The UDHR’s flexible social rights language proved compatible with neoliberal poverty management

Evidence

I show that the neoliberals rejected mid-century welfarism, which they argued confused society with a household and was therefore ‘totalitarian’. Nonetheless, I also argue that, in defining social and economic rights as flexible standards that did not imply binding obligations on states, the drafters of the UDHR developed an account of social and economic rights that was ultimately compatible with a privatised, neoliberal approach to the management of poverty. — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 64

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: Directly relevant to ‘On Sacrifice’ in that both concern how ostensibly egalitarian/rights-based frameworks conceal a privatization of responsibility for the poor; and to the reader’s human-rights discourse project.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s work on both human-rights law and critiques of welfarism; the ‘rights as flexible standards not binding obligations’ claim speaks directly to the austerity literature. — connects to: The UDHR’s social and economic rights were designed to pacify, not radicalize — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 180; UDHR social rights were compatible with market order, not a threat to it — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 224; The UDHR’s would-be critics objected to its drafting, not its universality — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 277 (+2 more)
• SEED: Essay angle: the drafting history of the UDHR’s socio-economic articles as an unwitting enabler of austerity-era welfare retrenchment.

Broader Connections

• The UDHR’s social and economic rights were designed to pacify, not radicalize #corroborates (0.80) — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market, 180