s human rights practices, based on a summary of China’s human rights development. As a country undergoing rapid modernization, China has demonstrated to most countries in the transition to modernization that the system of human rights discourse with Chinese characteristics has the importance of certain universality.

“Human rights movements should primarily aim to make all organizations and individuals recognize in theory and concept that human rights is a universal value ideal beyond cultural concreteness, instead of focusing too much on the specific behaviors, in that violations of human rights can never be completely eliminated in any country.”4 Only on the basis of mutual understanding and respect can overlapping consensus of human rights ideas be reached and the universality of human rights be expected.

(The author is associate professor and assistant director of the Center for Human Rights Education and Research, Southwest University of Political Science and Law)

1.Chen Lai: Confucian Ethics and “Human Rights’ Value”, Journal of Peking University (Philosophy And Social Sciences Edition), 1998 (5), pp. 59.
2.2. Liu He (US), The Imperial Discourse Politics: The Formation of the Modern World Order from the Perspective of Modern China-Western Conflicts, translated by Yang Lihua, Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2009, p. 176.
3.3. Ju Chengwei: “Contribution of Confucian Thought Toward the Global New Human Rights Theory -- Proceeding from the Contribution of Zhang Pengchun Toward the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Global Law Review, 2011 (1), p. 142.
4.4. Chen Lai: “Confucian Ethics and “Human Rights Value,” Journal of Peking University (Philosophy And Social Sciences Edition) 1998 (5), p. 59.