The Rights Bearing Subject \;in Early Modern European Rights Discourses &ndash\; Class\, Gender\, and\nColonialism
\nThis is the concluding symposium\nin a series of four\, organized by Human Rights Studies at Lund University\, exploring\nhuman rights in history. Financial support by Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Bank\nof Sweden Tercentenary Foundation). Enquiries to: Lena Halldenius\n(lena.halldenius@mrs.lu.se)
\nWhen and where? Tuesday 24 January 2012. Venue:\nSOL-centrum\, room L403 (Centre for Languages and Literature\, room L403)
\n\nProgramme
\n10.15 Lena Halldenius\,\nLund University. Welcome and introduction
\n\;
\n10.30-11.30 Gunlö\;g Fur\, Linnaeus University
\nWho is Human? The Problem of Early Modern Encounters\nwith American Indians
\nThe European\nencounter with the New World at the end of the fifteenth century forced\nscholars and theologians to grapple with ideas of human origins and what\nconstituted humanity. In this position paper I argue that this encounter\nprofoundly influenced European arguments on universal rights and also on\ndefinitions of civilization. Conversely\, as a consequence of encounters\nindigenous peoples chose another path\, that of developing arguments for\nseparate rights. Universal claims\, however well intentioned\, force multiplicity\ninto one hierarchy. In response to such claims indigenous peoples found\nthemselves in a position where their only recourse was to respond with claims\nof specificity and of difference. Such arguments spun their way into judicial\,\nreligious\, and secular discourse on both sides of the Atlantic.
\n\;
\nCoffee
\n\;
\n11.45-12.45 Madeline C.\nZilfi\, University of Maryland\,\nCollege Park
\nOttoman\nReformism and the Rise of Public Man
\nDiscusses the transformation of public sector employ in the Ottoman\nEmpire from slavish servility to a model of rights-bearing officialdom. An\nexplicit discourse of rights emerged in the Ottoman Middle East in the early\nnineteenth century\, but its empowering reach was limited at the start by the\nconceptualization of rights in terms of freedoms from rather than freedoms to.\nNotwithstanding that blinkered framing\, administrative and military officers as\nof the late 1820s were for the first time able to enjoy a career in public\nservice without fear of property confiscation or arbitrary execution for some\nroyally perceived failing\; both of these punishments owed their questionable\nlegitimacy not to shari&rsquo\;ah law but to the ruler&rsquo\;s unchecked will.
\n12.45-14.00\nLunch
\n\;
\n14.00-15.00 Ilse Paakkinen\,\nUniversity of Helsinki
\nThe Rights and Humanity of Women in Christine de\nPizan&rsquo\;s Thought
\nIn this\npaper I will discuss the rights of women in Christine de Pizan&rsquo\;s (1365 &ndash\; ca.\n1430) thought. I shall attest that Christine&rsquo\;s defence of women&rsquo\;s rights is\ncomparable to the early development of natural rights thought. The paper will\ndivide in four sections. Firstly\, I will briefly explain gender and humanity\naccording to Christine as well as her idea of the mutability of gender.\nSecondly\, I will discuss Christine&rsquo\;s conception of law\, namely divine\, natural\nand written law. Thirdly\, I will discuss women&rsquo\;s rights both on a conceptual\nand pragmatic level. Finally\, I will compare Christine&rsquo\;s argumentation to that\nof the early natural rights theorists\, such as Jean Gerson.
\nCoffee
\n15.15-16.15 Lena Halldenius\, Lund University
\nSlaves\,\nLabourers and other Things Owned. On Rights and Property in Mary\nWollstonecraft&rsquo\;s Feminism
\nMy aim here is to understand the role and function of\nproperty in Mary Wollstonecraft&rsquo\;s feminist politics. Property figures\nsignificantly in almost all of Wollstonecraft&rsquo\;s writings. She makes free use of\nthe terminology of natural rights. It signals her political allegiances and\nalso provides her with a recognizable language for expressing certain things\nabout morality. Still\, there is no indication that she accepted property as a\npart of the natural rights of man. I hope to make the point that property for\nWollstonecraft is a political fact\, not a natural right\, and that its fair\ndissemination is a political duty for the sake of the natural right to equal\nliberty. This requires an assessment of two things: first\, property in relation\nto the person\; second\, the nature of nature\, if you will\, or\, less\nextravagantly\, the relation between what is natural and what is artificial.\nWith that in place I will try to show that a radical critique of property is a\ndefining feature of Wollstonecraft&rsquo\;s feminism.
\n\;
\nConcluding reflections
\nSupported by Riksbankens\nJubileumsfond
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Lena Halldenius: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR