"What do you want to do when you grow up?"
"What do you want to do after graduating?"
"What are your goals? Dreams? Desires?"
These are questions that we are all asked from a young age and, as I approach the end of my undergraduate career, the questions have begun to pop up more and more. The truth is that even now, as I apply to graduate school, a part of me has no idea what I truly want to do in life and where I want my life go. Over the years, my response has always been that I want to "help people," but I never thought about what "helping" truly meant or who I wanted to help.
I am the child of refugees from Cambodia; my parents escaped after the atrocities that occurred due to the hands of the Khmer Rouge and its followers. Even though I do not speak a word of Cambodian, have no Cambodian blood inside of me, and have never stepped foot in Cambodia, their experiences have always defined how I viewed myself as a human being. Growing up, I never knew or even questioned the experiences of my parents and in a way I always just believed (in childish naivety) that they always lived in America. However, as I researched about Cambodia and subsequently the genocide, I could not help but feel a need to give back to those who helped my parents during their journey to America. All the social workers, organizations, and regular citizens that took the time and effort to help my parents when they needed it the most have all contributed to the life I live now. I have access to resources and opportunities because of the influence of all those individuals on my parent's lives and subsequently my own life. As such, my very naive answer to the above questions was that I wanted to make a "difference" by helping those in "need."
This quarter, I am currently enrolled in a Human Rights seminar that has completely opened my mind about the subject of helping, especially regarding the role of human rights and human rights organizations. One of the first topics we delved on was the theoretical debate surrounding human rights issues. In my very basic view, I always just accepted the idea that human rights organizations and NGOs are there to help people and that they are intrinsically good just based on that desire to "help". Two pieces of writing that were utilized in the class that shed light on my understanding were David Chandler's "The Ideological (Mis)use of Human Rights" and Makau Mutua's “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights." These two writings acknowledged that despite the benefits that have emerged due to the prominence of the human rights movement, there must also be an examination of its consequences.*
Chandler starts off his criticism of the human rights movement by questioning the substance of human rights, a concept that is abstract and non-measurable. Despite being abstract, human rights claims challenge existing legal frameworks that are established, sometimes without examining the overall context of the situation. After the end of the Cold War, human rights concerns began to take gain mainstream attention, with Western states and international bodies gaining the ability to act more freely. However, with this newfound freedom, questions about ideas such as “humanitarian war,” international law, and military intervention began to rise. The rights-equality view that made no judgments regarding recipients of aid (such as their actions, which may have been immoral) began to be shifted out for a human-rights based approach, which saw universality in terms of end goals of peace and justice. NGOs no longer looked at temporary fixes, but instead focused on actions that would benefit long-term developmental approaches. Humanitarian NGOs now had to broach the lines between assisting those in need while ensuring that they were not condoning (or facilitating) the potential for human rights abuses.
Aid has been denied in certain cases due to the belief that human rights would be undermined and has led to critiques of the human rights movement. Instead of aid being given to those who need it, countries must now be able to satisfy the criteria of the organizations before being helped. This becomes the area where Chandler views human rights organizations as having the ability to abuse their power and influence. Another area of contention is that within international law, where the human rights framework has challenged sovereignty on the basis of states being incapable or unwilling to protect the rights of their citizens. Democratic governments cannot be seen as adequate safeguards for human rights, necessitating the presence of international enforcements.
Mutua’s criticism of the human rights movement stems from the argument that the human rights narrative is made up of a savage-victim-savior (SVS) construction. Savages are barbarians when they deprive individuals, where the state can be seen as “evil” if they lack a civil society that can only be redeemed with the submission to human rights norms. This is an issue in and of itself because the state itself is a neutral entity, one that molds itself to the culture and its people. Therefore, the human rights movement can be seen as an attempt for saviors (other “enlightened” countries who have “good” culture) to swoop in and provide assistance to the victims. The savior tends to be western entities, like Western charities and governments, who have their own established sets of culture and norms that they would like to see followed around the world. One of the biggest criticisms is that the human rights movement is entirely Euro-centric, following western beliefs, and based off Western history. Though these rights may be easier to integrate in Western countries, in areas where fundamental human rights are a new concept, it becomes even more difficult with the presence of “saviors.”
Since the concept of human rights is primarily a Western one, it is necessary that the human rights movement take into consideration the history of other countries and cultures when dealing with the desire of advocating for universal human rights. By attempting to push a completely Western ideal onto a country will only lead to backlash and anger, where a sense of superiority over one another may be implied. In order for there to be effective human rights advocacy around the world, the human rights narrative must take into greater consideration the circumstances and the situations with each region that is being dealt with. One can say that the modern human rights movement began after the Holocaust and with the Nuremburg Trials, which is a concrete example that not all savages are those in developing or developed countries. One of the problems that arises from the prominence of the human rights movement is the continued portrayal of the SVS narrative, which does nothing but limit the ability of organizations to work towards making change.
Advocates and organizations must begin to look more closely at themselves and the human rights framework and decide what needs to change to continue the fight for human rights. It is not just about wanting to help people, but about realizing what it means to help and what effects it will have on those involved.
I know this long blog post does not technically answer the question or prompt that was posed, but it explains some of my interests in human rights, NGOs, and nonprofits. I am hoping this experience with CLP will help me discover some of the answers to the questions about what it means to help from first-hand experience.
Why India? Why Riverside? Why Mexico?
Why not India? Why not Riverside? Why not Mexico?
I help because I was helped. I help because as much I may think others possibly need my assistance, I have so much more to learn. I help because I have the ability and the opportunities to help. No, I am not perfect. No, I may have preconceptions of what it means to help and who should be helped. Yes, I have so much more to grow. Knowing that I have these flaws, these imperfections, when it comes to understanding the true meaning of what it means to help continues to drive me throughout this experience.
I am grateful, I am thankful, and I am ready to learn.
*The sections discussing Chandler and Mutua were taken from a paper that I wrote for the Human Rights seminar.
