The term ‘standards’ was deployed to strip economic rights of egalitarian force

Evidence

In contrast to rights, which are (at least in theory) absolute, standards are relative and variable, and so enable flexibility and compromise. To speak of ‘better standards’ is to eschew absolutes. … In emphasising minimum standards, the US delegation sought to detach social and economic rights from egalitarianism, reconciling them with a privatised and consumerist conception of welfare. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 191

Categorization

• DEFINE: Precisely defines the semantic work of ‘standards’ vs. ‘rights’ — the conceptual distinction that did political heavy lifting in the UDHR drafting.
• DEEPTHINKING: A dense, paradigm-shifting point: the elasticity of the word ‘standard’ (bog standard to gold standard, bare subsistence to opulence) is precisely what made it politically serviceable — linguistic indeterminacy as mechanism for detaching rights from egalitarianism.
• XREF: connects to: Neoliberals saw human rights standards as a way to depoliticize international economic relations — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 450; Neoliberals replaced the old language of civilisation with a market-based standard — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 64; Formal equality doctrine becomes a weapon against material equality — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 959

Broader Connections

• Neoliberals saw human rights standards as a way to depoliticize international economic relations #corroborates (0.85) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 450
• Neoliberals replaced the old language of civilisation with a market-based standard #expands (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 64
• Formal equality doctrine becomes a weapon against material equality #corroborates (0.75) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 959