Under western eyes again : rights vernacular and the gender culture 'clash'

Gender features prominently in debates about the clash between human rights and culture, where ‘culture’ is often portrayed as a supreme obstacle to the realisation of women’s rights. Sometimes framed as an ethical conundrum between universalism and cultural relativism, the clash between culture and rights recites one as always and inevitably undercutting the other — culture undermines rights, and the imposition of human rights damages culture. An innovative attempt at recasting this clash has been a focus less on abstract philosophical debates and more on the cultural politics of rights — in particular, how they are made relevant to everyday life. Anthropologists Merry (2006; 2008a) and Levitt and Merry (2009; 2011) propose the analytical and ethnographic study of vernacularisation by demonstrating how, in local contexts, women’s human rights are remade in the vernacular. This approach has yielded rich knowledge about the myriad ways in which expectations of female inferiority and masculine entitlement to violence are contested — not through the import of Western ideas of human rights, but through the local idiom. This article considers the productive contribution of vernacularisation to this contested terrain, while also pointing to the limits that issue from its dependence on distinguishing the global from the local. Today, these two spaces are not so clearly discerned — particularly in multicultural settings where the local and the global are fused, and where human rights are translated into a vernacular of current political anxieties to do with racial and cultural difference. This is a vernacular that disguises or disavows racism through the language of human rights. These themes are illustrated and explored through the case study of a small community event in an outer suburb of Melbourne, where gender, culture and religion play out through both local and international rights vernacular.

Towards compassion: statutory powers to regulate impaired doctors in Victoria, 1844-2016.

This article examines the significant changes that parliamentarians have made to the powers of regulators of the Victorian medical profession (regulators) from 1844 to the present day to manage doctors whose ill health has impaired their capacity to practise medicine (impaired doctors). It explores the influences on legislators that altered their conceptions of the best ways of achieving the chief objective that they all shared: to protect the public. The article argues that there was a dramatic progression over this period from parliamentarians confining regulators to responding in a draconian, narrow way to impaired doctors, to empowering them increasingly to adopt a flexible, personalised and empathic regulatory approach. This management style has the potential to support impaired doctors to practise medicine safely, which is beneficial for the practitioners and their patients. Nevertheless, despite legislators’ intentions, in certain circumstances impaired doctors today may still experience regulation that appears punitive and unsupportive. The article therefore recommends that future legislators change regulators’ powers further to encourage them to manage these doctors in particular with greater compassion and thereby improve their chances of practising medicine safely in the future.