Abstract
Historically, culturally, and politically, the United States has maintained an ambivalent relationship with the discourse of international human rights. While integral to its codification as transnational principle and law, the United States has not moved significantly toward ratification of human rights conventions, nor has the language of human rights been widespread in US society. Within the context of this complicated relationship, this article explores how US activists conceptualize, relate to, and utilize the human rights framework. In addressing this question, this article examines activists' organizational framing choices, the factors that influence them, and the implications of these choices for the future of human rights organizing in the context of US urban activism. Based on 51 interviews across 42 organizations, this research finds that activists contend with substantial political obstacles, including the US government's perceived exploitations of the human rights framework. Far more pervasive among respondents, however, is the notion that it is the cultural barriers that prevent widespread social movement mobilization under the banner of human rights language. Because of this, respondents point to grassroots approaches as a potential avenue for future human rights organizing in the US context. Relying on the findings from these interviews, this article considers social movement strategy, history, and public perception as central factors underlying activist conceptions of the utility of a human rights discourse to their work.