Rights Language Across Difference: Universal and Particular

Sor Juana argued for her intellectual right as a human capacity, as a Christian value, and as her particular genius—shifting frameworks depending on her audience and context. This concept examines the intersectional challenge of rights discourse: neither pure universalism (which erases particular oppression) nor pure particularism (which abandons shared principles) serves multiply-marginalized people adequately. In intersectional practice, this means holding both: arguing that all humans deserve intellectual freedom (universal) while naming that women, indigenous people, and the poor face specific barriers to that freedom (particular). It means claiming rights as women, as people of color, as working-class people, and as humans—not choosing one framework but deploying them strategically. Rights language becomes more powerful when it acknowledges both the shared humanity that makes claims universal and the specific histories and systems that create unequal access to those rights. Sor Juana's example teaches that sophistication in rights-making requires speaking in multiple registers, validating both individual genius and collective struggle.