Micro Minorities (and a State Dept. tangent)

(I felt like writing something a bit more substantial than my recent posts.  This attempt may prove illogical and circuitous, but here goes . . .)

Last Thursday, we discussed human rights in relation to IR.
For some theorists, this statement would be non-sensical.  Human rights?  Minorities?  How much do they affect a nation state's politics, economics, and culture?  After all, Machiavelli uplifted the power of the state and security (military) were preeminent.

On the other hand, Machiavelli recognized the stability behind glory, which came from the respect of the populace.

To that extent, it seems that human rights are crucial to IR theory.  More than a bullet point on an agenda, their credibility dervies from the people themselves.  As discussed in class, a "silent majority" is dangerous because it catalyzes revolt.  Yet, these revolts (domestic, especially) may be ignored beause they inhibit the efficiency of the political process.  While this may be true, IR theories should recognize the "butterfly effect."  All problems cannot be analyzed, but it is realistic to turn inward to the micro scale when there is a macro problem such as poverty/unequal distribution of wealth.

This may seem that minorities are a means then, rather than an ends.  Minorities serve political purposes and their relation to the philanthropist.  However, it almost seems too cruel to think of human rights as an additional way to serve those who have the potential of power.  Yet, why are there minorities?  Who constitutes the "marginalized"?  Are they labels we impose?  Are they created because if one is not "self," he/she is "other"?  Identity is created and subjective.

Because of last Tuesday's buzzword, "institutions," it makes me wonder whether we can consider minorities or general human rights an instution.  Based on Princeton U's definiton, an instituion is "a custom that for a long time has been an important feature of some group or society."  Institutions are created and change the (power) structure of IR.  Per courtesy of WP class, instituions are inefficient to realists, physical and efficient bodies that facilitate interaction to liberals, and identity dependent with moral implications for constructivists.  Human rights may be all three (and more) if we follow Enloe's advice not to "underestimate their power".

(P.S.  Also, I really enjoyed our little chat with Dr. Howard on Wednesday [what an insightful and candid man!]  His claim about the lack of daily application of IR theory was interesting, however.  I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing.  The world has to be approached holistically.  As economists need to stop relying on the "scientific" and "logical" reasoning behind their polarized theories (Wisman 1-15),  we cannot strip the world's needs down to three ideologies.  It is important to actively participate in IR, not just contemplate on what shapes it.)

Sources:
Miller, George. WordNet. Princeton University, 20 Sep 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010.
     <http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=institution>.
Wisman, Jon. "Keynesian Economics and Economists' Views on the State." Forum for Social Economics .
     16. (1986): 1-15