Are Human Rights alright? Part 4

7 Commentscooperation, family, Family (biology), human development, human genome project, Human Right, Human Rights and Liberties, justice, Natural and legal rights, onenness, reciprocity, Uncategorized, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Imagine what might happen if the results of the Human Genome Project really rocked the world.

People would stop each other in the streets.

“Hey, cousin!” they’d exclaim.

“I just found out we’re related! How are you?  Good to meet you! We must get together soon…”

Imagine then, if the realization that we are physiologically part of the same family, prompted us to begin acting like a family?

We’d be a sensible family.  One that knew it had problems but was confident that by working together we’d sort them out.

Problems like the issues surrounding human rights.

Our first step in tackling these problems, might be to make sure everybody feels part of our family. This in itself is a complicated process. We’d already know, from our smaller family units, that true belonging is only possible when both rights and responsibilities are in place.  It’s necessary for everyone in a healthy family to both give and take. This is justice and creates not only basic well-being but dignity and independence.

However, our ‘family’ might pause at this point to examine its conscience, just to make sure that there really is a place for everyone. It’d be in our own interest to do this because, as the African proverb goes,

If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth.

This proverb wasn’t written about the London riots but there’s no denying how well it fits them both literally and metaphorically.

Instinctively we all know that alienation is an extreme of ‘otherness’.  None of us have any loyalty, responsibility or affection for a society – or a family – we feel doesn’t want us. This alienation can sometimes be self-imposed but even so, the ‘family’ needs to be careful that we don’t create structures that perpetuate alienation and disaffection.

OK – so now we have our global family structure. Everyone is welcome and needed – so, what happens next?

Well, obviously, we’re going to ensure that everyone is fed, clothed, housed and safe within our family. Basic life prerequisites.

But this doesn’t mean that some people should do the providing and others should just get to consume the resources – far from it. A good family will always help out in emergencies and will gladly provide for children and anybody vulnerable. But a really good family will also create an environment where everybody can stand on their own feet and live a dignified, productive and independent life.

So, in very simplistic terms, a ‘family’ approach would ensure that everybody had the basics necessary to sustain life and access to the ‘tools’ necessary to allow independence, dignity and the opportunity to contribute to the overall well-being of the family.

How then might our family gathering approach unpleasant issues like the abuse of the ‘rights’ accorded to everyone within our system?

Well, we all know that this behaviour doesn’t have a place in a functional family. Everybody is absolutely expected to respect everybody else and no abuse can be tolerated. We do make mistakes in this regard – even in our smaller families – but overall, guided by the principles of justice – not revenge – our wise family would take whatever steps it needed to take to secure the well-being of the entire family.

And so we might continue, looking at global problems through a lens we understand – the family.

The world is knotted in deep and terrible disorder and no one simple solution is the answer to all of it’s problems. However, sometimes when things are hard to understand and manage it’s helpful to return to first principles.  To things we already know and understand. Like families. We all know about families.

In a family we’d expect love, mutual assistance, support, forbearance and concern with each other’s welfare. This isn’t considered ridiculously idealistic as a goal for a family.

Now that we know that ‘our family’ includes all sorts of people – children who are being sold for sex and slavery, men, women and children struggling and needlessly starving to death, minorities who are persecuted for their ethnicity or beliefs – maybe we won’t only feel concern for them but also responsibility, and a certain entitlement to have a say in their welfare, just as we might with members of our known family?

In the words of Article 28 0f the Universal Declaration of Human Rights –

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

The corollary of that is that all of us also have a responsibility to ensure that this happens.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photograph – UNICEF – Pakistan, 2010: A boy flies a kite in a camp for people displaced by flooding that began in late July 2010, affecting 18 million people, half of them children.


Related articles
0

7 Comments

  1. It’s a lovely vision, but unlikely to be realized in our lifetime.

    First off, families are often more disfunctional, than functional. Parents abuse children. Domestic Violence occurs behind closed doors. Children abuse elderly parents. People abuse animals in their care.

    If families were functional (for the most part), the London riots would NOT have occurred. Those kids acted out because they believe their families (and society) let them down. They don’t feel loved and appreciated for who they are by the ones closest to them ~ their families.

    Second, animals, including humans, are inherently selfish . . . always asking “what’s in it for me? How can I increase the odds of my survival?”

    People are kind to others only after our own needs have been met.

    The more populated the planet becomes, the less hope I have for our future.

    Resources will become scarcer and people will lie, cheat, and steal to grab as much as they can for themselves.

    There are too many of us marching in different directions to the beat of our own drum . . . hence the discordance, rather than harmony.

    1. BTW: I am NOT intentionally being negative. 😀

      I view the nuclear family as one of the main problems of the world ~ people get caught up in the idea that blood is thicker than water and they act immorally to protect “their own” rather than acting morally towards all.

      For me, using the “family” as a starting point for your interesting series seems counter-productive.

      I expect that the world would be a “better place” if the nuclear family were “dissolved.” If everyone lived in intentional communities with some caring for the kids and others growing the food and others cooking the meals.

      Some people would head out to earn money. Others would stay and work in the community.

      Older people would be viewed as wise teachers rather than as burdens ~ entertaining and being entertained by the youngest members.

      Everyone in the “tribe” would work to ensure survival of other tribe members. The leaders would encourage one tribe to work with the next and the next. Etc.

      1. Don’t worry – I know you’re not being intentionally negative! I think disagreement – with the intention of solving problems – is essential – I’m delighted that you engaged with the issues.

        In actual fact I think we agree more than disagree. Though I didn’t specify when I was talking about ‘family’ I meant the extended version – not the nuclear family. I agree with you about the nuclear family – it’s a pretty recent invention and it hasn’t worked that well has it.

        As Margaret Mead said – ‘No society that has survived has ever been quite like ours today. Ours is made up largely of isolated families. The children are totally dependent on their fathers and mothers, with no other relatives to fall back on, or neighbors, or anybody. Yet we are coming to think that the only form of possible life is this kind of “nuclear” family. That could be dangerous.’

        Maybe where we disagree (and I’m not even sure we really do) is that I feel hopeful. I know there are many dysfunctional families but I think – with all their faults – most families are reasonably functional. They just need to extend this – as you point out – outside their immediate family. I really believe if people develop their capacity to think/reflect/be mindful then the survival/adaptive imperatives causing all the problems wouldn’t rule.

        Anyway – thank you for your comments – even the ones that disagree with mine!

      2. You rock!

        It is a pleasure to exchange thoughts on issues that matter without having to tiptoe around the issues to avoid stepping on overly sensitive “toes” (i.e., egos). 🙂

        I’m delighted to learn that Margaret Mead and I share similar concerns about the nuclear family. I ran a domestic violence program for 3 years and an AmeriCorps program for 8 years. In both, I saw one dysfunctional family after another. So sad what happens behind closed doors.

        If we still “lived on the farm” with multi-generational care and concern for our offspring, kids would have more than two (or one!) role model to emulate. Much better result, I think.

        I alternate between hopefulness and despair depending on the current news. With the recent events in London and Somalia and Norway, I’m leaning towards despair at the moment.

        I do however try to rein in my despair since it is hidden arrogance . . . “I have seen the future and it doesn’t work.” 😀

        Thanks for writing thought provoking posts!

Comments are closed.