Nate Berends December 14, 2005 Stephen Hiltz HI-102 Intro to Western Civ.

All Men.
Evaluated in this essay: Hunt, Lynn, ed. The French Revolution and Human Rights. Comp. Lynn Hunt. Trans. Lynn Hunt. Boston & New York: Bedford/Saint Martens, 1996. 1-146.

Since the dawn of humankind, there has always been an inherent ability of man (or woman) to differentiate. From early simplicities such as the disparity between day and night, or hot and cold, society began an evolution, eventually giving way to more complicated distinctions such as that between ethnicities, religions, genders, and social status. And forever since, these distinctions now wholly realized (though perhaps not admittedly), it has been an integral component of society to classify its members based on any one of the multitudinous characteristics by which differentiation is possible. Particularly of interest regarding the matter is a debate between the arenas in which discrimination is justified (or even of necessity), and the arenas in which such discrimination becomes divisive and detrimental to the involved parties. This debate lays at the heart of the Enlightenment movement, in which philosophers called to task the question of what defines human rights, what defines humanity and human nature (the nature of humans), and what defines all men. Putting into writing in 1948, the United Nations decreed that recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of peace, justice, and freedom in the world (Hunt 2). When penned, the UN declaration relied heavily on

ideas presented in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789. And, as altruistic and idealist at the UNs verbiage sounds, the greatest fury over the issue raged more than a full century prior. To dissect the origins of this issue, it would be prudent to consider the historical setting of the French Revolution, and its direct impact and correlation to the issue. Throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s, there was great dispute over what, exactly, defined a persons social status, and accordingly, the rights to which each person might be entitled. At this time, there was a push for an extensive and almost complete redefinition of the issue. Even actors and executionersthought to be among the most disdained professionswere considered in the matter, having been excluded from the privilege of many rights, previously (Hunt v). This re-imagining of societal systems was, to a large extent, disruptive to the degree that it negated what had been held as truth for so much of recorded history. Previously, rulers, nobles, and officials were considered to be in some ways closer to God than the general citizenry. This mentality, it is clear to see, breeds no other option but classism. Historically speaking, the structure of society was seen as what Hunt describes as a vertical ladder, with the most respectable positions literally closer to God, with peasants and slaves at the bottomrelegated to a large extent as the godless bottom feeders of society. With the Enlightenment, there was a re-tooling of the structurequite literally knocking the idea flat on its side, suggesting a horizontal relationship between parties, in which there was classification, but no significantly damaging hierarchy of Godliness (imposed power). John Locke was among the first to put into writing what he believed to be an appropriate way in which to regard societal systems. Locke insisted that all men be

entitled to three fundamental elements: life, liberty, and a right to own property. Ironically, however, his writingsusing the inclusive pronoun of all menprecluded large segments of the population; specifically slaves, which Locke profited greatly from. Shortly thereafter, Jean Jacques Rousseau gave voice to his idea that such inalienable rights should apply to all menregardless of status in society. This, unfortunately, began a series of Enlightenment philosophers who vied for equal treatment, but never succeeded in creating a definitive list of which particular rights should be afforded to which particular segment of society. This lack of definition ultimately became detrimental to their goals, and accordingly ushered in the ultimate failure of the ideas. Ironically, no matter how liberal the Enlightenment thinkers were, their definition of all men still did (perhaps obviously) exclude women (Hunt 78). I am a man, and I have no other true inalienable rights than those of humanity (Hunt 38). This excerpt from an encyclopedia (authored in part by Rosseau) on the issue illustrates that there was indeed a widely held contention that some rights are inherent to any living being. Again, however, this was largely a superficial recognition. It wasnt until the discussion reached the realms of religion that things began to get very serious. Indeed, there was extraordinary discrimination against Jews and Calvinists by the Catholic church, and the monarchical governments of the time. Abbe Sieyes, a clergyman, published a pamphlet that asked What is the Third Estate? (Hunt 63-70). This pamphlet, more than anything else up to that point, was a rallying cry for the members of the oft-downtrodden third estate. It served as a unifying ideal, and a call

to arms. It was apparent that Priveliges would no longer go unchallenged (Hunt 12).

To make short a significant span of events, the Third estate was able to rise into some degree of authority. They had finally become able to speak up regarding what theythe commonersdetermined all men entailed. And while a populist movement was now replacing the monarchical structures of the past, there was still discord regarding the definition of Human, or Man. This rise of the third estate was quickly changed through the repeal and reinstatement (many times) of slavery, by the hand of Napolean Bonaparte. In these actions, Bonaparte impressed his definition of all men upon societydetermining that slaves were not indeed under the umbrella of all men. In the end, it can be suggested that the term all men has still not been completely defined. Today, centuries after the French Revolution, there still exists a disparity between the way people are treated, and they way people ought to be treated. In hindsight, the rise and fall of the influence of the Third Estate in 18th century Europe is just indicative of the fact that societies will eb and flow, and concensus may indeed be a mythic idealreserved knowledge not fit for humankind. In the end, it is safe to regard the occurrences as largely idealistic in nature. Over and over again, there is indication of an honest, altruistic hope for equality among men. Despite this, such an ideal has never been fully realized. It is true that one day, all men should one day be modified;

perhaps into an alternative to the tune something more inclusive. All men, women, ages, genders, races, sexual orientations, religions, beliefs, creeds, descents, wealth, occupation, and property status, perhaps. Until this redefinition comes, however, we may just need to relegate ourselves, as a society, to the fact that this is a struggle that has been debated for centuries, and may be debated for centuries more.