Dr Roy Childs writes from Maidenhead, UK. He is a Chartered Occupational Psychologist, Managing Director of business psychology consultancy Team Focus Limited, and one of the authors of The Relational Lens.
The aim of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is to treat all people with fairness, respect, equality, and dignity. Few people would openly deny these values. But I want to challenge how well it achieves this aim due to there being some unintended consequences. Let me illustrate with one of the fundamental rights – ‘Freedom of Speech’. Do we believe that people should be allowed to say exactly what they think? After all, we know that some opinions cause conflict – some people’s beliefs are other people’s offensiveness.
Consider this solution to the dilemma: everyone should wear ear plugs in public spaces. This would allow people to say what they want without the problem of offending others. But would that satisfy the definition of free speech? Almost certainly not. Why? Because freedom of speech carries with it the expectation that what is said will be heard. Fundamentally, communication is a two-way process and so the very concept of ‘freedom of speech’ involves others – it requires an audience. This illustrates how freedom of speech cannot be framed purely as an individual right – it is a relational concept. This same reasoning can be applied to most of the Human Rights that are covered by the UDHR, which — whilst well-intentioned — is individually focused.
The underlying motivation for the UDHR stemmed from the abuse of individuals by a state apparatus: the horrific abuse demonstrated by the Nazis in WW2 – it comes from a ‘State versus the Individual’ paradigm. Furthermore, the formulation of the Declaration was strongly influenced by Western powers where there is a strong philosophical tradition emphasising individualism (cf. Hobbes, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche). This individualism is also embedded in Western psychology (cf. Freud, Jung, Maslow, Rogers). The result is a strongly individualistic focus.
This value system has helped to control State power, but it is incomplete because it is one-sided – and one-sidedness creates its own issues, such as how to resolve disputes (i.e. when two rights conflict). Currently, we use the courtroom as the final arbiter – but this is an adversarial legal system which necessarily leads to winners and losers and is a recipe for discontent.
A way out of this dilemma is to recognise the reality that we are not purely individuals. At a psychological level we need to acknowledge that we become who we are through our interactions and experiences, our relationships, our roles and responsibilities. Humans are social beings formed by the world they enter and the relationships around them. A right needs a context and carries responsibilities to others. This is the essence of what is embedded in the concept of Relational Rights, which switches the focus from specific individuals (where a judgement is required on which ‘Right’ trumps another) to how the relationships between interested parties are impacted.
The aim of Relational Rights is to correct the individualistic bias in the UDHR. It does this by shifting the focus to the more realistic view that an individual’s identity is socially constructed and hence a relational concept. It recognises that people go through a high dependency stage in early life and develop independence as we become young adults. Many individuals and some societies see the development of independence as the goal, and this is particularly true in the Western world where it is seen as a virtue. However, in this individualistic world we are seeing an explosion of mental health issues, increasing issues of loneliness[1], long working hours, high levels of reported stress, relationship breakdowns etc.
Relational Rights shifts the emphasis from an individual’s health and well-being towards improving impacted relationships. Freedom of speech becomes a way for people to express different thoughts and opinions in a way that respects the context and encourages listening and understanding. It becomes not only the right to express but the duty to listen – and the goal is to promote healthy and proximate relationships. Getting the concept of Relational Rights accepted would be a huge step forward – especially if it resonates with many of the countries that are not currently committed to the UDHR. Moving the concept of Human Rights to Relational Rights is both psychologically more accurate and focuses on a higher goal than an individual’s self-affirmation – improving relationships in societies across our troubled world.
A longer version of this article can be read here, and you can read more about these ideas in:
- A discussion paper on Relational Rights (Relational Research, 2021). Available as a free download.
- The Relational Lens – Understanding, Managing and Measuring Stakeholder Relationships (Cambridge University Press, 2017)
Comments and discussion are welcome (see below). Please note that comments will be moderated to avoid trolling and spamming, and so will not appear immediately.
References
| ￪1 | As suggested by survey data from the University of Oxford – see How important are social relations for our health and well-being? Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, July 17, 2019. |
|---|