Humane right pespective III

In the Posthumanism of Rosi Braidotti., in a sense she says that "human" has not been a neutral term. But her position here is based on these  things: 

1) Being human is a contested field, there has never been a consensus on what being human is, 

1A) modernity lead to the creation of universal declaration of human rights, but men got the rights, women, blacks, jews, etc did not get the human rights in her mind. She goes on to say that during the French Revolution Olympe de Gouges wrote a universal declaration of women's rights, and pretty immediately she was sent to the guillotine and killed for this act. 

2) Because of above, she claims that notions of human contain relationships that contain power, inclusion, and exclusion.

"The point in common to all poststructuralist philosophies is that ethics is not confired to the realm of rights, distributive justice, or the law. It rather bears close links with the notions of political agency, freedom, and the management of power and power relations. Issues of responsibility are dealt with in terms of alterity or the relationsihps to others, as processes of intensive becoming. This implies accountability, situatedness, and the composition of common planes of active collaborative ethical conduct. A Deleuzaian position, therefore, far from thinking that a liberal individual definition of the subject is the necessary precondition for ehtics, argues that liberal at present hinders the development of new modes of ethical behaviour. (pg. 173)"

She further states more on what various a nomadic ethics (and I should state, that if a person attempts to understand nomadic ethics by looking at actual nomadic cultures, you can be misled, also like if one attempts to understand a Rhizome by looking at a root of Ginger or Tumeric) compared to the traditional ethics entrenched in Liberal humanistic traditions.

"It is simply no the case that the emphasis Deleuze places on the positivity of desire cancels or denies the tensions of conflicting interests. It merely displaces the grounds on which the negotiations take place from an individual to a transversal collectively constituted relational subject. The namadic view of ethics takes place within a monistic ontology that sees subjects as modes of individuation within a common flow of zoe [technical term that she uses against Agamben's "bare life" because zoe is a creative force that constructs possible futures, and it is based on the greek term where we get zoo from]. 

Consequently there is no self-other distinction in the traditional mode, but variations of intensities, assemblages set by affinities and complex synchronizations. This breaks the expectation of mutual repricity that is central to liveral individualism. Accepting the impossibility of mutual recognition and replacing it with one of mutual specification and mutual codepencdence is what is at stake in nomadic ethics of sustainability. This is against both the moral philosophy of rights and the humanistic tradition of making the anthropocentric Other into the privileged site and inescapable horizon of Otherness. (pg 180-181)"

The reason it is a cartography is that she is influenced by her mentors Gilles Deleuze and Michael Foucault, and pointing out the kind of Archive or Episteme that we be used to track "now" and building a map of all the things occurring in the field currently. 

The presentation is about all that one can do during a lecture, but it shines a light on a quirk occurring right now in that human never has been neutral or inclusionary, and that in a sense, we are in realizing (again) the limits of the human. 

In Deleuze's book on Baruch Spinoza -- Spinoza: Practical Philosophy -- he comes up with an interesting idea behind Spinoza's Ethics. That quirk is, in Spinoza's mind, Ethics is an Ethology. Spinoza has an ethics of power that is completely distinct from Virtue Ethics, Deontology, or Utilitarianism. This is partly due to Spinoza's metaphysics, and it is that Spinoza erects an ontology that is not mainly oppositional. Braidotti is a student of Gilles Deleuze and Michael Foucault, but she is also a NeoSpinozist. Baruch Spinoza was viewed by Deleuze the Prince of Philosophers. So, in the argument against human rights, we have to understand the continental tradition that follows Spinoza.

From here  

"We are rethinking the parameters of our humanity. We are at a stage of criticism of anthropocentrism, of the idea of a central species that controls all the others. Post-human is not a great concept. I personally don’t like it, but at the moment we don’t have a better one to designate all the research and experiments being carried out at universities and cultural centres that focus on new ways of thinking about what we are becoming. 

We have developed fascinating new possibilities, such as, for example, genetic manipulation, but our values, our representations, and our ways of understanding are still linked to ancient concepts of the human being.

 We have to be brave and discuss together, in a democratic and critical way, what we want to become. What we are capable of becoming."

"The idea of becoming is essential. We need to open up the meaning of the identity concept towards relations with a multiplicity, with others. Through opposition to the idea of identity as something completely closed, already formed, and static. We are subjects under construction, we are always becoming something." (similar to 4pt Fourth Political theory's conception of becoming or a-temporal)

Here are some of Braidotti's Lectures. Realize that they are lectures and that the depth is limited based on her time for exposition. Basically, they are lectures that tell you to do research and not judge them as they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CewnVzOg5w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6PLJqtDp6Q&t=214s

On a related noted, human rights" are presumably entitlements that people have merely in virtue of being human. As a consequence, they're presumably universal in scope (i.e. all humans have them) and natural (i.e. people have them prior to political institutions).One might press against either of these claims.