The temptation in these circumstances react. To go back to 'the basics' - what we have learned to think of as 'tried and true.' Stress is high, patience is low. With this balance, we don't care that much how it is done. Mostly we just want it to get done. We say to ourselves, "Somebody really needs to get with it and fix this problem."
Usually this means telling people we trust to 'take control.' It's pretty natural to want someone 'up there' to make it happen. Not only is it the stuff religions are made of, it's the stuff of empires as well. God knows, in the wake tragedies like Oregon et al., we could use a bit of that empirely feeling now.
Unfortunately, however, doing what we've always done is not likely to fix the problem. And, doing more of the wrong thing is likely to make it worse.
When you get right down to it, the core questions are moral and existential. They turn on what you believe is the real nature of human nature. They also turn on what you believe turns people violent, including what you think makes people 'sick' enough to do horrible things.
In these trying times, the Human Rights Paradigm has much to offer us. It offers a cohesive theory theory of violence. It also suggests why many other pressing social issues, like 'mental illness', 'addiction', 'crime' and distress, substance use, homelessness, poverty, racism, have become as entrenched as they are.
Just as important, and perhaps even more, the Human Rights Paradigm offers a workable path to the other side. The basic principles are elegant and unassuming. In a few minutes, you can get a basic idea of where you are going. This won't begin to scratch the surface. But, it's enough to get oriented and make a start on a journey.
Not unlike the perspectives of Buddhism and Eastern Religion, the human rights paradigm posits that our problems, essentially, stem from ignorance. People aren't aware of rights - or don't grasp how important they are - to a civil, just society.
This results in judgment lapses. Not just in some of us, but practically everywhere. As individuals, families, schools, workplaces and communities, we have ignored the needs of some and favored those of others. We got scared, felt bad, wanted something - and a lot. The next thing you know we were intentionally using someone else - or our power - to get our own needs met. Not just a few of us, but pretty much all around.
The thing that made it even worse is we couldn't stop the cycle. If someone stepped on us, or shorted us, we didn't understand how to respond in a way that advanced the rights of all - and not just our own interests. Because of that, our reactions to injustice or inconsideration tended to make things worse instead of better all around. That there would be both winners and losers - and a battle of wills/ resources that produced them - was pretty much guaranteed all around.
The human rights paradigms challenges this way of thinking. It says we can free ourselves from this cycle. The key lies in:
- knowing about rights;
- understanding their value; and
- developing still in using them to work for both (all) people.
When issues do arise, we're more careful about our responses. We rely on human rights principles - instead of raw self-interest - to navigate delicate terrain. This helps us relate in ways that make things better instead of worse. With consistency and persistence, the vicious cycle of escalation almost always slows to a crawl.
Beginning to use this paradigm is a whole lot simpler than you think. The entire Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides a pretty good orientation - and it's only 4 pages long. Better yet, the important principles are summarized in the preamble - and a few key articles (Art. 1, . All, in all, less than a page of reading can get you up and running.
Human Rights Principles for Psycho-Social - and Socio-cultural - Well-Being
A lot of how we treat each other depends on how we see each other. And a lot of how we see each other depends on what we believe about human nature.
The human rights paradigm is far from neutral on this topic. It has very clear opinions about the nature of human nature. The good news is that the concepts are fairly universal. As a practical matter, human 'rights' don't become 'rights' until a lot of people from every country of the world see them as important. So there's a good deal of face validity to the conclusions that are reached.
The following are key:
1. Human family
Under the UDHR, this is our birthright. We are all members of a human family. No matter what we do, we can never lose this. No matter who we are, we must strive to live up to this. The quality of the lives we create with each other depends on this principle. We are members of a human family and should treat each other that way.
2. Inherent, equal dignity
Again this is something we are born with. We have the same dignity as anyone else. No one has the right to take ours away.
When you think about this long enough, it eventually becomes clear that the human rights paradigm sees human nature from a strengths based perspective.
Inherent dignity means that that everyone of us have worth. Worth means we don't come to the table empty handed. None of us, ever. There is always something to value if people our willing to look.
The fact that dignity is a right thus implies an obligation. If everyone is capable of offering something of value, then we have a duty to look. WE don't just get to write people off - not for a moment - and certainly not for life. Our obligation is to seek and find something of value in everyone we meet.
3. Rights
Rights in the modern world can get pretty tricky. In our dog eat dog world, they have become, largely, symbols of self-interest. "You can't [walk your dog here, say that word, play your radio, take my firearms, etc.], I KNOW MY RIGHTS.'
Rights in the human rights sense, however, go both ways. What's good for the gander is good for the goose. This has a lot to do with that the mental health system terms 'boundaries.'
In mental health and elsewhere, the function of boundaries/ rights is two-fold. They both (2) keep out and (2) keep in.
In keeping out, rights/ boundaries say to each of us: 'Your freedom to dominate ends where my personhood begins." (And vice versa.)
In keeping in, rights/ boundaries challenge everyone to ask: "How can we support each other’s access to the resources that all of us need to live, feel and be well?"
4. Reason
In the human rights paradigm, everyone is born with the capacity for reason. What does this mean?
Reason means that we can learn from the consequences of our actions. We have the ability to appreciate cause and effect and make sense of what we experience.
Reason also implies something very important. When people act in certain ways, we do this for a reason. It might seems strange on the surface, but there is a reason underneath.
This counsels us to judge less and question more. Even the most baffling or hurtful experiences might have a cause that could explain what happened and create understanding.
This brings us to conscience.
5. Conscience
Conscience overlaps a lot with what some people call motivation. On a basic level, conscience is about our capacity to care. Things (called values) matter to us. We care about some values (our priorities) more than others. We express our values through the choices we make. We evaluate our choices based on the results they get us. (Now we're back to reason)
Conscience is what makes us more than robots. It's about the values we live for, the results we want, and the subjective experiences we hope to achieve. Thus, how things affect us - and how we affect others - matters to us. In fact, it makes all the difference in the world.
6. Reason-conscience interaction.
If we put them together, the principles of reason and conscience have a lot to teach us about ourselves and each other. Reason asks us to look for why something makes sense. Conscience helps us see things in terms of meaningful (values-based) choices.
Viewed through this bifocal lens, every thought, feeling and action provides a clue for understanding human experience.
Per conscience: Some part of someone cared to produce it. Otherwise it wouldn't exist.
Per reason: The question is why?
Per both in tandem:
- What kind of effect were we hoping for?
- How did that particular outcome fit with our values?
- Why was that value preferred over others?
- What life experiences shaped those preferences?
- What conclusions were drawn at that time and why?
- Do those conclusions still hold true?
- Are there impacts we didn't foresee then that matter now?
- Are there new options now that could be considered?
- With everything out on the table, does this still seem like our best choice?
- If so, how will that impact the choices of others, including relationships we care about sustaining?
Get Ready for Blast Off
On the surface, these are simple concepts. But if you unpack them, they hold a world of potential. The implications are, truly, vast and revolutionary.
With these simple principles we can make sense of the entire realm of human experience. We can ge to the causes and conditions of our concerns. We can understand why we do what we do. We can right our relationships, heal old wounds, and stop new ones from forming.
Equally important, none of this stuff costs us a nickel. The most important stuff we can offer each other doesn't either.
Better yet:
- No profession can license this.
- No corporation can patent, bottle or sell this.
- No Government can withdraw our funding.
- There is no higher law.
- There is no better law either.
- We can't afford to ignore it.
- We won't be happy until we live it.
- It exists if we create it.
- We can get there if we honestly try to.
Welcome to the human family.
There is no other.
