The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History

by Samuel Moyn

Human rights offer a vision of international justice that today’s idealistic millions hold dear. Yet the very concept on which the movement is based became familiar only a few decades ago when it profoundly reshaped our hopes for an improved humanity. In this pioneering book, Samuel Moyn elevates that extraordinary transformation to center stage and asks what it reveals about the ideal’s troubled present and uncertain future.



For some, human rights stretch back to the dawn of Western civilization, the age of the American and French Revolutions, or the post–World War II moment when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was framed. Revisiting these episodes in a dramatic tour of humanity’s moral history, The Last Utopia shows that it was in the decade after 1968 that human rights began to make sense to broad communities of people as the proper cause of justice. Across eastern and western Europe, as well as throughout the United States and Latin America, human rights crystallized in a few short years as social activism and political rhetoric moved it from the hallways of the United Nations to the global forefront.



It was on the ruins of earlier political utopias, Moyn argues, that human rights achieved contemporary prominence. The morality of individual rights substituted for the soiled political dreams of revolutionary communism and nationalism as international law became an alternative to popular struggle and bloody violence. But as the ideal of human rights enters into rival political agendas, it requires more vigilance and scrutiny than when it became the watchword of our hopes.

Genres: History, Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Law, Grad School, Academic

352 pages, Hardcover

Published September 15, 2010

About the author

Samuel Moyn is professor of law and history at Harvard University. He is the author of The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History, and Christian Human Rights (2015), among other books, as well as editor of the journal Humanity. He also writes regularly for Foreign Affairs and The Nation.

Reviews

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Argues that human rights and humanitarianism have very different histories, and arose in very different contexts, and neither of them when or where or how people generally think they did. His contention is that there was no such thing as the human rights movement as we think of it today until the 1970s (he doesn't buy the "human rights have existed forever" thing, nor that it was created after WWII in response to the Holocaust-since there was very little consciousness of it at that time)- before that any notion of rights was very much tied up in notions of citizenship and the "rights of man," which in his view is a totally different movement. Especially given it's limits. There is no natural or inevitable progression from lists of rights to a commitment to stopping worldwide injustices. Humanitarianism as a movement was born completely bound up with imperialism, and did not necessarily denote any ideas about equality between people.

He believes that human rights is the "last utopia standing" (hence the title), which stepped in when all the other collective visions failed by the late 1960s. Human rights was the second-best version, a non-ideological, morally pure alternative that could go beyond the discredited communal vision to making a real difference.

I don't know that I entirely agree with his ideas about the disconnect between the rights of man and human rights, but I think it's a provocative argument and I think that if we're just talking about how the industry functionally works and goes about solving problems, then what he's saying makes sense. But as to the groundwork that allowed for human rights' appearance... I'm not sure. Still thinking about it.

[Mikey B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I did want to like this book; it is about the history of the development of human rights – specifically the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” made by the United Nations in 1948.

The author outlines how Human Rights went into hibernation immediately after its “Declaration”. Instead, what took precedence was self-determination in the form of the removal of colonial imperialistic ties. In some ways nationalism (self-determination) was linked to human rights – as in the right of nationality. It was only with the growing disenchantment with the Cold War and the end of the romance with communism in the 1970s that there was a growing realization that nationalistic self-determination of the new nation states did not mean the practice of human rights. As the title of the book suggests the utopia of communism/capitalism gave way to that of very basic human rights.

We are given an overview of how Amnesty International grew and how Jimmy Carter pushed human rights onto the world stage. Regardless of the problems of the U.S. being an advocate of human rights President Carter must be given credit for putting this moralistic platform onto the top of his agenda – Ronald Reagan was far more hypocritical of human rights. The author also tells us that Western European countries have increasingly espoused human rights over the years and made it a part of the European Community.

This book is written from a very lofty altitude with a lot of name-dropping of international philosopher lawyer types – and has very little concrete examples of what human rights have accomplished (or attempted to) over the years. He does not even bring up one Article or passages of the Declaration and discuss its implications and what they mean for developing countries. Dissidents in the Soviet Union are brought up and to a lesser extent Latin America – hardly anything on Africa, China, and the Middle East. The rights and the emancipation of women are not discussed at all – think of women in Afghanistan, Pakistan. The book hardly discusses anything after 1980 even though it was published in 2010 – I found this most perplexing and a letdown. The writing style ranges from the opaque (professorial) to being very repetitive – we are told over and over again that self-determination and sovereignty do not imply human rights. If this book were longer it would have been prohibitive.

[Candleflame23 · Rating 3 out of 5]

.
.
العنوان الفرعي للكتاب يوحي بوجود تتبع تاريخي لمسار "حقوق الإنسان " لكنه الحقيقة عكس ذلك وقد يكون البحث على الشبكة في هذا الموضوع أكثر فائدة مما جاء هنا. اذا اختصر الكاتب العناء على نفسه وقدم لنا هذا التاريخ المزعوم على هيئة نقاط معدودة عددها بداية من عام ١٩٤١ حتى عام ١٩٧٨.

الشيء الجميل في الكاتب هو اعتراف المؤلف بالعوائق السياسية التي منعت فكرة حقوق الإنسان من العمل بالشكل الذي كان ينادى به، ولست بحاجة لتفصيل هنا حتى تدرك أنت بنفسك حجم هذه العثرة فالأحداث الآخيرة والتصريحات الحديثة للمثلي هذه الجهة يعكس جزء من منهجها!

ملاحظة :
في النسخة المترجمة للعربية يحتل " الهامش" ثلث مساحة الكتاب.

ماذا بعد القراءة ؟

"حقوق الإنسان يتلاعب بها أهل الدعاية السياسية "-نعوم تشوميسكي



#أبجدية_فرح 3/5 🌷📚
‏#candleflame23bookreviews
#اليوتوبيا_الأخيرة #صمويل_موين
#مركز_دلائل
#غرد_بإقتباس
#حي_على_القراءة
#ماذا_تقرأ #ماذا_تقتبس #القراءة_حياة
#القراءة #القراءة_حياة_أخرى_نعيشها

[DoctorM · Rating 4 out of 5]

While the book does suffer from a lack of concrete examples of how human rights have been seen as different from civil or civic rights, Moyn makes a very interesting argument--- that "human rights" as a major cause arose only in the 1970s, that it arose as an "anti-politics" as faith in other great causes ("utopias") failed. Moyn argues that "human rights" arose as faith in Marxist socialism and decolonisation ebbed, that "human rights" became a cause that, by championing the integrity of the individual, avoid the traps of political power. He does explore the paradox of rights claims, that the right of the individual to protection against abuse by the state conflicted with the right to self-determination as established after 1945--- the idea that establishing states and governments was seen as a precondition to human rights, and yet served to allow governments to set up exactly the apparatuses that would suppress individual rights in the name of the ntion or its ideology. All in all, a thoughtful look at the way the events of the 1970s served to allow claims to individual rights over and against the state to emerge as a social cause.

[Brian Hilliker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Moyn presents a smart, eloquent, and deep explanation of the history of human rights. However, I disagreed with much of his analysis. Moyn outlines his thesis in two main points. Primarily, human rights as a universalist internationalism only came about on the world scene in the late 1970s with the rise of NGO's and global media coverage. Before this, human rights were administered/governed by states. The promotion of state sovereignty inevitably led to certain states becoming human rights violators who could not be restrained. Secondly, the universalist idea of human rights is the evolution of prior failed utopian dreams (anti-colonialism, communism, and over-reaching capitalism) and is the last utopia by which human's should pursue change on an individual/moral level rather than a collective/political one.

I agree with Moyn that our modern day interpretation of human rights forgoes the desire for state sovereignty and tears down the shrines of self-determination. However, I do not think that Moyn grasps the entire human rights picture. Christianity was able to promote universalist notions of human dignity apart from the state centuries before Amnesty International opened its doors. Other religions reinforced the idea of personal sanctification and civil disobedience (Buddhism, Hinduism). Moyn's argument is strong when he focuses on the secular evolution of human rights principles over the last few hundred years. However, this only works for secular models. Religious and secular motivations for human rights appear to work hydraulically (one rises when the other falls away), and Moyn fails to see the nuance of human rights being a religious field for most of human history.

Many religions could have actually been started as a medium to enshrine human dignity in the face of unbreakable totalitarian regimes. These points are never entertained heavily by Moyn; instead, he claims that Christianity and other monotheistic religions were too fractured to demonstrate a universal model for human dignity.

I do agree with Moyn's secondary point on the failures of past utopia's. Human kind desires perfection and the attainment of true peace. Communism and anti-colonialism were unable to provide perfection as each fell to demons of power and politics as totalitarian rulers fought for self-determination and legitimacy. Human rights is a modern day way to reach around the political processes hindering humanitarian assistance. In this, I believe Moyn is showcasing a depth of insight unseen in many other human rights thinkers.

Overall, Moyn made me think. He opened my mind to future possibility and demonstrated a depth of research and skill. For that I give him high marks. However, I do think his analysis needs work in resolving the hydraulic relationship between religion and secular norm entrepreneurship. I also think he needs to work a bit on refining his legalize in some areas of the book (especially chapters 2 and 5).

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short book on human rights in history. Much of the book covers when the term human rights was coined in 1945 through the 1970s when human rights policies were at its height. 1977 under President Carter was the “Year of Human Rights”. Covers a lot of topics

[mohid · Rating 2 out of 5]

The argument - that what we colloquially, legally, and ethically consider to be "human rights" is not a product of historical continuity but more so an accident given the end of all other universal struggles - is half interesting. I did not feel inspired when reading this book and the author didn't effectively convey his own conviction either.

[Likhita · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think he forgets that speaking the language of International Law and the belief of individual rights are two different things. A history of human rights ideally should be rooted in organising- not just in law. The real world experience shows that even today, if local groups do not speak the legal individual rights, their demands constitute a belief in human rights core ideas- the quest for human dignity. So in that day the sub-altern matters and anti-colonialism IS a human rights movement contrary to the claims of the provocatively titled Chapter 3. Typically academic, lawyer-esque.

[Gabe · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is _incredibly_ well-researched. The amount of detail stuffed into this book, whether about the formation of human rights, the competition with other "utopias", or the explosion of modern human rights in the 1970s, is utterly impressive. As someone who was well-versed in human rights, I'm shocked at how much new information I learned from this book.

This book is a must-read for anyone who really wants to understand the history of human rights. There is a narrative that is common in human rights courses to talk about the "inevitable" development of human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” This book shows that that statement is false. It's almost through happenstance that we have the modern human rights system that we have. There were many possibilities where a less morally focused concept could have "won" the ideological competition. In fact, writing this in 2024 in the West, I believe we're facing that exact situation where we're facing a retrenchment of human rights or moral-based thinking in general.

The only negative I have about the book is the last chapter where the author switches from being an educator to an advocate. In the last chapter, the author explicitly creates a dichotomy with a subsequent dilemma. The author says that human rights can either be a vague concept that prohibits the most heinous activity or it can be a politically infused and robust concept. The former keeps human rights shallow, saving them only for when we really need them, the latter injects human rights into everything, even when there are political disagreements (e.g. abortion). The author then says those two options are mutually exclusive, forcing us to pick one. If we pick the latter, then we're surrendering the originaly good of human rights (i.e., the author thinks we picked poorly). I don't agree that human rights must be one or the other. Having robust human rights can even help prevent egregious violations (e.g. responding to violations early can help ensure they don't grow to become serious rights violations). Call me biased, but expanding the scope of our concern can hardly seem like a bad thing.

[Thom DeLair]

The idea of human rights, which seems so ubiquitous today, according to Moyn, did not reach popular discourse until the 1970s, soon after the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Just over half of the book is about what human rights are not. It is not glimmers of inspirational texts from the Axial Age, it is not Bills of Right from France or the U.S. in 1789 as they for a political community rather than a global one and nor were civil liberties groups human rights because again they focused on ensuring rights based on a political community.

Moyn lays out many of the mentionings of human rights in the mid-twentieth century, which were either hollow or ambiguous. Although the UN enacted a declaration of human rights in 1948, the focus nations' self-determination. This right was about former colonies no longer taking orders from London or Paris, not ensuring basic dignities for all citizens were upheld. As the 1960s saw half of the world's population go from colonial subjects to citizens of independent nations, the discourse and voices within the United Nations were changing and the ideas of human rights were evolving during the 60s and 70s.

As human rights caught on fire in the 1970s with voices from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Jimmy Carter changed the way the world views human rights. Moyn points to Amnesty International as playing a key role in laying the ground work for this movement. One interesting aspect of the book is that Moyn describes the movement as moral rather than ideological, proponents of human rights can be found on both the right and the left. What I found most interesting was that the force of human rights took form when different groups around the world found common cause, rather than it emanating from one central location. A good book to better understand the global structure today and how human rights has fit into that structure.

[Logan Streondj · Rating 4 out of 5]

While it had lots of good content it could have been formatted better, there was quite a bit of hopping around so it wasn't chronological, also there was not much story element it was just presented in a fairly dry fashion.
Though I did learn some surprising things like that most nations wanted self-determination to be the first right as it is in the ICCPR/ICESCR even Saudi Arabia!
They were formulated in a way to protect countries from the UN, and in turn to protect people from their own governments. This led to somewhat of a paradox since they are government documents, thus it was the courts and NGOs like Amnesty International which played a big role in advocating for Human Rights around the world and making them more popular.

[Tessa Patiño · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moyn believes that human rights as society understands it today does not truly come to form until the 1970s because it is only at this point that society realizes the failures of self-determination. The vagueness of a cohesive definition of "human rights" gave it the freedom to be anything society wanted in that moment for any agenda. Many of the ideas and events are the precursors and are ultimately refined to mean human rights post 1970’s but they are not to be confused as the same. Because of this, Moyn argues how many common views of the history of human rights only build to true human rights history. Moyn also argues that in order for there to be human rights, all other utopias had to fail first, including the utopia of self-determination.

I easily understood Moyn’s argument for why anything before the 1970s was not actually human rights, but Moyn's reasoning for why it starts when he says proved to be weak. His prior reasoning for what human rights history was not, disproved all of his reasoning for what he claimed it was. If anything, he proved more so that human rights history either doesn't exist or is ever-changing, but not that it started sometime after the 1970's. However, this book is an essential read in understanding different thoughts around the history of human rights-even if I find it very problematic to say that the anticolonial fight was not directly human rights. Moyn did articulate well his argument about the language around human rights & why he believes certain historical events were not necessarily about human rights, but the final argument for what he believes human rights actually began fell off.

[Melos Han-Tani · Rating 4 out of 5]

dnf, but read a little of the intro/conclusion. Was surprised to find out how the history of 'human rights' is actually fairly young (since the 40s but only really became a 'thing' in the 70s), and sort of a western invention in the void of various failed ideologies throughout the post ww2/cold war era. The conclusion mentions how 'human rights' as a utopian vision falls a bit flat since it's based on squishy morals... which is probably how it gets twisted by countries like the USA as a force for intervention all the time...

[Katelyn Donaldson · Rating 3 out of 5]

this is a historical look at “human rights” and how the term came to be—focusing on how recently it developed and how ambiguous it is in application. This book didn’t really scratch my itch to learn about human rights, bc I was wishing for more of how it has been applied to recent movements. I liked learning of the anti colonialist historical context tho !

[Julian Pritchard · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book aims to demonstrate that the idea of human rights was shaped as much by liberal revolutions like the French and American as by radical movements such as decolonization in the 1950s and 60s. It's an interesting argument but I think that Moyn tries to cover too much ground in this short book and it's hard to pin down what he's really trying to say.

[Richard · Rating 3 out of 5]

Come for the highly compelling thesis, maybe don't stay for the often tedious detail that seems irrelevant to its defense

[Hajar · Rating 2 out of 5]

Dry.

[Laco · Rating 5 out of 5]

Podnětné, včetně doslovu v českém vydání od P. Barši. Šotků je tam ale ze strany českého vydavatele tolik, že to hraničí s šlendriánstvím.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book on the theoretical and practical emergence and development of human rights.

[Nikoloz Tchurgulia · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s utopian approach towards human rights but worth to reading.

[Jorge Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb

[Newman Cheng · Rating 1 out of 5]

literally impossible to read. I spent two whole weeks in grad school trying to read it. every sentence is structured grammatically inverse. unless you want to rack your head don’t read it

[Patrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fantastic scholarly look at "human rights" as a global concept. Historicizes the concept in an interesting way, and this idea needs to be historicized, not taken for granted as a universal timeless thing, as it is generally.

[Jeanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book details the origins of human rights. While many might think that the Age of Enlightenment, the American Revolution, or even post-World World II were the impetus for the founding of what we today refer to as human rights, Moyn disagrees. He cites the civil rights movement of the '50s and '60s as the precursor to modern-day human rights. Moyn says that previous movements focused on property rights, the sovereignty of nation states, and or simply a philosophy, as with the Greeks. Moyn argues that the concept of human rights in a recent phenomenon. I didn't see the evidence to back Moyn's argument and it seemed as if he 'categorized' rights movements to fit his own purposes.

[Kendall · Rating 1 out of 5]

I had to read this book in my History of Human Rights class and everyone in the class could not get through this book. Moyn makes some interesting points but his grammar, use of language, and style of writing overshadows any arguments he makes. He uses overly complex sentences that distract from what he is saying. I could not understand what he was trying to say because I was too distracted by how badly the book was written.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I didn't agree with the argument Moyn puts forward, I think if interested in the topic the book is worth reading both for the discussion it elicits and the well-done historiography of human rights

[Meg - A Bookish Affair · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't get into this book. The language was a little too flowery.

[Sunny · Rating 1 out of 5]

HATE!