[hr-education] Re: Culture of human rights

Dear Members,

In January and February of 2003, list members discussed how to define the
term "human rights culture."  This message is an attempt to summarise this
rich discussion. Members not only discussed how the term might be defined,
but what a "human rights culture" might look like in practice, and in many
cases described conditions of their own cultural context to illustrate
their position.

We hope that this summary accurately represents the key points made by the
contributors -- listserv members from fifteen countries. We would also
like to recognise that there were members whose contributions were not
posted on the list, either because their ideas had already been presented
by someone else or because of a lack of space.

In the spirit of the discussion, we are treating this summary as a "living
document" and we encourage your responses as you achieve new insights into
the topic.

------------

SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE NATURE OF A "CULTURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS"

The discussion was launched on 10 January 2003 through a message from
KEVIN CHIN, Education Specialist with the Canadian Human Rights
Foundation. Kevin explained that while the term 'culture of human rights'
has become embedded in discourse throughout the human rights community,
the phrase itself has not been formally defined. "Searching reveals lots
of references to this phrase and provides context for it, but no specific
definition." With this in mind, Kevin asked: "We are very curious to know
what people think about this. Would anybody be able to offer their
perspective on possible definitions of 'culture of human rights'?"

FIROZE MANJI (Fahamu, UK/South Africa) provided the first response and
asserted that the term "culture of human rights" is meaningless: "A
culture of *respect* for human rights is what we should be seeking to
build, and that, surely, doesn't need defining." STEVEN JAMAR of Howard
University responded to Firoze's point, suggesting that terms have value
in communicating abstract ideals: "I think the term 'culture of human
rights' is not meaningless - I think the examples of 'culture of peace'
and 'culture of fear' illustrate what is meant by it.  And such modest
poetic license can be very effective in conveying the dream - more
effective than the more precise, but less catchy, 'culture of respect for
human rights'."  BEN SCOTCH of the American Civil Liberties Union
concurred: "...We need metaphor and color in the language of inspiration."
He added that "...'Culture of human rights' is an idea with a host of
historical antecedents and one that's clear enough as a gathering phrase
to serve its broad purpose." As JONI MAKIVARTA (Dulwich International
College, Bangkok)  pointed out: "In the broadest sense 'culture' means
anything humans do.  Studying the culture of human rights is no more of a
value judgement than studying anything else... the concept of rights seems
to involve an idea that people should be treated with certain respect.
This to me sounds like a good idea regardless from what cultural context
such [an] idea has arisen."

Further developing Steven's points, GRETA HOFFMAN NEMIROFF (Sisterhood Is
Global Institute) reflected:  "When we talk of culture, we are talking
about the values and expectation which permeate our whole lives...how we
do things, who we think about them,and how we live them. It is a powerful
term which covers the motivation and carrying out of most human
activity...even how war is waged....A Culture of human rights means that
we see the world through the lens of human rights and that our agency is
focused on both acting and desisting, in small as in big acts, in a
respect of human rights that becomes automatic. Is that asking too much?"

GOZDE AVCI of the French/Turkish NGO EDUCAIDE also noted the flexible
nature of the term, and the need to define it carefully: "'Culture of
Human Rights' can be perceived in many different ways according to
different countries + different people. It can be historical track and/or
values and/or practices and/or laws and/or habits etc..etc..." Godze
recommended that defining what is meant by "culture" generally should
precede any definition of the term, "to avoid any wrong understandings."
Several members picked up on this point and included subdefinitions of the
term "culture" within their responses.

BERNIE WEINTRAUB of the (Facing History and Ourselves, USA) chose to
define the term by noting several dimensions of what a culture of human
rights might look like to the observer. He asserted that the concept of
self-ownership would be found at the heart of such a culture: "A culture
of human rights is one in which people are not thought of as belonging to
anyone, or any entity, other than themselves.  This is usually taken to
apply to family structures: women are not their husbands' property,
children are not their parents' property.  But I mean also that people in
such a culture aren't seen as belonging to the state either, or to the
ideology to which the state adheres, or even dedicates itself..." Bernie
also noted the importance of personal autonomy in a culture of human
rights, which he called "the means/ends issue". "In a culture of human
rights no one should be used as a means to someone else's, or to the
state's ends, without their voluntary informed consent.... The line
between the legitimate interests of the state, or even of society as a
whole, would have to be drawn very, very cautiously in a culture of human
rights."  Finally, he noted that while democratic political institutions
may be a necessary condition for such a culture, the presence of such
institutions does not necessarily indicate the presence of a culture of
human rights. He concluded by raising the issue of whether verbal
affirmations, or even legal protection of human rights, leads to their
embodiment in a given culture, inviting members to consider the culture of
the United States within this perspective.

DONNA HABSHA of the University of Windsor (Canada) offered a description
of how individual cultures of human rights might lead to a world culture
of human rights: "...a 'culture of human rights' seeks to cultivate a high
level of consciousness and compassion for the inalienable rights of all
beings. Such growing consciousness within communities around the world
will form a universal lens through which we are able to inform our legal,
political and moral decisions." She described this culture as a dynamic
force for individual empowerment and advancement of human rights
principles: "...Such a culture recognizes that whatever our role is in
society we are all able to reflect and advance the notion that human
rights attach to all persons without distinction as to race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, natural or social origin,
property, birth or other status."

MIKE PATES of the American Bar Association combined elements of the UDHR
Preamble ('human rights') and Merriam-Webster Online ('culture') and
offered an academic approach to defining the term:
"Human rights is a dynamic body of law that, 1) is founded on the
principle of the inherent dignity of the human being, 2) therefore
recognizes an equal and inalienable right of all human beings to freedom,
justice, and peace in the world, and 3) serves to respect, protect, and
fulfill all conditions identified as necessary to the realization of this
right.  A 'culture of human rights' constitutes the set of shared
attitudes, values, goals, and practices characterizing a collective
recognition of, and adherence to, these laws."

JOSEPH WRONKA of Springfield College (USA) developed an extensive
definition drawing from human rights documents and relating them to the
ways the intent of these laws are internalised within individuals making
up a culture: "A human rights culture in my view is a 'lived awareness'
among the populace of human rights principles.  That is, the human rights
principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the authoritative
definition of human rights standards and the 'long train of covenants and
declarations following it' (to borrow a phrase from Pope John Paul II),
such as the Rights of the Child, Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women etc. are in one's 'gut', so to speak, in
their 'hearts, minds, and bodies,' principles that are dragged into one's
'vital labors', as the phenomenologist Merleau-Ponty put it." Referring to
the necessity of understanding duties as well as rights in a culture of
human rights, Joseph reflected: "I think, ultimately, Gandhi got it right
when asked the meaning of human rights. He referred to the wisdom of his
'illiterate but wise mother' asserting that rights to be deserved came
from duty well done. To Gandhi, the very right to live accrued only when
one also does the duty of citizenship to the world." He concluded:
"Ultimately, I do not think that a 'true' human rights culture, will exist
until every citizen on the planet has an 'allegiance to humanity,' to
quote Joseph Rotblat, [Nobel] prize winner, rather than to their
respective nation-states and have taken vows of non-violence to bring
about such a world."

Some members preferred a simpler approach to defining the term. HOULEYE
TALL of Mauritania stated: "...for me it just means a practice of human
rights, to always speak with respect to human rights....it will pass
through education and practice." SULTAN MUHAMMAD RAZZAK (Forum for Culture
and Human Development, Bangladesh) provided this succinct definition: "An
intellectual expression and practice to live and let live is the Culture
of Human Rights."  However, MARíA TERESA GUTIéRREZ of Argentina expressed
concern with the limited nature of "live and let live," asking: Maybe I
don't understand correctly, but the concept of 'to live and let others
live' is so confusing to me. Is that a definition between cultures, inside
one culture? ...I could think that those women who were victims of their
own culture, of lot of kinds of violence -- I don't think that I would
advocate for a Culture of human rights and let others like Talibans live
without my words expressing those horrors. ...I think it will be an
interesting issue to think how long we respect other cultures if we see
that some human rights aren't being respected there. We live and let
others live? Or [do] we cry that things like that happens right now in our
world?"

VALERIU NICOLAE of Romania described numerous points of difference between
the ideal of a culture of human rights and the reality he experiences as a
Gypsy in his country: "The only problem is how can we transform the
"culture of human rights" from a very bright utopia into a normality or
even better standard of modern states? Isaiah Berlin said that he is happy
to be as old as he was saying that the last century was the worst ever in
the human history because of racism. I wish that in 50 years (when I will
be as old as he was) I will see some of the 'culture of human rights'
benefits in my country, Romania."

SHULAMITH KOENIG of the People's Movement for Human Rights Education
(PDHRE) referred to the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Let us not forget
the Roosevelt definition 'freedom from fear and freedom from want'. Isn't
this a definition of human rights and thus of a human rights culture (as
he had so profoundly said: necessitous men can not be free)??... So, a
human rights culture is where we are free from fear and want. These
freedoms [are] encoded by very specific and very detailed norms and
standards translated into law on the international and national
levels....A human rights culture --as defined by a multitude of norms and
standards-- is a way of life, politically, morally and legally -- a way of
life guided by the human rights framework." Shula noted that our
understanding of how human rights come into being and are sustained has
grown markedly since the UN's 1989 use of the term in their public
information.

CRISTINA SGANGA (Amnesty International-Netherlands and Board member HREA)  
responded by questioning the need to think in terms of one culture,
asserting that if the term culture refers to "that wide number of human
customs, knowledge, and ways of doing things, which is learnt and which
changes with time and is influenced by our history -- then we could not
talk of 'a' culture of human rights, in the singular." She emphasised
respect of cultural diversities, while infusing and integrating human
rights into each--"Always respecting those customs, which do not violate
human rights, preserving them or letting them change as time and life
change ideas, experiences and customs. And transforming or eliminating
those which are violatory according to those standards that the
international community agrees." Cristina asserted that human rights can
act as a unifying force across disparate cultures, calling human rights "a
common denominator which unites us all in dignity, maintaining our
diversity." In support of Cristina's point regarding the possibility that
promoting a "culture of human rights" might be mistakenly equated with
monoculturalism, ED O'BRIEN of Street Law, Inc. agreed and offered a
semantic solution: "A culture of human rights may sound to some people as
if there is a movement to substitute a culture of human rights for their
cultures. However, isn't what we want to achieve through human rights
education: cultures which support human rights, include human rights
principles as part of their core values, recognize and incorporate human
rights into their laws, customs, traditions etc., value knowledge and
respect for human rights, and recognize the need for human rights
education? But perhaps instead of 'a culture of human rights' one could
use the term 'a human rights culture'." VIBEKE EIKAAS of Amnesty
International-Norway voiced support of Ed's suggestion.

OLIVE MOORE picked up on the the themes developed thus far in the
discussion by describing the notion of a human rights culture as "...a new
and pioneering notion which is distinctly different in many senses. A
human rights culture involves an innovative conception of culture which
allows its scope to be substantially expanded to embrace concepts such as
human rights...Advocating a culture of human rights is not the same as
advocating human rights in general. It involves an inherent understanding
of culture as a concept capable carrying these new responsibilities."
Olive addressed the question originally posed by Godze Avci with
substantial background on traditional academic notions of culture, noting
that recent theorists recognize "the recent development in the evolution
of the definition and understanding of culture, whereby culture is
understood to be of a more adaptable, flexible and mobile nature, which
instinctively evolves and adjusts according to surroundings."

Olive noted that even within this dynamic description of how culture
generally evolves, "there are a number of elements to the human rights
culture which are novel and different, and involve an innovative
re-conceptualisation of culture." These elements include the fact that a
culture of human rights is a) "not geographically located"--"Human rights
are intrinsically linked to notions of universality and the culture of
human rights is often linked with terms such as international, universal
or global"; b) non-localized in nature, and yet "dependent and enacted
through local culture"; and c) not created by a "common shared language in
the traditional sense", even while it is "largely dependent on language as
its only means of subsidence. Human rights only exist because they are
talked about, it remains a declared culture and therefore it carries a
heavier burden of representation." Olive also discussed ways in which the
human rights culture might be understood as integrating "top-down"
(universal, hierarchically determined) and "bottom-up" (local practice and
values in action) elements, as opposed to being seen as a system of
cultural superiority:  "A human rights culture is not a pinnacle in a
hierarchy of cultures, but rather a culture which is situated on [a]
higher level englobing local cultures. The fact that a human rights
culture asserts itself through englobement does not necessitate or
facilitate a claim of superiority." Finally, she linked the discussion of
human rights culture to broader trends brought on by globalisation:
"Essentially there is an intrinsic link between the emergence of the
notion of a human rights culture and recent globalisation trends. Perhaps
this could be a point for further discussion?"

ANNA PINTO (Center for Organization, Research and Education, New Delhi)  
picked up on this question and pointed out some of the problems arising
from globalization affect the "human rights culture" discourse: "The
concept of 'rights' in some cultures has been taken to mean many things
such as the duty to coerce those who do not know coca cola to be provided
with the opportunity to explore it at the cost of drinking water. More and
more in the globalised world rights mean a very urbanised, (excuse me)  
westernised set of values and alternative values which have not either the
wherewithal or the general broad base to gain corporate or government
support drop off the range of possibilities." Noting the problem of
globalized notions of entitlement 'rights' on local situations, she wrote:  
"We face in India the prospect of acute water deprivation for over half
the sub-continent in the next 20 years.  Yet we have corporations with the
right to build golf courses and who employ caddies who can't get jobs
elsewhere." Also reflecting on the role globalization, access to
information and conflicting rights plays in developing aspects of a
culture of human rights in individual country situations, ROMANLITO
AUSTRIA (Phillipines) affirmed Anna's points and described her own
country's struggle with power structures derived from the legacies of
Spanish and American colonialism: "In a country where our educational
system has a continuing (ever present) legacy of both our colonization
experiences (Spain and US), difficulty of exercising the "right to know"
is made even more difficult (if not impossible) by the non-availability of
relevant information."

Theorising about what "is" a culture of human rights culture led members
to reflect on the role educators may play in turning the ideal into
reality. GAURI BHOPATKAR (Center for Empowerment, Pune, India) provided a
general vision of how a globalised human rights culture might come into
being, and the role that human rights education plays: "I feel such a
culture may evolve automatically once we ensure to create a respect for
human rights as values for the existence of human beings and not attach
any legal or jurisprudential dictums to it. But, as the international
human rights discourse is not void of politics, those involved in human
rights education need to work hard towards this goal."

Writing from the Ford Foundation's offices for the Middle East and North
Africa, FATTEH AZZAM's extensive discussion of the universal, legally
based nature of human rights and the challenge of embedding this
understanding into communities also led to points emphasising the
educators' role: "The important and perhaps crucial notion [is] that
individuals and communities must be able to know those rights in order to
claim them, and this is where I think building a 'culture of human rights'
comes in." He wrote: "I disagree with the notion that a culture of human
rights is something entirely new that has to be invented as a concept, or
that it may somehow automatically replace existing cultural values.  I
think the most we can hope for is to slowly, incrementally build the
minimum standards of human rights into social and religious culture, to
seek to build upon the moral values and balances of rights and duties that
each and every culture has, and promote those elements of culture that can
lead us to internalize and integrate the minimum standards of human
rights.  This is not an easy matter to be sure, and activists and
educators in each culture will have to find the relevant and workable
approaches for dealing with certain elements of their culture and
cultural/traditional practices that are serious violations of human
rights." Echoing the thoughts of Cristina Sganga and others, he asserted:
"Rather than re-define the concept of a culture of human rights, we need
to INTEGRATE human rights concepts so that culture, any culture, includes
it."

Providing a case study in how effective education may lead to development
of a human rights culture on a country level, STEPHAN ANAGNOST (UN Mission
in Kosovo) described how courses implemented at Kosovo's Police Service
School encourage growth of a complex understanding of civil society and
its dependence on the effective cooperation of key institutions beyond
government, the military and police, such as private business, faith based
and secular NGOs, trade unions, academia, the media, political parties and
families. He expressed optimism in the power of this educational process,
stating that once students "...have the basic concepts under their belts,
we ask them to identify and define the role of law enforcement towards the
development of civil society and a domestic human rights culture. They
have been quick to explore and grasp the concepts and it has been
thrilling watching them implement them in practice."




======== Global Human Rights Education listserv ========
Send mail intended for the list to <hr-education@hrea.org>.
Archives of the list can be found at:
http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-education/markup/maillist.php
If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-hr-education@hrea.org>.
**You are welcome to reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item,
but please retain the original and listserv source.