THE CONTAGIOUS SOCIAL PASSIVITY OF MANY CLAIM HOLDERS IS OUR ACHILLES HEEL.* (Arturo A. Muñoz)
Human rights: Food for a realistic critical thought ‘On social passivity’
Human Rights Reader 503
*: Does this include us all reading this?
Human rights remain far from being universalized
-A good friend tells me that the problem with many of our peers and colleagues is not their ‘dead souls’, but their ‘sleeping consciences’. (Edmundo Moure)
1. “Everything is still possible… but who if not all of us can make it become true?”. (Miquel Martí i Pol) Only when we reach the needed threshold to overcome this passivity will we be able to start a new era where the power of reason will prevail against the power of force. The worst thing that is happening today is the-trivialization-of-the-irreversibility-of-processes that have an irretrievable effect on society and on our Earth’s habitability. It is clear that the biggest problems humanity must face is not the difference, but rather the indifference of so many potential social actors; not the recognition of the equal dignity of all human beings, but rather of the growing ‘supremacism’ and racism. Every unique human being is capable of overcoming social passivity, there lies our hope: the future must be invented, by overcoming both inertia and outdated formulas. (Federico Mayor Zaragoza)
2. What we need to push is what somebody called Disruptive Solutions. What we do not need is people feeling it is enough to sign petitions; the latter can make great noise while the signers may/do not really always care about the cause. Signers are just thinking about themselves --what the public and peers are going to think of them. “I have always been more of a conspirator than a signer. I have achieved many more things by trying to straighten them out from the bottom up than by signing protest manifestos”. (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)
Absolute and historically defined human rights
3. Human rights (HR) should be viewed, not only as the absolute yardstick that they are, but also as a synthesis resulting from a long historical process. As an absolute yardstick, HR constitute the common language of humanity. Adopting this language allows all peoples to understand other and to be the protagonists of their own history. HR thus are the ultimate norm of all politics. As a historical synthesis, HR are in constant movement; they are historically dependent; they reflect a moment in the rolling out of history; they constitute one of the few, if not the only, (semi)-universal ethical discourse we have today. (B. Boutros Ghali, Vienna, 1993).
How do we then evaluate political and/or moral actions pointing to the fulfillment of human rights?
4. It is said that morals are an individual, non-legislated attitude and behavior. But is this so? Moral precepts are very often placed above the law. …Do we fall back on the Ten Commandments…? Some say they are divine and thus universal. (Ruben Martinez C.) I let you judge…
5. What one deems good, moral or morally acceptable is relative though depending on many factors, among them cultural factors, i.e., how one perceives society and how one perceives the international order. In practice, the wielding of power gives us some examples. For instance, why do you think ‘national interest’ still is the principle states use to define their moral values? Isn’t it just because actions considered moral can either strengthen or weaken the presence and the prestige of a country mostly in the international stage? But what about morality in-country? As we review history, we see different periods with paradigm shifts in national interest and thus in what has been deemed morally (and politically) acceptable. (adapted from Fernando Ayala) Much can be learned from critiquing present day actions carried out ‘in the national interest’; assess if hey do or do not point in the direction of fulfilling HR… (Pick any current-day autocratic leader and judge…).
6. Naming and shaming states that violate HR is a strategy that I would say no longer works as before in a world of shameless populist leaders. Nor does naming and shaming work in a fast-paced world where some of the most serious threats to HR do not come from states, but from private corporations whose social platforms can and do destabilize electoral processes in a matter of days. (Cesar Rodriguez Garavito)
Bottom line
-Already in the 18th century Montesquieu made it clear: Injustice against one individual is a threat for all.
7. With the deep needs in the realm of HR, it is clear that no actor working alone will be able to meet the rather urgent demands (society, planet). Today’s needs landscape has long surpassed any individual approach. Collective approaches must be strongly localized, as well as supported by both committed and neutral international actors. At the supra-structural level, we are talking about, engaging multilaterally, bilaterally and mini-laterally to build a new consensus and movement on HR and, at the grassroots, build this consensus with claim holders in every HR domain in many many little places. (Peter Maurer)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
All Readers up to 500+ are available at www.claudioschuftan.com
Postscript/Marginalia
Some taking stock reflections
[In order to help you further process some of the themes covered in many past Readers, I have picked up some very important ideas my dear friends from the social enterprise, United Edge, who deliver a course on the justice based approach, put together. www.unitededge.net/events They have done it in the form of a list of reflection questions pertaining their course. These reflections fit this Readers’ outlook and purpose like a glove. I hope that these will be reminders of some of the key HR action themes the Readers also focus-on and that they will help you in your next steps of taking the justice- and HR-based approach forward].
Indeed food for thought…
