Human rights: Food for an influencer’s thought ‘HR activism’
[TLDR (too long didn’t read): If you are reading this, chances are you care about HR. This Reader is about how to make HR activism more meaningful and effective and warns against some caveats. For a quick overview, just read the bolded text]. Traducir/traduire los/les Readers; usar/utiliser deepl.com
As human rights activists, are we falling into a trap that will lead to the trivialization of our work and its surrounding discourse? (Ligia Bolivar)
—Virtual activism makes some human rights (HR) causes visible, but reduces engagement on the streets. (True?)
1. ‘Noble causes’ are often trivialized in order to gain more followers. The causes addressed by the HR movement as a whole are no exception. This, to the extent that form too often seems to be more important than the content in the virtual discourses being used around HR.
2. Undoubtedly, social networks have a power that nobody intends to underestimate. There are campaigns that have saved lives, initiatives that have called for mobilizations that have brought down governments. But their valuation as an indicator of impact cannot become a determinant of ultimate success when expressions of support mainly come from friends or like-minded people and communities.
3. Conversely, street activists become ‘influencers’ more interested in projecting their personal actions to mobilize social networks so as to gain followers.
‘Virtual activism’ has some perverse effects
—It is more comfortable to click than to physically interact.
4. Desk activism may have value since it is undoubtedly necessary for HR movements to diversify and project their messages so that they reach nontraditional sectors. The risk is to confuse the means with the end. Language is used for transmitting, but it is not easy to reduce the principles of HR to 140 characters without accompanying these simplified versions with a meaning that is reflected in facts. This activism seems to be developing in place-of, rather than in addition-to, traditional actions. This translates into less litigation, and less face-to-face mobilization which reminds us that our work requires HR actors to be living embodiments of their stories, simply because showing is much more powerful than telling. “What we do is the narrative; what we say is our effort to frame it.”
5. The mass use of the language of HR, so that it becomes a culture, namely, a collective identity that guides our behavior, ought to be our goal; but the massification of HR messages should not sacrifice the content, but rather transform the latter from within a practice that sets the tone of the discourse. (L. Bolivar) [all this makes me reflect about these HR Readers…].
And then:
Activists must walk the tightrope of truth (Nicolas Agostini)
–If, as HR activists, we aim at bringing-indisputable-evidence-of-violations to decision-makers, the traditional story goes: “Then we will influence decision-making and advance human rights….” Right? —Wrong!
6. Using objectivity and empirical evidence to legitimize HR aimed at making ‘irrefutable’ claims is not a fool-proof strategy. If we rely on this, as HR activists, we get trapped in a bubble, and nothing we then say will help us escape from being pushed around by duty bearers.*
*: Ah!, I heard duty bearers say that HR were just “one framework among other.” By this, they meant that we should not fetishize HR since its current framework was developed in specific conditions, in institutional systems dominated by Western rationality. In short: human rights are a sociohistorical construct. (N. Agostini) …Hmm… wrong again…? Point taken though.
7. All claims to evidence and truth can be and do eventually get deconstructed by unbending/unyielding duty bearers** since nothing exists but power relations. We can appeal to HR norms and principles, but let us be careful not to undermine their organizational and mobilizing value in placing our claims –or we will give the upper hand to the enemies of truth, of evidence and of HR.
**: “We should not consider him as the antonym of an oppressor, but as the synonym of a human being”. (Mario Benedetti) But in real life, to which duty bearers would this apply…?
8. Moreover, a quest for moral purity can and does lead activists to erase our doubts when relying on good/evil binaries and when dismissing processes when trying to reach quick outcomes. This is another way of saying that the ends (justice, freedom, HR) justify the means. This is a major issue with new forms of activism. If we start from conclusions, engage in cherry picking to always confirm our narrative, or discard the need for objective investigations, we will enshrine cognitive biases and selective perception that risk undermining key HR norms and principles. As HR activists, we must always examine factual evidence and avoid trapping ourselves in either the unanimity that comes with bubbles or the certitude that comes with dogmas. We must deconstruct concepts, go to the causes-of-the-causes, but being careful not to empower our strategic enemies. We must pursue justice done, but not at the expense of overlooking the processes that lead to injustice. (N. Agostini)
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
Your comments are welcome at schuftan@gmail.com
Postscript/Marginalia
— Optimism about the future is not enough. What is needed is well-founded, actionable hope. Ask yourself: What new frames and narratives can make the HR story credible, inspiring and actionable to human beings? Optimism about the future is not enough. Yes, I repeat, what is needed is well-founded, actionable hope of the type that I hope transpires in the contributions of these Readers. “Optimism is the belief that the world is changing for the better; hope is the belief that, together, we can make the world better.” Hope is optimism with a plan. (Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and César Rodríguez-Garavito)