Human rights fatigue

70 years on from the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10 1948), there seems to be reduced concern for the international protection of human rights. Indeed, politicians can now win elections by expressingless concern about human rights (such as the asylum seeker issue). So what is going wrong?

A change in mentality

Today's era is very different from the human rights era which began after World War II. In 1945 there was revulsion at both the human rights violations and the failure of the international community to protect human rights in the Inter-War and World War II periods. There was a desire to create international mechanisms to protect human rights.

Hence the UN's "International Bill of Rights", which began with the 1948 Declaration, which was followed up with the two initial Covenants. An even more elaborate system for the protection of civil and political rights was devised by the Council of Europe. Meanwhile, there was a flourishing network of human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) at local, national and international levels

Human rights fatigue

I suggest we now have "human rights fatigue". The mentality that was appalled by the human rights violations in the 1930s and 1940s has now been replaced by a different mentality.

"You don't think your way through to a new way of living – you live your way through to a new way of thinking". In other words the trauma of the human rights violations forced people (not least politicians and international lawyers) to rethink old ideas of state sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs. Hence we get the post-war movement for the international protection of human rights.

But now there is a new mentality: people are more complacent. The post-war generation of human rights activists are dying off. The generation who can remember the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s have left the scene and have been replaced by a later generation who are no longer so shocked.

Second, there has also been the rise of new right economic rationalism, with its focus on oneself and not the community. We are now more self-absorbed, self-focussed and concerned with getting rich – and far less concerned with broader issues.

Finally, there has been the breakdown in the post-war moral consensus on human rights. The Cold War gave rise to a policy of selective indignation at human rights abuses, with human rights issues attracting different perceptions of political priorities: some violations are seen as important while others are neglected.

Improved understanding of how people think about issues

We have discovered in the last 30 years as much about the operations of the brain as we did in the previous 3,000 years, for example, there is now the ability to scan brains and "see" them at work.

Since at least the European Enlightenment, there has been the assumption that people are "rational". Economic textbooks often assume, for example, that humans are rational actors seeking to maximize self-gain.

But we know now that humans are not entirely "rational". There are limits to "rational" debate. For example, human brains operate at two speeds: an immediate reaction (useful if one is being chased by a tiger) and a more reflective response. Much of the political debate is dominated by the immediate "flight or fight" response, rather than the more reflective one.

Meanwhile, human rights NGOs operate on the basis of "if only people knew the facts" they would think and act differently. How often have human rights activists spoken of the need for "more education"?

But it may be that more "education" does not so much "inform" as simply "reinforce" initial impressions. More information simply reinforces existing views because we read selectively: we know our position and look for information to reinforce it and not to challenge it.

Even if people were to develop doubts about their views, it may not be in their own best personal interests to voice them; they continue to maintain their original views so as to be acceptable to their social group (or to maintain their ratings if they are in the media). There will be no dramatic conversions.

In other words, it may be that the traditional language we use in the human rights context no longer works.

New ideas for communications

First, there is the lesson from the longest running radio series in world history: BBC's The Archers. During World War II the UK became self-sufficient in food and the post-war government decided that UK farmers should maintain that progress. It was necessary to educate them on the emerging ideas in agriculture. A formal radio programme (TV was not then in general use) would not be effective: few farmers would bother to tune in. The Archers, as a daily episode, provided a daily drama interspersed with conversations about agriculture. (The government is no longer influencing programme content). Could we get some attention to human rights in Australian light entertainment?

Second, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, examined how ideas can be spread, and provided the illustration of Georgia Sadler. Sadler (now a professor at the University of California San Diego) was a nurse employed to educate women on health issues. Over two decades ago she realized that the women who came to her seminars were already aware of the issues. The challenge was to connect with the women who did not or could not attend.

Sadler realized that women have a more intimate relationship with their hairdresser than with most other people. She decided to educate the hairdressers to educate their clients. She worked with trainers on how the hairdresser could educate their clients in a compelling manner.

To conclude, I suggest that we find new and perhaps unconventional ways to communicate human rights in this new era.