If God were a human rights activist
With respect to this text by Saussa Santos (2014) it could be mentioned that he determines a new ideology that has been prevailing in the world, an ideology that defends the idea of the world as a great market, in which all the dimensions of thelife, either socially as collectively, that is, how they are negotiated, giving great value, which marks its price. In a way, the author uses the conceptualization of sociologicus to determine the human being today, because it qualifies it as a neoliberal act, in which any decision made by the human being will depend on it, but when leaving the planetary marketIt will no longer be his decision. When author refers to this new ideology that has emerged over time, he mentions that it varies in its impact depending on the point of the planet or the region where we are, that is, that its force is based on the pre-formative value, it would not really be in its content. By which he mentions in his introduction, the fundamental lines of the rest of the work, that this ideology of autonomy and possessive individualism today opposes two normative policies, unequally in different regions of the planet, which seek to act globally, which, whichwould be human rights and political theologies. Therefore, the author postulates the fundamental lines of his work, and shows what really is the meaning of the title that these political theologies put in the idea of human rights by linking God with human rights.
First, the author makes a deep analysis of human rights by associating them with a fragile hegemony, pointing out that today it is impossible to question the global hegemony of human rights as a discourse of human dignity, since it is inThat precise moment the author makes a reflection, according to my opinion I consider very assertive, since he mentions that against what we all think, at present the vast majority of the population is not considered the subject of human rights,but rather the object of discourses on those human rights, because with this the author makes me reflect, since it shows the true will of today’s society, by the hand of power, to achieve human rights. Continuing with the author, he asks the next question, is the hegemony that the human rights discourse enjoy the result of a defeated historical victory enjoy today? In which, he mentions Ernst Bloch, who postulates that the search for a conception of human rights has to begin with a hermeneutics of suspicion regarding human rights, in the same way that they are understood and defended, they also postulateThat by the fact that human rights are based on laws have a double genealogy in our contemporary western world, since this genealogy is divided in a certain way into two groups: the first is metropolitan societies, the second is the revolutionary. It must be presented that both the American revolution and the French Revolution produced in the name of the Law of Rights. The author points out that the concept of human rights, as is known today, focuses on three illusions, which is necessary to keep them present in order to build a conception against hegemonic of human rights, mainly when we must focusIn other conceptions of human dignity, and of the practices that are carried out in their defense, these are;Theological illusion, triumphalism, decontextualization and monolithism.
The author also mentions political theologies, because these puts them in relation to globalization. Therefore, it has begun with a distinction between the concepts of hegemonics, against hegemonic and non -hegemonic, since it addresses the solution to the religious issue in the western world, reflecting religious conflicts in Europe, according toWith the author, an unprecedented solution was reached, of the religious issue;On the one hand, Christian values were universal, on the other hand, institutional Christianity banished. The author mentions that this western solution of the religious issue until today is being a fabric of judgment by the rise of religion in public life in different parts of the world. I consider that the author reaches a conclusion emphasizing hegemonic human rights fragility, does not only reside in the fact that they give weak answers, to strong questions. The author emphasizes that hegemonic human rights have not taken the true importance of many questions. By which the fight for a human rights policy against hegemonic must begin with that recognition of which it is spoken, since once it has occurred, new possibilities between hegemonic policies, human rights policies and human rights policies andProgressive political theologies.
Leave feedback