Are My Rights Really All That Different From Yours?
Published June 01, 2009 @ 07:41PM PT
In a post on Change.org's Humanitarian Relief blog last week, Neha Erasmus, a seasoned international NGO worker, engages in a back-and-forth with Michael over her critiques of the Save Darfur movement, and human rights advocacy more broadly. In one of the posts, she argues:
"While I agree that there are basic shared human principles or ‘truths', I don't think they have been captured in human rights discourse, which is the guiding foundation for ‘international' activism. Human rights discourse is an essentially individualistic framework, whereas most cultures of the global South (or third world) are formed on a communitarian value system."
This is an oft-expressed criticism of "human rights," which certainly has validity. However, I fail to see, when looking at the specifics of a situation like Darfur, how the distinction between individual and communitarian value systems actually plays out --- or how drawing the distinction, writ large, is a legitimate criticism of human rights advocacy in the specific context of Darfur.
Among the first rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the rights over one's own existence and physical well-being. How are the rights to "life, liberty and security of person," to be free from slavery or servitude, and not to be subjected to torture any different in a communitarian value system, than in one that focuses on the individual? What are the implications, in practice, of this supposed distinction?
Despite our great global diversity, I agree with Michael: "values differ, but only to an extent." To say that "most cultures of the global South (or third world) are formed on a communitarian value system" is not to say that the rights advocated for by Western activists on Darfur --- which is essentially centered on the protection of civilians (non-combatants) from massacres and other violent abuse at the hands of the government and its proxies --- do not also apply within such systems.
More broadly, if we accept that some social value systems might view certain forms of violence (against women, for instance) differently, are we protecting cultures, or trapping people in them? Where do we draw the line?
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Can We Overcome Our Short Attention Spans?
-
The Presidential Principle of "Make Me Do It"
-
Darfur: Did an American McMovement forget to do its market research?
Comments (4)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michelle became involved in the anti-genocide cause at a young age, and has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns, ever since.
Why did all the great prophets have to speak in parables? I believe change comes under conflicted situations. For example, in a cannibalistic society, the only one who is going to give the issue some serious thought is the one who is up next. It's a case of do you value life, or is your culture (outdated maybe) more important?
Posted by Oceania OZ on 06/01/2009 @ 09:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not sure I understand the issue here. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes a number of economic and cultural rights. During the Cold War, typically the Western countries pressed the Communist countries about civil and political rights, and the Communist countries criticized the West over cultural and economic rights. Some areas -- universal access to health care comes to mind -- were too controversial to make it into the Declaration but are still widely recognized and advocated. In any case, the issue in places like Sudan now, or Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Nazi Germany, or Stalin's USSR, does not come down to which rights we define as fundamental -- a WHOLE LOT of 'em are being violated.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 06/02/2009 @ 07:18AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think you may be missing Neha's larger point about the Save Darfur coalition--that, by and large, the anti-genocide movement has been a Western operation. Neha draws the distinction between the two different value systems to illustrate the point that the values of the Global South imposed on the Western world would be met with disdain.
As she states in the next paragraph- "I don't think its an excuse for non-action, but a CAUTION and an urge to work closely with existing local/national movements."
Posted by Karl Horberg on 06/02/2009 @ 03:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think this is a great post. It may actually expose a leak in our global reality- American and the Western governments would not have stood by and watched what happened in Darfur if they felt closer and understood the different value sytem of the global south. We also would have known better what to do as well.
The right to life as a civilian is pretty damn basic right, especially unimprisoned. Not that this is a remote possibility, but if it happened in the West we would be right there, or even stop it beforehand. They are close allies, neighbors and we understand them. Does that make sense?
We have yet to place a priority on learning different cultures aside from in higher ed scholarship. I think the government would have acted with urgency on Darfur if it felt like the global south is connected with us. If it did understand the culture better would it act now?
Posted by Kendra Kellogg on 06/06/2009 @ 04:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.