Lethal connection

September 23, 2011 by
Filed under: Education Matters, Social Economy 

The Troy Davis case and disconnected justice.  Of Human wrongs and human networks.

The Troy Davis case proves a stark reminder that the frontier to justice often resides within people: be they jurors, journalists or judges.  Individual and community networks – both on and offline – are a vital nexus for the proper fulfilment of individual and group human rights.

States must be held accountable for the human rights obligations they have: in the Troy Davis case the right to life, the right to a free trial, the right to live without inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to non-discrimination. However, human rights obligations transcend the state. Ours is an era of transnational corporations, transnational movements of people and ideas, and transnational channels of communication. Fundamentally, the human condition has always been transnational: there are no thick black country lines visible from space.

Each individual and the social norms of the communities that they feel part of are the frontier for the proper fulfilment of human rights. If I carry a respect for mine and others’ human rights as my own personal baggage as I may move for study, work and family, I become a human rights respecting person who has the possibility to spread that respect for human rights to others. 

As a rule, human rights are not broken by an anonymous ‘state’ but by other citizens acting in both public and private capacities. Rights such as those to live free from discrimination, to live free from violence and to experience an education and childhood that allows one to freely participate in a free and fair society are predominantly rights sustained or severed by people. It is people who hold prejudice, or who turn down an applicant based on name, or who turn a blind eye to domestic violence because ‘it is not my business’. Teachers and parents are people and it is the expectations they place in pupils, or the attention they give their children’s homework that predict to a large extent how well those children will do.

The state must respect, protect and promote rights:  it must have have appropriate legal systems to prosecute offenders, systems in place to ensure that national policy does not infringe human rights, and the appropriate programmatic provisions to provide courts, minority interest group institutes/ministries and the schools and hospitals that are necessary. However it cannot and should not directly police all personal relationships, physically hold back the punches of abusive husbands and wives, and ensure that all children are taught rights and responsibilities in equal measure, whilst provided for and allowed to play and grow at their own pace.

In those cases where no dialogue is possible with states and the war-torn factions in their place, people’s social networks can be understood as an important tool in the fight against repression. This could be by leveraging the networks of those in power, the creation of self-help networks and the promulgation of networks of interest that hold that even if the state sees nothing wrong with racial discrimination, or violence against women, or the lack of education facilities for disabled children, we do.

Those agencies that seek to protect human rights and protect those that protect the human rights of others, can use network mapping tools – the International Criminal Court has long used network maps to explain complex cases,  and agencies like the United Nations Development Programme are also moving into the fray. Understanding networks of people, human rights violations and human protectors allows organisations to chart emerging group phenomena (say twitter and the Arab spring), signpost complexity, and better protect those doing valuable work by understanding their enemies’ enemies, and their enemies’ weaknesses.

Human beings are wonderful, but our history is littered by dead ends and wrong turns. Understanding human networks allows us to understand power systems, visualise connections and to challenge and change the norms underpinning our communities.  Often somebody has to stand up and make a difference. And you are somebody.

Share

No related posts.

Tags:

Comments

  • Susannah Willcox

    Great blog Gaia!

    I was just wondering, though, how we might identify a social network that’s being used as a ‘tool in the fight against repression’ against one that’s a source of repression itself. Historically, social networks have often been used to crowd-source and spread information in the name of violence and persecution – the lynchings you mention, Kristallnacht, Apartheid, McCarthyism…

    Are there some defining features of a network that’s fighting on the side of democracy, human rights, liberalism, socialism, egalitarianism - whatever your definition of the ‘good’ might be – that aren’t shared by a network that’s fighting on the side of oppression, discrimination or persecution? Or are they just the same network in a different context or viewed from a different perspective?

    • Gaia Marcus

      Susie: I sent you the longest message as an answer, and it seems to have got eaten up… will investigate into bowels WordPress :)

      • Gaia Marcus

        No idea where my reply went.

        In any case. This blog is an abridged extract ( prompted by the Troy case) of a far longer
        piece I have written on human networks and human rights.

        Some answers to your questions:

        “I was just
        wondering, though, how we might identify a social network that’s being
        used as a ‘tool in the fight against repression’ against one that’s a source of
        repression itself”…” Or are they just the same network in a different context
        or viewed from a different perspective?”

        Yes and no. A social
        network (or human network as I think I may begin to call them) is just a structure.
        There are people and the things/ideas/relationships that flow between them.
        There is no a priori reason why a ‘good’ network might look different to a ‘bad’
        one, as networks are just a way of understanding our reality.  It is the content that would lead someone to
        categorise whether they are “used as a ‘tool in the fight against repression’
        or “one that’s a source of repression itself”. 

        On the other hand, there
        are typologies of network structures. The varying contexts that networks might
        arise in will give rise to different structures. Slightly problematically,
        there are about as many definitions of network types as there are network
        scientists.

        “the lynchings …, Kristallnacht, Apartheid, McCarthyism.”

        Whilst networks as a metaphor might be useful
        here, I wouldn’t really categorise any of these as being ‘networks’ in a way meaningful
        to social network analysis. They do highlight how people’s social networks
        impact on norm creation however. Homogenous dense networks are understood as
        being what tend to keep social norms intact-> many people telling you that ‘they’
        are not to be trusted, maintains that norm in you

        Jim Crow law (and
        associated illegalities) wasn’t maintained by ‘networks’ of people, but by the
        majority (through both action and inaction) bar dissenting networks. What
        little I know of apartheid suggests similar dynamics were at play there. McCarthyism
        was driven by state fear adding to already hysterical levels of public fear

        What might be an interesting
        angle, is that it is well documented how awful human beings can be when they
        carve the world up into ‘us’ and ‘them’. Can people leverage their own networks
        to counter this?  Social contact theory
        highlights how it’s harder to hate ‘them’ if ‘they’ live next door.

        “Are there some defining features of a network that’s
        fighting on the side of democracy, human rights, liberalism, socialism,
        egalitarianism - whatever your definition of the ‘good’ might be – that
        aren’t shared by a network that’s fighting on the side of oppression,
        discrimination or persecution? “

        You’ve kind of answered
        your on question. No, because these are all somebody’s definition of ‘good’.

        On the other hand the scope
        of the network and it’s context will. So: is it a legal or illegal network? Is
        it indeed a network or just the majority of people indirectly maintaining something
        as they go about their daily lives? Is this a domestic or international
        network? An issue network or an identity network? Transnational Issue Networks
        are a well documented feature of the modern human rights landscape. Peace
        Brigades International works on leveraging the networks of those who might
        repress human rights defenders. Tostan works helping communities challenge
        community norms together. The EDL are now using twitter (is this true?) Drug
        users find drugs through hidden networks etc…

        Networks- as a metaphor
        or structure – are just a shell, it’s what we do in and with them that matters. 

      • Gaia Marcus

        No idea where my reply went.

        In any case. This blog is an abridged extract ( prompted by the Troy case) of a far longer
        piece I have written on human networks and human rights.

        Some answers to your questions:

        “I was just
        wondering, though, how we might identify a social network that’s being
        used as a ‘tool in the fight against repression’ against one that’s a source of
        repression itself”…” Or are they just the same network in a different context
        or viewed from a different perspective?”

        Yes and no. A social
        network (or human network as I think I may begin to call them) is just a structure.
        There are people and the things/ideas/relationships that flow between them.
        There is no a priori reason why a ‘good’ network might look different to a ‘bad’
        one, as networks are just a way of understanding our reality.  It is the content that would lead someone to
        categorise whether they are “used as a ‘tool in the fight against repression’
        or “one that’s a source of repression itself”. 

        On the other hand, there
        are typologies of network structures. The varying contexts that networks might
        arise in will give rise to different structures. Slightly problematically,
        there are about as many definitions of network types as there are network
        scientists.

        “the lynchings …, Kristallnacht, Apartheid, McCarthyism.”

        Whilst networks as a metaphor might be useful
        here, I wouldn’t really categorise any of these as being ‘networks’ in a way meaningful
        to social network analysis. They do highlight how people’s social networks
        impact on norm creation however. Homogenous dense networks are understood as
        being what tend to keep social norms intact-> many people telling you that ‘they’
        are not to be trusted, maintains that norm in you

        Jim Crow law (and
        associated illegalities) wasn’t maintained by ‘networks’ of people, but by the
        majority (through both action and inaction) bar dissenting networks. What
        little I know of apartheid suggests similar dynamics were at play there. McCarthyism
        was driven by state fear adding to already hysterical levels of public fear

        What might be an interesting
        angle, is that it is well documented how awful human beings can be when they
        carve the world up into ‘us’ and ‘them’. Can people leverage their own networks
        to counter this?  Social contact theory
        highlights how it’s harder to hate ‘them’ if ‘they’ live next door.

        “Are there some defining features of a network that’s
        fighting on the side of democracy, human rights, liberalism, socialism,
        egalitarianism - whatever your definition of the ‘good’ might be – that
        aren’t shared by a network that’s fighting on the side of oppression,
        discrimination or persecution? “

        You’ve kind of answered
        your on question. No, because these are all somebody’s definition of ‘good’.

        On the other hand the scope
        of the network and it’s context will. So: is it a legal or illegal network? Is
        it indeed a network or just the majority of people indirectly maintaining something
        as they go about their daily lives? Is this a domestic or international
        network? An issue network or an identity network? Transnational Issue Networks
        are a well documented feature of the modern human rights landscape. Peace
        Brigades International works on leveraging the networks of those who might
        repress human rights defenders. Tostan works helping communities challenge
        community norms together. The EDL are now using twitter (is this true?) Drug
        users find drugs through hidden networks etc…

        Networks- as a metaphor
        or structure – are just a shell, it’s what we do in and with them that matters.