Toward a Cultural Theory of Rights and Duties in Human Development.

Abstract

Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day. "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards." "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!" -Lewis Carroll (I960, p. 161)Trials, as even the child Alice knows, follow well-established legal guidelines, and we learn about these formal rules and laws that are "on the books" in numerous ways. Black-letter law is extensive in its scope, explicit, and widely publicized and accessible (e.g., Alvarado, 1999), particularly in modern Western societies, and growing increasingly so at the international level. However, black-letter law does not always provide an effective avenue for understanding commonsense rights and duties (after Finkel, 1995), those rights and duties in informal, everyday social life. Unlike the explicit and publicly acknowledged nature of formal rights and duties, commonsense rights and duties remain, fot the most part, implicit. The research of symbolic interactionists, ethnomethodologists, ethnogenicists, 1 and others in microsociology and social psychology traditions (see Moghaddam & Harre, 1995) has highlighted numerous rules regulating social relationships in everyday life, and underlying such rules are informal rights and duties, such as those operating in family relations, as in "Mary, 75

Users' and researchers' construction of equity in research collaboration

“…In contrast, the researchers' opinions were mainly rooted in scientific discourse and prioritized the project itself through values such as taking responsibility for the research project. This finding is also in line with earlier findings that described a general trend of when groups with different power positions are positioned against each other; the less powerful focus on rights and the more powerful on duties, which explained why the users in the current study focused on rights while the researchers focused on duties.…”

Individual responsibilities and moral inclusion in an age of rights

“…Thus, individual rights and duties lie at the core of the social contract that links the individual to the state. While institutions do not recognize the active role of the individual dealing with society, it is likely that there is a clash between rights and duties, such that the institutions will give priority to citizens' duties, while citizens will stress their personal rights (Moghaddam, 2003;Moghaddam & Riley, 2005).…”

Threats to human rights: A general review

“…International analyses of the Declaration have shown similar loadings on the proposed four factors (Doise, Spini, Jesuino, Ng, & Emler, 1994) with a followup study finding a two-factor cluster between individual and social rights (Doise, Spini, & Clémence, 1999). While there is cultural variation regarding human rights support and support for specific rights (Hoppe-Graff & Kim, 2005;Moghaddam & Riley, 2005;Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990;Passini, 2014;Passini & Emiliani, 2009;Worchel, 2005), a general review of all human rights research confirmed strong international support for human rights (McFarland, 2015) and definitions of human rights violations (Clémence, Devos, & Doise, 2001;Spini & Doise, 1998.…”