How the Master's House Controls Perception & Language for “Rights”
Codification Determines Legitimacy
The Master's House stablishes what counts as a right by defining it in statutory and constitutional terms. If an injustice does not fit within this predefined language, it is rendered invisible or illegible within permitted discourse within the Master's House.
The Erosion of Alternative Ways of Knowing
The Master's House language replaces communal, indigenous, and moral understandings of justice with technical, procedural, and state-sanctioned definitions.
Over time, this shift forces people to express their struggles in state-approved terms rather than through the full spectrum of human experience.
For example, instead of arguing for economic justice as a fundamental human right, the Master's House redirects such concerns into contract law, property law, or administrative law, fragmenting holistic demands for justice into manageable, non-threatening categories.
Expert Language as a Perceptual Trap
The Master's House frames success in terms of what is “winnable” within its rules, making people self-limit their demands to what the courts or legislatures will recognize.
Instead of demanding systemic transformation, people are conditioned to ask for tweaks that preserve the underlying structure.
The Illusion of “Progress” Through Legalism
Rights discourse, as shaped by Master's House, creates the illusion that justice is being achieved through incremental change, when in reality, it reinforces the Master's House.
Example: Civil rights legislation often addressed legal barriers to discrimination but left structural economic and social inequalities intact.