This article has been translated from French, in line with the French-speaking use of the term ‘human rights’, which is still often translated as ‘droits de l’Homme’.
Traditionally, the French expression ‘droits de l’Homme’ (literally ‘Rights of the Man’) has its roots in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and revolutionary declarations such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). At that time, the term ‘Man’ was intended to be generic, representing humanity as a whole. However, this proclaimed universality was in reality marked by implicit exclusion: women, slaves and non-citizens were largely absent from this conceptualisation. So why should we speak of ‘droits humains’ and not ‘droits de l’Homme’?
More than just a change in terminology
The expression ‘droits de l’Homme’ can be perceived as excluding women. Historically, ‘Homme’ (‘man’) was supposed to represent the whole of humanity, but language is evolving to better reflect gender equality. The term ‘droits de l’Homme’ unambiguously emphasises the universal dimension of these rights, explicitly encompassing all genders. In other languages, such as English with ‘human rights’ or Spanish with ‘derechos humanos’, this inclusive formulation has been used for a long time. In addition, many institutions, such as the UN, which is increasingly using the term ‘droits humains’ (literally ‘human rights’), and more and more NGOs, are using it to reinforce the universal and egalitarian nature of fundamental rights. In short, ‘droits humains’ is a more neutral, inclusive and contemporary way of talking about universal rights, while respecting their global scope.
Adopting the term ‘droits humains’ in French is not just a semantic adjustment, but a symbolic and political choice. The change reflects a desire to make the invisible visible, by recognising that women, gender minorities and other marginalised groups have historically been forgotten or under-represented in the definition and application of rights. The aim is to adapt the language to contemporary times, when gender equality and inclusiveness have become fundamental norms.
Contemporary issues: the opinion of Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche
The debate over the use of the terms ‘droits de l’Homme’ and ‘droits humains’ is at the crossroads of linguistic, legal, philosophical and sociological considerations. Marie-Laure Basilien-Gainche, a specialist in fundamental rights, offers some enlightening thoughts on the subject.
She points out that legal and philosophical language has profound implications for the way in which rights are perceived and applied. When the words used reinforce cultural biases or exclude certain categories, they contribute to the invisibilisation of these groups.
In her work, the jurist insists on the fact that the term ‘droits de l’Homme’ has historically been marked by an androcentric vision, i.e. centred on cisgender men. Even though ‘man’ was supposed to be universal, the masculine gender has often been favoured in legal and social interpretations and practices.
Three major points are put forward to support the use of the expression ‘droits humains’:
- Deconstructing the patriarchal legacy
The term ‘droits de l’Homme’ reflects an era when women were considered legally, politically and socially inferior. Changing to ‘droits humains’ is a deliberate move to break with this past and promote real equality in language, which also influences thinking and action.
- Reinforcing the universality of rights
Language shapes the way people perceive the world. By adopting the expression ‘droits humains’, we are reaffirming that these rights are not reserved for a particular group (men or the citizens of a given nation), but that they concern all human beings, without distinction as to sex, gender, origin, religion, etc.
- Modernising and harmonising the French language with other languages
In many languages, as we saw earlier, the neutrality and universality of expression are already well established. In French, persisting with ‘droits de l’Homme’ may give the impression that we are lagging behind in the evolution of mentalities and vocabulary.
Despite these arguments, some people still resist the term ‘droits humains’. They cite habit or tradition, or even denounce an ‘excess of political correctness’. In reality, such resistance often reflects cultural inertia or an unconscious attachment to patriarchal thought structures.
Conclusion
The transition from ‘droits de l’Homme’ (Rights of the Man) to ‘droits humains’ (Human Rights) goes beyond a simple linguistic debate: it reflects a societal and philosophical evolution, in line with contemporary aspirations for equality, diversity and universality. Words are not neutral: opting for inclusive and egalitarian terminology is an act of justice in itself, contributing to greater recognition of rights for all.
Language must therefore be used to reflect a commitment to universality and equality, principles that are particularly put to the test today by political and environmental crises that disproportionately affect vulnerable groups. In short, this debate is part of a collective awareness of the need for an inclusive and universal approach to meet the global challenges of social justice and the protection of fundamental rights.
Translated by Marie Chapot
