CHOICE
connect
A division of the American Library Association
Editorial Offices: 575 Main Street, Suite 300, Middletown, CT 06457-3445
Phone: (860) 347-6933
Fax: (860) 704-0465
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Please do not link to this page.
Cambridge University Press
The following review appeared in the January 2019 issue of CHOICE. The review is for your internal use only. Please review our Permission and Reprints Guidelines or email permissions@ala-choice.org.
Social & Behavioral Sciences
Political Science - International Relations
Kaplan (Johns Hopkins) argues for the need to be sensitive to cultural differences in forming an international consensus on a core set of human rights. While this general argument is good, the manner in which the author characterizes human rights organizations, members of thick (non-Western) societies, and members of some minority groups needs further sensitivity. He claims that Western human rights organizations, mainly Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, are disconnected from local perspectives and experiences in thick societies that often favor social harmony over retributive justice. However, he neglects the role of grassroots human rights organizations, whose members are often survivors of human rights violations, in these thick societies. They often advocate for the same rights espoused by Western NGOs. The leader of a country will not necessarily share the same perspective as many of its citizens—whether in a thick or thin (Western) society. In his conclusion, he maintains that “a singular focus on rights encourages people to aggressively make claims on society while disregarding or deemphasizing their responsibilities. It encourages self-centered behavior, promotes social conflict, and weakens the trust and social glue that holds societies together.”
--K. Sorensen, Bentley University