|
|
|
Toward the Creation of a Human Rights Culture
|
 |
| |
One interesting exercise is to compare a major document with a human rights document. In my doctoral dissertation at Brandeis' Heller School, I compared the Universal Declaration with United States federal and state constitutions. It was eventually published as a book:
Human Rights and Social Policy in the 21st CenturyThe following parts are exercepted.
The exercise is a simple one. Merely divide the document, in this case, the US Constitution (you can use the constitution of your country) into "contents," and then compare these "contents" with those of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination).
After doing the comparison get the word out if there are gaps between the two. Perhaps the best approach to policy development is where people can see the facts and make up their own minds. Thus, in the United States, while we are "strong" in certain areas like freedoms of speech and the press, we are lacking in areas, for example of health care, shelter, or security in old age, "contents" of the Universal Declaration.
(Sorry... but this page is still under construction. Suffice to say at this point, however, that the US Constitution is sorely lacking in terms of economic and social rights. And, states, which ought to act as "laboratories of democracy.. to extend rights not found in the US Constitution," do not in my view do very well. Only 14 states, for example (MA, CT, RI, NY, MI, VA, NC, FL, LA, TX, MT, WY, AK, HI), for example prohibit discrimination based on race. (Could you imagine?). Eleven prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex (MA, CT, RI, IL, VA, LA, TX, MT, WY, AK, HI); 4 on the basis of physical handicap (CT, RI, FL, LA); 2 on the basis of political opinion (MT, LA), and one on the basis of disability (MA).
Anyway, please find below the final chapter from my book, Human rights and social policy in the 21st Century.
The search for a more human and effective way to deal with poverty should not be limited to short-term reform measures....Special attention is needed to develop new efforts that are targeted on long-term poverty....Proposals should be part of a creative and ongoing effort to fashion a system of income support for the poor that protects their basic dignity.
- United States Catholic Bishops, Economic Justice For All
CHAPTER SIX
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL POLICY
This study has revealed that United States' constitutions concur fundamentally with the Universal Declaration's first generation or negative rights, which consist of civil and political guarantees. There appear minor correspondences, most notably in states' guarantees for education, with the Universal Declaration's second generation or positive rights, which consist of economic, social, and cultural rights. Apart from some states' concerns for duties to the community, there are no correspondences with the Universal Declaration's third generation or solidarity rights which consist essentially of the right to a just social and international order in which human rights can be realized.
This concluding chapter will suggest recommendations for social policy based on this analysis. In this section, I will also reiterate some basic issues and occasionally elaborate upon them in order to underscore the significance of these suggestions.
The primary recommendation of this study is that United States' constitutions should include those guarantees found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which federal court justices and legal scholars have increasingly referred to as customary international law. There also needs to be a slow and gradual incorporation of all the rights of the Universal Declaration into American jurisprudence in general. At present, according to the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States some of the provisions which the Universal Declaration contains, such as the prohibitions against slavery and torture have customary international law status in American courts. Gradually, all the rights contained in that document, such as the rights to shelter, food, and health care need to be incorporated into the American legal system.
Because the Ninth Amendment to the Federal Constitution clearly states, furthermore: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," it is conceivable that the legal system can refer to all the provisions of the Universal Declaration as standards for other rights which are retained by the people. The United States delegation signed that document on December 10, 1948. The United States, therefore, ought to comply with its commitment.
The Constitution, furthermore, is a "living" document, which, according to Supreme Court Justice Cardozo, contains principles for an ever-expanding future that must meet the felt necessities of the time. The recent disapproval of presidential nominee to the Supreme Court, Robert Bork, who opposed the idea of a living constitution and advocated "framer's intents" and "original understanding arguments" suggests that contemporary legislative bodies are amenable to the idea of a living Constitution.
Yet, at the recent confirmation hearings of the current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, questions related to economic, social, cultural, and solidarity rights were barely mentioned. While questions related to affirmative action in the workplace were discussed, notions of the right to work for all, or, for that matter, human rights to health care or shelter, did not appear to be seriously entertained. This paucity of questioning on such rights, therefore, suggests that, if legislators are truly representatives of the people, such notions of rights are not, at present, embedded in the American consciousness. Certainly, as we approach the twenty-first century, much work is necessary to realize the rights of the Universal Declaration. Assimilation of internationally recognized rights in United States' constitutions or the legal system in general would, thereby, serve to legitimate claims by individuals or groups who felt that some of their basic human needs were not being realized. Undeniably, if public consciousness were strong enough to take care of people's needs, an easy argument could be made not to have these rights in constitutions. However, in this world where constitutions have legal impact, the incorporation of these rights appears necessary for the fulfillment of human needs.
It may be easy to dismiss this basic suggestion as wishful thinking or utopian. In fact, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, in reference to the Universal Declaration exclaimed that it is "a letter to Santa Claus....Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements,' which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors" (Laqueur and Rubin, 1990, p. 364).
As the Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights and Representative of the United States Eleanor Roosevelt expressed, however, the Universal Declaration is "a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations" (Green, 1956, p. 31). My point is that incorporation of its rights in United States' constitutions would represent strivings or goals. It may be naive to think that these goals can be immediately realized. Nevertheless, that must not be an excuse to expend every effort to begin the implementation of these aims as defined by the Universal Declaration. The barons at Runnymede or the drafters of the United States' Bill of Rights, for example, persisted in their realistic demands to have some basic human needs realized. Today their legacy is evident in numerous legal codes which guarantee such rights as freedoms of speech, religion, or the press. Striving for the realization of these goals, has undoubtedly enriched the lives of many Americans.
In the final debates, moreover, the United States delegation exclaimed that the most important phrase in the Universal Declaration is in Article 22 which states that rights can be realized only "in accordance with the organization and resources of each State." In other words, the Universal Declaration is a practical document which acknowledges that human needs can only be realized within the context of a state's resources.
There also appears a burgeoning political movement to endorse internationally accepted standards. Clearly, many people appear increasingly cognizant of the importance of such principles. One third of all nations, for example, especially those which emerged from colonialism after World War II, have modeled their rights provisions on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Claude and Weston, 1989). The City Council of Burlington, Iowa also, in September 1986, adopted an ordinance which added substantive provisions of the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms or Racial Discrimination to the City's basic legal structure (Farer, l989). New York City, on November 21, l989, one day after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, passed a resolution pledging to uphold the convention as law for city agencies (Castelle & Nurske, l990). It is also apparent that many eastern European countries are incorporating internationally recognized rights into their new constitutions, such as rights to work, rest, regular paid holidays, and health care (Kaufman, 1991).
STRATEGIES TO MODIFY UNITED STATES' CONSTITUTIONS
The United States Constitution can only be changed through an amendment process; state constitutions it appears can be modified by adding amendments or changing the text itself (May, 1990). Since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789, of 5,000 proposed amendments, only 26 were adopted (Toner, 1989). Of all proposed substantive changes for state constitutions from 1982 through 1989, however, on the average 69.3% of these changes were adopted in these constitutions (May, 1990, p. 22). In state constitutions' Bill of Rights, an average of 87.5% of substantive changes were adopted (May, 1990, p. 22). For example, as of January 1, 1990 Massachusetts residents adopted 116 out of 143 amendments submitted; Alaskans adopted 22 out of 31; and New Yorkers adopted 207 out of 274 (Council of State Governments, 1990, p. 40).
Clearly, state constitutions are easier to modify than the Federal Constitution. I would suggest, therefore, that state residents consider the modification of their constitutions. That way, states can act, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, as "laboratories," or experiments which may assist in the guaranteeing of human rights and, consequently, the fulfillment of human needs. Despite the comparative difficulty in amending the United States constitution, however, I would recommend that efforts continue in that direction. My reasons are first, that nationwide campaigns would illuminate public consciousness, an essential ingredient for constitutional change, on a scale far greater than on the state level. Secondly, upon federal constitutional modification, states would automatically be bound to abide by the new guarantees.
Already, there are movements for constitutional change on state and national levels to extend rights contained in these documents. On the state level, in 1986-87 the total number of propositions concerning policy articles was nearly double that of the past biennium (Sturm and May, 1988). Of 29 proposals, over half of them (19) concerned education which reflected a growing public concern for state responsibility to improve education. Residents approved 79% (15) of these proposals. In 1988-89, furthermore, the number of proposals (21) and adoptions (19) to states' Bills of Rights reached a record-high for the decade (May, 1990).
Examples of some movements to expand rights on the federal level are Resolution S139 (1985) emanating from the Massachusetts legislature and Bill H.R. 2870 (1987) introduced in the House of Representatives. The former resolution urged Congress to:
Enact legislation presenting to the states a proposed constitutional amendment wherein the right to employment shall be guaranteed to every person in the United States in accordance with his (sic) capacity, at a rate of compensation sufficient to support such individual and his (sic) family in dignity and self-respect. (Gil, 1990a, p. 281)
The purpose of the latter Bill, introduced by Representatives Hayes and Hawkins was: "to help and improve the quality of life for all people of the United States by setting forth an economic bill of rights." This bill included inter alia: "the right of every family to a decent home....the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health....the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment....[and] the right to a good education."
Specific Recommendations For Constitutional Change
As this research has suggested, phrasing that is too general or unclear, such as the general welfare and establish justice clauses of the United States Constitution does not necessarily result in judicial interpretation that can result in the realization of human needs. The Supreme Court justices did not construe these phrases, for example, to include certain notions of economic and social justice as defined by the Universal Declaration, which includes such rights as health care, education, and shelter. In addition, failures of the United States' Constitutions to state clearly that individuals had, for instance, rights to marry and to travel resulted in the imprisonment of individuals desiring interracial marriages and the denial of welfare payments to emigrants from other states. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous phrasing such as "equal protection" and "privileges and immunities" seems to have come too late.
I would urge, therefore, that United States' constitutions consider phrasing which lacks ambiguity in order that every intelligent layperson be able to understand his or her human rights. This recommendation is consistent with the intents of the framers of the Universal Declaration who wanted a document that all people could easily understand.
Other recommendations are first, that the phrases "human dignity" and "spirit of brotherhood" as expressed in the Universal Declaration and conspicuously absent in the Federal Constitution and the majority of state constitutions ought to be addressed. Taken with the numerous references to individual liberty in these constitutions, it seems that the "common good" is subordinated to the needs of the individual. An analysis of the general welfare and establish justice clauses of the Federal Constitution, suggests, in addition, that although the Supreme Court has acknowledged that individual and group rights "are always in collision," the Court did not appear to resolve the issue in any substantive sense. Although I do not think that the pendulum should swing in the other direction and totally regard the good of the community in deference to individual rights, nevertheless, it appears that a more substantive acknowledgement of the common good in words comparable with human dignity and fraternity would correct an apparent one-sided emphasis upon individual liberties.
On the notion of negative freedoms, (i.e. civil and political liberties), the United States Constitution appears exemplary. The only areas which the Constitution and Supreme Court judicial interpretation do not appear to substantively reflect, (i.e. the right to remedies and the will of the people as the basis of government), are taken up by the majority of state constitutions. I would suggest, however, that in the final analysis it would be important to have these two areas substantively reflected in all state constitutions and the Federal Constitution.
Rather than rely on the vagaries of the "equal protection clause," the United States Constitution ought to clearly state, as in the Universal Declaration, that none of the rights which it contains shall be denied on account of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. While some state constitutions have gone beyond the Federal Constitution in this regard, I would also recommend more congruence with these categories as expounded upon in the Universal Declaration.
On the notion of positive freedoms (i.e. economic, social and cultural rights) United States' constitutions are sorely lacking. In the Federal Constitution, for example, there are neither general statements nor Supreme Court decisions which speak about these rights. Apart from authors' protection for their scientific or literary productions there is no mention of any positive freedoms as specified by the Universal Declaration. State constitutions, however, do expand upon this one positive right guaranteed in the Federal Constitution. Almost all of them guarantee the right to education (see Table 3). Two states speak in general terms of the need to eliminate poverty and to work for economic and social justice. Five states guarantee the right to join trade unions. There are some provisions in state constitutions which express the right to favorable conditions of work and favorable remuneration for work. Two states assert that the people of their state shall promote health. Four states guarantee the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.
Based on this analysis, therefore, it would appear appropriate, first for the United States Constitution to incorporate all the rights which the states have extended in their constitutions. Secondly, United States' constitutions, preferably the Federal Constitution, need to incorporate other basic guarantees as defined by the Universal Declaration which to briefly reiterate are: the right to social security in accordance with the organization and resources of each state in order to ensure the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable to human dignity and the free development of personality; the rights to work, to free choice of employment, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, and to the supplementation of one's wages, if necessary, by other means of social protection in order to ensure an existence worthy of human dignity; the rights to rest and leisure and periodic holidays with pay; the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and his or her family, including food, clothing, housing, necessary social services, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond one's control; the right for motherhood and childhood to be given special care and assistance; and the right to an education which shall be directed to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Concerning state constitutions that use phrasing, such as "may provide for" or "has the power to provide for" in regard to rights like housing, medical care, or security for the elderly, I would recommend that they assert more emphatically that they should provide for these and other guarantees which will assist in the fulfillment of human needs. In regard to constitutions which provide for rights that only partially satisfy criteria of the Universal Declaration, such as the promotion and protection of public health, I would recommend that these and other states which speak to partial rights expand upon these notions. In these instances, for example, a right to public health ought to be expanded to include a right to medical care. Future research, furthermore, should examine all of the partial rights in United States' constitutions and the extent that judicial decisions and social policies in general are in accordance with rights as stated in United States' constitutions.
On the notions of duties and solidarity rights, the United States Constitution does not mention the importance of the need for responsibility to the community. Only ten states express the importance of responsibilities to the community. The paucity of constitutions which reflect this right ought not to be dismissed lightly because, every right has a corresponding duty. The right to speak, for example, necessitates a corresponding duty to listen; the right to food requires the duties to assist in the production of food and not to overconsume. Notions of duties, therefore, ought to be incorporated in the remaining state constitutions and the Federal Constitution.
Although some states have recognized partial rights to a just social and international order, such as the right to a clean environment (Massachusetts, ArXCVII) and the right to be treated fairly by domestic and international corporations (Montana, ArXII,S1), my recommendation is to incorporate into United States' constitutions, the phrasing of Article 28 in the Universal Declaration. I think that such a statement would address the more encompassing goal that individuals and governments cooperate on an international level in stewardship of the world's resources.
Additional Strategies
In order to incorporate human rights principles as defined by the Universal Declaration in United States' constitutions, it is necessary to begin at the grassroots level. It is of utmost importance, therefore, that public sentiment be in accordance with these principles. I think that it is necessary that Americans expand their consciousness in regards to current notions of rights which seem to emphasize civil and political guarantees. I am not saying that it is important to "win converts" to the cause of human rights, or to convince others that human rights are in their interest. As the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche once glibly noted, that the proof of the pudding is in the eating (Kaufmann, 1982), people in time will come to know whether the principles of the Universal Declaration can positively affect their lives. Yet, the burgeoning interest in that document seems to stand as testimony to its affirmative impact on people's consciousness. Certainly, Americans should be informed that there are other rights than those claimed in the United States' Bill of Rights and that these rights, as stated in the Universal Declaration, are increasingly considered customary international law.
To inform the public of these rights I would suggest first, that education about these principles begins in school. Although I had learned about civil and political rights during grammar school, high school, and college, I had never heard of the concept of economic, social, or cultural rights! So-called civic education courses in grammar school, American history classes in high school, and political science courses in college are just a few instances where teachers and students can discuss these rights. In addition, because these concepts are interdisciplinary in character, they can easily be integrated into other classes.
I am not simply advocating reform in educational curricula. To do justice to the Universal Declaration, it will be necessary to evaluate the current "social and international order" to determine if human rights are indeed realized in contemporary American society. Students would need to determine, for example, if a society that encourages monetary gain from capital, rather than from work, or that has an average unemployment rate of 7.1% in approximately the last hundred years (Harvey, 1989) is conducive to the realization of human dignity. Taking the Universal Declaration seriously, would mean that schools would become creative workplaces to establish a just society, rather than bastions of unquestioning acceptance of the status quo in preparation for a world which tends to abrogate the fulfillment of human needs.
It will be necessary also to appeal to mass audiences, not only to groups that may be most receptive to human rights issues such as organizations concerned with fair labor practices, homelessness, poverty, or infant mortality. One method might be to utilize the media, by writing, for example, letters-to-the-editor, op-ed pieces, or articles directed to mass audiences. The arts, such as films, plays, and music can also play a part in expanding people's consciousness about human rights. In the 1990s, moreover, the decade that celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1991, articles, documentaries, and various other productions related to rights are evident in the media. Furthermore, a recent poll conducted by Research USA Inc. stated "Nearly three out of four who responded to the survey said they would like the Constitution to guarantee adequate health care for all Americans" ("Poll Finds," 1991). The time is ripe to talk about rights.
In the early 1990s there is also a growing concern for United Nations' resolutions and human rights issues in general. Considering this climate, it seems appropriate to refer to the United Nations Universal Declaration as a document of customary international law. Should this climate change, it may be more appropriate to refer to some of its principles as emanating from traditional religious and philosophical perspectives. Only five years ago, references to the Universal Declaration might have brought consternation. But, with an apparent termination of the cold war among Eastern and Western Bloc nations, people appear more receptive to such United Nations' documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would appear worthwhile, therefore, to refer to contemporary concerns about health care, employment opportunities, education, and the global maldistribution of wealth as international human rights issues. Even the growing public awareness of duties to the environment could be framed within the context of human rights. A faltering environment can also be seen as symptomatic of an unjust social and international order which is the result, for example, of faulty economic policies which emphasize excess profiteering.
It might also be effective to discuss positive freedoms as having strands in United States culture which go back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt who spoke of an "eternal linkage" between freedom from fear and freedom from want. In more recent times United States Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance announced that the United States government should make the advancement of human rights a central part of United States foreign policy which includes "the right to the fulfillment of such vital needs as food, shelter, health care, and education" (Weston, 1989, p. 19). The hope is that public awareness of human rights standards will eventually encompass all of the rights in the Universal Declaration. Only by encouraging dialogue among individuals about ways to create a less unjust society can movements begin which question established social orders that have deleterious side-effects.
Apart, therefore, from this essential component of public concern for the advancement of human rights principles, individuals can submit proposed constitutional changes, which are in accordance with internationally accepted standards, to elected officials or to the electorate itself. I have previously discussed some strategies which occurred, for example, in Massachusetts (Resolution 139). The submission of these proposed changes could also act as a means to educate the public in regard to human rights issues.
On the international arena, furthermore, disenfranchised groups can appeal to international bodies, for example, the United Nations HumanRights Commission or the regional organizations, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Human rights groups, like Amnesty International or Helsinki Watch, ought to also expand their mandates to include all of the rights proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Expansion of their mandates may also provide an impetus for governments and international human rights commissions to take all the rights of the Universal Declaration seriously.
Certainly, these strategies will require time. It would be naive to think that constitutional and other legal changes can occur immediately. Even if these changes did occur it is no guarantee that individuals would then exercise their rights. Constitutional change, however, seems an important step in a long process. As Philip Alston (1990) states:
No specific analysis is offered to support the assumption that formal guarantees will inevitably be hollow and meaningless and that a society which makes such undertakings will therefore fail to honor them....There will always be governments that make empty promises and some will even clothe those promises in the garb of formal guarantees. But many other governments have given carefully worded guarantees and delivered as well. (pp. 376-377)
As a case in point, recent Assistant Secretary of State Richard Schifter made an argument against the enactment of human rights documents when he once asked a representative of a Third World country: "If children in your country are starving would they want a United Nations declaration on the right to food or would they want something to eat?" According to Schifter, "What the world needs regarding economic and social development is action-oriented programs, not declarations." (Alston, 1990, p. 376).
But it appears that Schifter, was speaking in order to suggest reasons for the United States not to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Ratification of that Covenant would necessitate a fundamental shift in United States human rights policy (Alston, 1990). Similarly, incorporation of human rights principles in United States' constitutions and American jurisprudence will in due time demand major transformations of ways to meet human needs.
A well-known story in the field of mental health primary prevention about the rescue of drowning people from a river may also illustrate the point that the effects of constitutional change upon people's lives may require time. Yet, the results should be more effective than strategies which demonstrate only immediate results.
Having successfully administered first aid to a drowning person, a rescuer spots another struggling person and pulls her out, too. After a half dozen repetitions, the rescuer suddenly turns and starts running away while yet another person is seen floundering. "Aren't you going to rescue that fellow?" asks a bystander. "Heck no," the rescuer replies. "I'm going upstream to find what's pushing all these people in." It takes time to travel upstream and no results are immediately discernible. This approach, however, to stop the flow of drowning people by examining the source of the trouble seems in the long run to be far more productive.
Upstream are United States' constitutions, which have emanated from historical and philosophical traditions, emphasizing civil and political rights at the expense of economic and social guarantees. Modification of these constitutions in accordance with human rights principles of the Universal Declaration should leave less people floundering in the waters, that is less homelessness, infant mortality, and unemployment. In the final analysis, because these rights are for everyone, no one should drown in the miseries which an unjust social and international order inflicts.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE IN THE HUMAN SERVICES
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights can also serve to legitimate the work of human service practitioners. While many human service workers, for example, acknowledge that social problems, such as homelessness, high infant mortality rates, and unemployment are unjust, this awareness often emanates from a social consciousness which may also include an "intuitive sense" that these social ills are blatantly "wrong." The Universal Declaration, however, by succinctly stating rights acknowledged by the world community, gives this intuitive sense significant quasi-legal status.
As this research has demonstrated, furthermore, many social ills in the United States are not illegal. It may be illegal, for example, to interfere with a person's right to practice his or her religion, but it is not unlawful for governments to abdicate their responsibility to provide for such basic human needs as security in the event of unemployment, sickness, or disability. Using the Universal Declaration as the standard, however, a social ill, such as homelessness may challenge governments to provide for basic human needs, in this case, the right to shelter.
Human service practitioners, therefore, can integrate these internationally recognized principles into their work by alerting governments of the rights in the Universal Declaration, a document referred to as customary international law. They can engage in movements which may culminate in the acceptance of some or all of the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as law for a specific locale, or for that matter, the United States. The most recent Universal Declaration of Human Rights Project, co-sponsored by the Backman Center for Social Justice, at the University of Massachusetts and the Center for Social Change, Heller Graduate School for Advanced Studies in Social Welfare at Brandeis University should be a major step in that direction. Essentially, its goals are to expand people's awareness of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to use the Declaration as a frame of reference to assess progress toward the realization of internationally acknowledged human rights; draw attention to significant violations; and suggest avenues to overcome such violations.
Because the Universal Declaration does not contain sophisticated and often technical language which is common to many disciplines in the human services, such as psychology, sociology, psychiatry, and medicine, human service workers will also be able to transcend the confines of their own specialties. Working together to ensure basic human rights easily understood by individuals, will also not necessitate traditional cleavages among human service workers into such categories as expert, professional, or paraprofessional. While these categories may at times serve some purposes, they will become subordinated, if not irrelevant, among human service practitioners and any other workers in the quest for the realization of human rights for all people. In the pursuit of the fulfillment of human needs it would furthermore, be senseless for a sociologist to view him or herself as an expert in group processes, a psychologist in intrapsychic processes, or a lawyer in legal matters. Paradoxically, however, all disciplines will need to cooperate and, when appropriate, borrow upon the experience and knowledge of other disciplines in order to determine ways that human rights can be realized. However, mere knowledge of the rights in the Universal Declaration should be sufficient to provide clearly stated goals and harness energies of all people to work toward the satisfaction of human needs.
Working together, therefore, human service and other workers can promote legislation, educate the general public, and conduct research in ways that will expand people's consciousness in regard to human rights. In addition to developing strategies which will incorporate internationally recognized rights into legal codes, they can conduct workshops or hold classes on human rights, and determine reasons for poor implementation of human rights principles. If human service and other workers were successful enough to include a right to health care, in a state constitution, for example, the next step would be to determine how to implement this right. In the meantime, it may be important to discover which states that have said the legislature "may provide" for housing or health care, have enacted legislation to provide for such rights. The next step would be to determine the impediments to the realization of such rights. It may be found, for example, that certain judges or law enforcement personnel were incognizant of certain statutes. An interventive measure then would be, for instance, education.
Many human service workers are often involved with "treating" such "mental disorders," as alcohol abuse, anti-social personality, or anxiety disorders of childhood or adolescence as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. While I do not deny that it is still important to treat such individuals in ways that will help them fulfill their potential as human beings, it also appears important to recognize the social order which may have played a substantial part in the development of such disorders. Human service workers, through some of the strategies already mentioned, can also play a part in the establishment of a social order more conducive to the flowering of the human personality.
The Universal Declaration can also act as a guide for one's conscience. The human service worker can refuse to participate in endeavors which may not be conducive, for example, to ensuring "a family an existence of human dignity" (as in Article 25). While many social service programs barely provide enough assistance to families for such basic necessities as food and shelter, the committed human service worker can decline the mere dispensing of such meager support. Thus, he or she can attempt to augment this assistance in order to provide for a dignified existence. An increase in assistance will not only include a monetary augmentation, but also an attempt to provide for other rights, such as the right to work and the need for a social order in which human rights can be realized. I am not saying that a human service worker ought to be "all things to all persons." Yet, he or she can realize the inadequacies of many social welfare programs in relation to the rights as described in the Universal Declaration. Cognizant of these deficiencies, the human service worker can conscientiously, in accordance with internationally recognized human rights principles, work toward the fulfillment of human needs.
Finally, while the idea of human rights has emerged as a very powerful construct to advance the cause of human needs, human service workers could additionally benefit from other approaches, which are beyond the scope of this work, that may also enhance human potential and growth. Because the primary aim of effective social policies is to match human needs with available resources, any approach which performs this function without violating the dignity and integrity of the human person, is a worthwhile effort. However, to neglect the growing acceptance of internationally recognized human rights standards, such as found in the Universal Declaration is to dismiss an extremely powerful strategy.
PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN ADVANCING HUMAN RIGHTS
As the history of the idea of human rights has illustrated, hidden agenda can riddle attempts to advance the cause of human rights. It appears that a major difficulty may be that the concern for human rights can actually mask exploitation. Noble crusades, even the cause of human rights, have always aroused public opinion. The "noble" right to private property, for example, may have served as a pretext to deprive indigenous peoples of their lands. The granting of freedom of religion by the English monarchy to the American colonists appeared actually an attempt to entice cheap labor to the New World in order to transport gold back to England.
Descriptions of torture or other abuses of individuals at the mercy of tyrannical governments, furthermore, may serve as "just" causes for humanitarian intervention which, in reality, may be attempts to regain lost territories or preserve the wealth of elites. Governments might also condemn human rights abuses in countries inimical to their interests, not from humanitarian concerns, but rather to mobilize world opinion against them. Political leaders may also criticize human rights violations in other countries, while ignoring violations in their own countries. It can also be contentiously argued that Amnesty International's concern for torture victims in foreign countries and the public's concern for such genocidal atrocities as the Holocaust and the Killing Fields (after the fact!) is an example of government propaganda to divert attention from human rights abuses at home, such as homelessness, lack of health care, and high infant mortality rates.
In the above situations, motives may be other than the fulfillment of human needs. In these cases, Jeremy Bentham's pithy statement that talk about rights is "nonsense on stilts" may have some validity. However, the history of the idea of human rights has demonstrated that humans have banded together with the purest of motives when unjust monarchs, governments, and social orders have thwarted human needs. The barons at Runnymede, the drafters of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights, and the numerous NGO's at the San Francisco Conference are a few examples of committed individuals desirous of documents advancing the cause of human rights and human needs.
It appears, therefore, that concern for advancement of human rights will always require vigilance . It would be most disparaging, for instance, if monstrous wars erupted in order to secure human rights, resulting not in the assurance of human rights, but rather the untold loss of human lives. Yet, it is also heartening to know that documents such as the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have served as bases for legitimate claims against political authorities for failure to fulfill human needs. Nietzsche's comments in his last work, Twilight of the Idols, written toward the end of the twentieth century, may have some relevance as the dawn of the twenty-first century approaches. He acknowledges, for instance, that the doctrine of equality has often been surrounded by "gruesome and bloody events" (Kaufmann, 1982, p. 553).
Another problem is that concern for a specific right or groups of rights may lessen concern for other rights. A difficulty may arise, for example, if one works to include a specific right such as the right to work or the right to health care in the federal or state constitutions. Surely, these rights, are interdependent and indivisible. Workers need to be healthy to perform a job; the healthy need work to do. Despite this difficulty, I think, however, that it may be appropriate to work for the inclusion of specific rights such as employment, health care, shelter, and education but, only if one does not lose sight of the "forest for the trees." That is, the aim is the eventual inclusion of all rights contained in the Universal Declaration, because they are all important.
Another problem is that trying to incorporate rights in United States constitutions such as equal rights for women, or people with disabilities or economic and social rights for children or the elderly can have the unfortunate consequence of setting up one group against another. The recent shift in poverty from the elderly to children is one evidence of this possible confrontation among groups in vying for rights. The question becomes, therefore, how to coalesce all groups so that society doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul. Certainly, women, people with disabilities, children, the elderly and other groups need to have their needs met.
To resolve this issue, I think that all groups should strive for a just "social and international order" as stated in Article 28 which implies a fair distribution of wealth and the dissemination of monies to those most in need. These funds, therefore, would not come from other groups in need, but rather from an elite one-half percent of the population who, according to a recent report on the concentration of wealth in the United States by the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, own approximately half of the United States' wealth (Kolby, 1987). Surely, the resources are there.
Undoubtedly, efforts to inform individuals about their human rights will be difficult largely because concern for human rights is threatening to the small minority of elites who own much of the country's wealth and control most of the media. Despite such efforts, the world will continually be filtered through the eyes of these elites, thereby assuring that the majority of the population believe that governments already provide individuals with enough goods and services to satisfy their needs.
A final issue concerns itself with the problem of cultural relativism. The search for universal norms may, for example, be inimical to some cultures. Surely, some traditions, espouse other rights than those proclaimed by the Universal Declaration. Although I pretend in no way to speak for indigenous peoples who traditionally have not had written traditions, I can easily imagine their concern that the Universal Declaration and other human rights documents are a few of many other written documents which non-indigenous peoples abuse. It is also necessary to listen to the concerns of some poorer nations of the world related to the gross maldistribution of global wealth. From their perspective, which often emanates from different cultural traditions, it is inconceivable to give their northern counterparts recognition for the founding of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration when the poorer countries of the world must live in hunger and poverty. Although the Universal Declaration has enormous possibilities to improve the quality of life for all, openness to other cultural viewpoints is essential to understanding the occasional limitations of this "good document."
In conclusion, incorporation of the principles of the Universal Declaration in United States' constitutions would be a significant stride in the realization of a less unjust society. Because of the legal status of constitutions, people could then refer to them as legitimate claims in order to have their basic human needs met. Judiciary, legislative, and executive branches of government and law enforcement personnel would also refer to them as standards for the development and implementation of just social policies.
Governments, which proclaim to represent the will of the people, would therefore, distribute resources in ways that best matched human needs. This distribution would be accomplished by a just social order evidenced in part by equitable tax structures based on human need. Furthermore, many of the guarantees discussed throughout this book, such as the right to join trade unions, special protections for motherhood and children, the right to work, and the right to security in old age would eventually become reality. In such a world, there would be no need for social welfare programs as presently known, such as Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment, or health insurance. Social policies will already be integrated into the structure of the society in order to prevent systemic breakdowns like poverty, unemployment, infant mortality, illiteracy, drug abuse, and domestic violence.
Living up to the principles of the Universal Declaration would, therefore, eradicate many of the aforementioned by-products of the failure to meet human needs. Quite often, for instance, fear of losing one's job or inability to cope with poor working conditions can result in the displacement of frustration and anger from work to the home situation resulting in domestic violence and child abuse (Gil, 1990b). Surely, there is a sense of urgency to realize its rights, for the Universal Declaration emphatically asserts: "Disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts, which have outraged the conscience of mankind."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights represents valuable goals now and for the twenty-first century. Because it is in everyone's interest to realize these goals, their incorporation in United States' constitutions is a worthwhile effort. There is no guarantee that their inclusion in United States' constitutions will secure all human rights. However, as the common struggles of humans in the face of tyranny throughout history has revealed, it is the striving toward these clearly defined goals, which provides the most hope for a more humane and socially just world.
Copyright 2004, Joseph Wronka - Permission granted to share this information. Please give proper acknowledgement. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
