Food for a mainstreet thought
Human Rights Reader 233
LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE: CONNECTING THE IVORY TOWER TO MAINSTREET. (C. L. Schur)
1. When really committed to human rights (HR), civil society organizations and individuals in academia have to use their (new) power with intelligence and not overvalue any theory that promotes a sense of ‘universal responsibility’ based on the false pretense that it is primarily the intelligentsia who has to bring order to a world in disarray --no matter at what cost--“or we won’t be able to live in peace with ourselves”. Such theories do not only lead to potentially infinite disconnected interventions; they intoxicate our minds with the illusion that it is we who have the leading role in the ultimate crusade in favor of what is just and fair, making us believe that each campaign we embark-on is like the final and ultimate campaign that will end all miseries of the world. As part of a true global people’s movement, we have to learn to move from being-a-potential-power to being-a-real-power in world affairs; we have to liberate ourselves from simplistic general global objectives (i.e., a general globalism) that lacks a clear sense of direction and purpose lest we get tangled up everywhere. There are concrete things to do to get us to such a position of real power...and it is the actions of those most affected --and not just of the intelligentsia-- that will ultimately count. (Paraphrased from Walter Lippman (1889-1974), former NY Times Editor).
2. If we do not heed the advise above, we always come up against the same limit: ‘it cannot be done’ from the ivory towers --no matter how hard we try. We need to let go of old patterns to let new forms emerge; forms that we can, in partnership with the most affected, test in small trials in mainstreet.
3. Committees our peers set-up in which those whose rights are being violated negotiate what really are compromises, more often than not, actually serve to defend the special interests of the conveners. I’d say this negotiating has reached its limits. We will not get anything more out of it. This, because we do not take into account the very important special interests at play. (Ultimately, the interests of those defending their old prerogatives play against the interests of those chronically under-represented and ‘under-voiced’ in negotiations, e.g., women, minorities, the marginalized). To foster real progress in HR, activists must know who the various interest groups are and what really ‘makes them tick’.
4. Furthermore, experience shows us that we need to denounce the discrepancy between the letter of the law (which often upholds idealistic and noble principles) and actual practice (which is either indifferent and insensitive or outright repressive and oppressive….even if passively).
5. In our struggle for HR, it is not enough to reject and oppose what the neoliberal Establishment stands-for --if it is not done in the name of making real structural transformations. Most of the time, the struggle is only advanced in the name of a sometimes single-issue opposition built around either a ‘defense of the environment’, of a rejection of ‘traditional morals’ or of just supporting piecemeal positions to address selected aspects of the faulty international social and economic order. Not so in the case of the HR-based framework.
6. Because of this, the following caveat has to be kept in mind: Contrary to what so many nowadays prophetize, manifestations of street euphoria in mainstreet (in Davos or in WTO meetings) do not have much of an ultimate political or HR transcendence. Instead of being real innovators, these alleged ‘avant-garde protesters’ with their rhetoric, and street revolutionaries with their slogans, are far away from the main body of claim holders and instead contribute to the banalization of the radical changes really needed. (I have found, they actually do not bother even to read on these matters or read very little). They often play to the hands of the Establishment without realizing they are party to a confused idealism that, in fact, governs their actual conduct --which has no real teeth. All this is anarchic, devoid of a center or action-direction and often does not even wield new ideas. These street revolutionaries should instead be looking for real transcendence by de-facto rejecting the market-controlled world we live in with its built-in social class prejudices and HR violations, i.e., not only should they protest verbally or physically, but have a HR-based-reasoned-action-agenda and a de-facto insertion in processes at grassroots level.* (Paraphrased from M. Vargas Llosa)
*: In a way, this is al challenge for us HR activists, i.e., to bring these potentially valuable strategic allies into the realm of real HR work.
7. The above non-systematic overview that comes from experience, but is brief to the point of a caricature, gives us pointers to what some of the important issues we need to tackle are when replacing the current paradigm by the one with the HR-based framework at its core. I invite colleagues in our readership to reflect on these points and to discuss them with peers. We have to bring these issues to a level of ‘impertinent consciousness’ where it bothers us not to act. (Sub-comandante Marcos)
8. To finish, I ask: How long will it take for the conventional literature to break with the current paradigm, conceived --and now guarded-- by its protagonists who reside in the ivory towers of the world…who you and I well know?
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org
Human Rights Reader 233
LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE: CONNECTING THE IVORY TOWER TO MAINSTREET. (C. L. Schur)
We may be intelligent, but do we have the experience?
If we do, it depends whether we learn-from and apply
our experience! (F. Stern)
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. (Santayana)
1. When really committed to human rights (HR), civil society organizations and individuals in academia have to use their (new) power with intelligence and not overvalue any theory that promotes a sense of ‘universal responsibility’ based on the false pretense that it is primarily the intelligentsia who has to bring order to a world in disarray --no matter at what cost--“or we won’t be able to live in peace with ourselves”. Such theories do not only lead to potentially infinite disconnected interventions; they intoxicate our minds with the illusion that it is we who have the leading role in the ultimate crusade in favor of what is just and fair, making us believe that each campaign we embark-on is like the final and ultimate campaign that will end all miseries of the world. As part of a true global people’s movement, we have to learn to move from being-a-potential-power to being-a-real-power in world affairs; we have to liberate ourselves from simplistic general global objectives (i.e., a general globalism) that lacks a clear sense of direction and purpose lest we get tangled up everywhere. There are concrete things to do to get us to such a position of real power...and it is the actions of those most affected --and not just of the intelligentsia-- that will ultimately count. (Paraphrased from Walter Lippman (1889-1974), former NY Times Editor).
2. If we do not heed the advise above, we always come up against the same limit: ‘it cannot be done’ from the ivory towers --no matter how hard we try. We need to let go of old patterns to let new forms emerge; forms that we can, in partnership with the most affected, test in small trials in mainstreet.
3. Committees our peers set-up in which those whose rights are being violated negotiate what really are compromises, more often than not, actually serve to defend the special interests of the conveners. I’d say this negotiating has reached its limits. We will not get anything more out of it. This, because we do not take into account the very important special interests at play. (Ultimately, the interests of those defending their old prerogatives play against the interests of those chronically under-represented and ‘under-voiced’ in negotiations, e.g., women, minorities, the marginalized). To foster real progress in HR, activists must know who the various interest groups are and what really ‘makes them tick’.
4. Furthermore, experience shows us that we need to denounce the discrepancy between the letter of the law (which often upholds idealistic and noble principles) and actual practice (which is either indifferent and insensitive or outright repressive and oppressive….even if passively).
5. In our struggle for HR, it is not enough to reject and oppose what the neoliberal Establishment stands-for --if it is not done in the name of making real structural transformations. Most of the time, the struggle is only advanced in the name of a sometimes single-issue opposition built around either a ‘defense of the environment’, of a rejection of ‘traditional morals’ or of just supporting piecemeal positions to address selected aspects of the faulty international social and economic order. Not so in the case of the HR-based framework.
6. Because of this, the following caveat has to be kept in mind: Contrary to what so many nowadays prophetize, manifestations of street euphoria in mainstreet (in Davos or in WTO meetings) do not have much of an ultimate political or HR transcendence. Instead of being real innovators, these alleged ‘avant-garde protesters’ with their rhetoric, and street revolutionaries with their slogans, are far away from the main body of claim holders and instead contribute to the banalization of the radical changes really needed. (I have found, they actually do not bother even to read on these matters or read very little). They often play to the hands of the Establishment without realizing they are party to a confused idealism that, in fact, governs their actual conduct --which has no real teeth. All this is anarchic, devoid of a center or action-direction and often does not even wield new ideas. These street revolutionaries should instead be looking for real transcendence by de-facto rejecting the market-controlled world we live in with its built-in social class prejudices and HR violations, i.e., not only should they protest verbally or physically, but have a HR-based-reasoned-action-agenda and a de-facto insertion in processes at grassroots level.* (Paraphrased from M. Vargas Llosa)
*: In a way, this is al challenge for us HR activists, i.e., to bring these potentially valuable strategic allies into the realm of real HR work.
7. The above non-systematic overview that comes from experience, but is brief to the point of a caricature, gives us pointers to what some of the important issues we need to tackle are when replacing the current paradigm by the one with the HR-based framework at its core. I invite colleagues in our readership to reflect on these points and to discuss them with peers. We have to bring these issues to a level of ‘impertinent consciousness’ where it bothers us not to act. (Sub-comandante Marcos)
8. To finish, I ask: How long will it take for the conventional literature to break with the current paradigm, conceived --and now guarded-- by its protagonists who reside in the ivory towers of the world…who you and I well know?
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org
Comments
Post a Comment