Social Attitudes and Human Rights Prevailing Social Attitudes create a need for Defining Human Rights: Because we live in democratic countries (which most, but not all readers may enjoy), with histories of revolution, evolution and the progress of emancipation & individual empowerment, we tend to assume that we have 'got it right' within our Institutions, Professions, Communities and Societies in general. There is a particular risk that arises from this complacency, often the consequence (in its turn) of the over confident assumption and distorted assertions, which then risks the compromising our underlying legal and 'felt' Human Rights. Since the last two 'world' wars there has been a strong influence, from 'caring' (amore ltruistic) minorities, to see social justice as widely available as possible, throughout the world. There is another, 'intelligent' minority of self interested individuals, who recognise the personal benefit of having large groups of disaffected individuals and nations. Someone to blame and to justify continued aggression and need for 'defence'. There is also a natural tendency for groups to seek redress, tip the power balance and, in many cases, obtain some retribution for the historic pillage of disempowered individuals, cultures and nations in the past. In the absence of Equitable Justice there is a tendency towards 'Natural' justice. It is largely for these reasons that the International Conventions on Human Rights were eventually developed and largely ratified. Even so, with varying degrees of enthusiasm over time, the recognition and appreciation of these Human Rights (and their incumbent responsibilities) have been poorly respected and applied at Local and National levels. This is even the case in supposedly enlightened, advanced Western Nations (with established welfare systems). The assumption has been that Government and learned Institutions will look after these public interest. The cultural / class specific attitudes & elitist, 'pull up the ladder' approaches towards social advancement, which led to the need for the establishment of these international rules, are still prevalent. These are 'Rules' which have been increasingly seen to be necessary in order to protect the interests of the 'home team', with groups who are equally deprived and disempowered (in real & relative terms) as many in the Developing and Third world Nations. This attitude can be illustrated by the highly simplistic, Anglo-American pronouncements, like; "I am all right and have made good for myself, why can't they - they have the same opportunities as me (us)". Of course this simplistic attitude reflects simplistic thinking and limited experience. There are two dangers in this way of thinking, especially when these people 'judge' and 'act' (democratically, or otherwise) on that basis. Thinking is free, speaking out has responsibilities, acting on the basis of such ideas has consequences and possible culpability. We have rights, but we also have collective and individual responsibilities. Deprivation, inequality & 'ill-informed' opportunity eventually has effect on everyone within a culture, or community. The lessons repeatedly learned, in the progression of civilised societies and cultures, is that inequitable practices breads discontent and power without accountability dies a death, one way or another. Firstly, if institutional, cultural and community prejudices are expressed and reinforced, within & by powerful minorities (particularly as a political force), it distorts community understanding. This then reduces the benefits that wider opportunities and greater diversity, can provide to all. Real and diverse (person felt) opportunities are essential for the individual's constructive expression, actualisation and their physical and mental health. This prejudicial tendency also has consequences for the wider, collective groups and culture. The community is eventually, directly affected by those who have been deprived, both by the loss of their constructive 'amenity' and then through their inevitable, intelligent, persistent, but frequently destructive expression of resentment &/or distress. The difficulty here it that the "Its someone else's problem" often proves to be true. The offenders are off seeking new domains to exploit, leaving the rest of us to clear up a mess, which should have been anticipated. The loss of some community benefit and the interruption of enjoyment of remaining community benefits, have personal, social and financial consequences for the wider community, including the original 'beneficiaries' of the prejudice. As recent examples, I invite you to think about issues of Race, Colour, Gender & Ageism and the rise and fall of Fascism - all examples of collective, simplistic, prejudicial thinking and actions. Initial consequences affect the pre-judged groups, then those who try to defend against these injustice, but ultimately (and often most dramatically), the groups, or culture that had exhibited the prejudice (action-reaction-counteraction). The attitudes of individuals who exhibit this simplistic, selfish thinking, poorly prepares them for the crises they invariably meet, at some later stage, either directly for themselves &/or within their families and culture. It is an attitude that selfishly 'serves' the individual when things are going well, or in their favour. On the other hand, it can have catastrophic effects, if someone (or group) with this 'mind set' has to face a serious personal, or family, or social & economic crisis. Some learn quickly and adjust, others (sadly too many) become entrenched into this dissonant mind set, which then becomes problematic for themselves and those around them. These features of 'attitude formation' and the special case of prejudicial 'mind sets', are discussed elsewhere, under the appropriate headings. This psycho-social feature has historically been identified in various cultures and groups. It is described variously as 'comeuppance', 'karma', 'poetic justice', etc. The causal relationship that these anecdotes describe are not perfect, but it is worth noting that some of the benefits lost to the prejudicial individuals and cultures are 'unknown'. Whatever benefits they may enjoy, by being prejudicial, they (we) can have no firm idea of what additional benefits would have been accrued, without the existence of a prejudice mind set. The more important consequence, is the loss of 'positive' social benefit that could have been obtained from the more 'deprived' members of a community. That potential of this lost benefit can be guesstimated from the character of 'negative initiatives' that are generated (as described above). There are some strong indicators of these 'losses', from the work that I have done with people who have suffered the personal and social consequences of these kinds of prejudicial social effects. Mental Ill Health, Antisocial Behaviour, Criminal Activity & Terrorism being typical. I describe these various effects as 'traumatisation', 'inhibition', 'displacement', and 'reciprocation'. Traumatisation is often very costly to the individual and a significant drain on communities, in that it disables and draws upon resources. Inhibition is almost as costly, in that it reduces the potential for independence, reduces functionality and can make extra dependency demands upon others. Displacement is the passive transfer of distress onto others, also reducing their functionality and creating some resentment and generating further prejudices. Reciprocation is the most socially costly effect, where resentment is actively and destructively dispersed into the community, generating reciprocal resentment and reaction. This generates active conflict and further prejudices, often resulting in entrenched 'mind sets' (Them and Us). The mechanism here is that the normal, positive competent initiatives of a person are distorted into equally competent (affective) negative initiatives. Where the normal psycho-social opportunities, to constructively express intellect, creativity, social competence and psychological & emotional frustration are inhibited, other, more destructive channels & methods are used to express these. They will be expressed, in some way, eventually, assuming the person (group) is not traumatised until death. Even so, there will often be wider social consequences, especially if this trauma has impacted upon significant groups, who then carry resentment and collectively convey the various social outcomes described. The 'type' of response expressed is largely determined by: The basic personality characteristics of the person (combination of personality, emotionality & intellect); The nature & degree of negative social impact upon the individual; and, The nature and level 'opportunity' available to compensate for and potentially overcome the destructive effects. Personality traits and intelligence only seem to affect the nature of the effects and the potential to positively overcome the problems (when circumstances change). These qualities do not seem to influence the basic resistance to being affected. There are always consequences, short term and long terms, but not necessarily all negative for all time. It is the 'adaptability' (psychological & social flexibility) of an individual(s) within a group, that influences the various potential outcomes, for the individual and for the group. The human characteristics for successful 'social thriving', or of 'personal recovery' are sometimes counter intuitive. Sometime 'intelligence' works against us. Sometimes emotionality, physical strength, size, social attitude, psychological confidence and other human characteristics work against us. The cultural milieu seems to be a strong determining factor, changing and cycling over time and differentiated into different social roles and institutional structures, each favouring different human qualities for an evolutionary time. As the Social & Cultural Milieu changes, either by evolutionary process, through conflict, or catastrophe, so the different prevailing human qualities adapt and come into their own. This is what I describe as the human characteristic of 'Social Adaptation'. The mismatch between prevailing institutional and cultural attitudes and any individual dispositions, produces psychological and emotional tension, with associated challenges and problems. These individual and social 'features' are discussed in detail else where. They basically have the characteristics of 'growing pains' in the short term. Human cultures and societies, like individuals, are 'distressed' by change, even positive change. Similarly, as with individual resistance to unavoidable change, cultural and societal resistance often exhibit as institutional and cultural 'stagnation'; where artificially perpetuated 'redundant' practices are continue against the prevailing social context; often for 'selfish', 'regressive', 'minority group' ends. There are historical phases and instances, within nations, cultures and organisations, where a less prejudicial balance of opportunity & power, and more equitable opportunity & accountability, have produced; very effective, consistent and rapid advances (technological &/or social), relative social stability, improved 'expressed' individual and collective satisfaction and organisational (institutional) adaptability, productivity and longevity. The most recent commercial examples are Microsoft, Intel and Virgin. From the previous century we have Ford, Bourneville, Cadbury and various Quaker organisations. Most individual Nations have these defined periods. Unfortunately, there are invariably those who wish to seek greater benefits for themselves. Other follow the example and the existing social stability then collapses. Social cohesion is a 'Modern' human survival trait. Regression towards a more primitive 'Human Type' is a feature of the tension between primitive and modern man, incorporated into each of us, through our genetic makeup. The initial 'primitive' actions (aggression) from one competing social grouping (culture / nation) towards another, often precipitates a 'reciprocal' primitive reaction. This can happen because of natural, or social catastrophe, but is often engineered by those with more 'primitive', selfish inclinations, often taking advantage of and 'feeding', and even 'seeding' catastrophic social events, like; cultural & social collapse, famine induced poverty, resulting endogenous conflicts, natural cultural transitions, social & cultural revolution, and clashes of cultures, etc. There are marked differences between the constructive 'modern' social human characteristics and the more 'primitive' human forms; typically described as 'Hawks and Doves', or Wolves and Sheep'. Both these analogies poorly represent the more complex relationship between these two features, which are integral, competing feature of each of our genetic makeup, to varying degrees, adapting over historical time and expressible as 'social adaptations'. | NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
