Feeling human rights: a holistic-feminist perspective. (Human rights: unfinished business).

We have inherited a new millennium full of serious dilemmas and profound contradictions. While some would say that human civilization is moving forward thanks to technological and scientific progress and a revolutionary movement that has made half of humanity visible, at the same time social and economic inequalities, political and religious chaos, violence inside and outside the home, ecological disasters and the militarization of the planet and space reveals a schizophrenia unparalleled in human history.

We perceive this global sickness through a filter of logic that is so dichotomously fragmented, hierarchical, reductionist and mechanical that it is impossible for us to appreciate the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of all of today's systems, relationships, situations, dimensions and realities.

Therefore, it is important to explore some of these connections/relations using basic principles of human rights and taking the right to health care as an example that can help us to approach rights from a holistic-feminist perspective.

I base my observations on the frameworks of human rights and feminisms because I believe that they have influenced each other in a number of ways. Our initial understanding of rights stems from governmental commitments to guarantee that all individuals enjoy the rights and freedoms necessary for a dignified life. This has enabled feminist movements to call attention to and try to universalize women's humanity within a framework that is legitimately recognized by the majority of social actors.

This is also true of feminists' questioning of the theory and practice of human rights and the activism practiced in regard to rights that are a priority for us, including the right to live in a world free of violence. This has resulted in an international recognition of the different violations of women's human rights in international instruments and mechanisms of protection.

Another dimension that has resulted from this legal-political symbiosis has been the widening of the concept of citizenship (1) as an indivisible, interrelated and inter-connected group of civil, economic, cultural, social and political rights and liberties that should be available to all human beings who inhabit this planet.

We must also generate awareness of the tremendous gap between what has been achieved on paper and our real "daily bread" of rights, which are not as filling as we would like them to be.

Taking the principle of universality as our point of departure, we become aware of the interrelatedness of all people's human rights, at least in theory, in all political, economic, social and cultural systems, free from discrimination of any sort. With that first sign of interconnectedness, we move toward the principle of indivisibility in order to question the hierarchies among different types of rights, given that the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of peoples are all equally necessary for living with dignity. In other words, we begin by not privileging certain rights over others since they all form part of an indivisible, interdependent, interconnected and interrelated whole. Each human right is thus the interpretative starting-point for all other human rights, and the existence of one is related to the existence of another, without this implying a subordinate dependence. Recognizing this connection is key for deconstructing the abyss between theory and reality.

All the pieces of the holistic puzzle would seem to come together under the aforementioned principles. If not, it is because universality vanishes when social, political, cultural and economic systems exclude those who do not meet the white, upper-middle-class, right-wing, religiously upright, up-tight heterosexual standards. At the same time, indivisibility is violated when social, cultural or economic rights are "progressively" guaranteed in accordance with the "availability of resources."

As a result, the violation of a civil right, such as the freedom of speech, entails a series of legal consequences belonging to a system for the protection of human rights. In other words, there is an entire prevention system of internal jurisdictional resources for protecting rights and international and national mechanisms that assure their reparation. Yet the violation of a social right such as the right to health does not set this system into motion, and it becomes less and less possible to demand redress through an entity of national or international justice. The resources that governments make available for the protection of these rights are negligible because they either simply do not exist or the priorities assigned to social spending respond to the logic of the northern winds. It is therefore not enough to focus on our own government in order to demand any of our rights. We must analyze their connection to globalization and contemporary geopolitics.

Although systems of prevention, protection and reparation do not work at an optimal level in practice, their legal-political structure and discourse give priority to civil and political rights, which does not necessarily imply that all people enjoy these rights in their totality. On the other hand, if freedom of expression is intimately linked to the right to health or any other social, cultural or economic right according to the principle of indivisibility, how is it possible that systems of prevention, protection and reparation continue to replicate dichotomous logic?

Both principles are also limited and fragmented by our values and perceptions, which are hardly holistic, and our political activity, which corresponds to dualistic personal choices. Who in this capitalist world does not censure a violation of property rights? Does this right not give more protection to a social and political order than to each individual? Any one of us can suffer the violation of a civil right, but in general the violation of the rights to health, work or social security disproportionately affects women who are poor, of African descent, indigenous, disabled, lesbians, etc. Sexist, racist and homophobic values pass through divided, biased and limited minds that are not conscious of our indivisibility and integrity as human beings.

The dichotomous thinking that we see reflected in the practice of human rights and in the social, political and economic "(dis)order" distances us from a feminist-holistic vision and presents us with false dichotomies. On the basis of these imaginary divisions, systems are unconsciously disconnected from one another, as disconnected as the operation of humankind on this planet.

The dichotomous patriarchal logic conceives of the universe and of human beings, especially women, as a rigid, mechanical system composed of discrete parts that are organized according to some hierarchy. We need look no further than the media or within most families to realize that this fragmentation applies directly to women's bodies. Under this logic, all things socially identified with the masculine prevail over those socially identified with the feminine: the mind over the body, the rational over the intuitive, scientific knowledge over spirituality, competition over cooperation. One could continue endlessly creating androcentric hierarchies of all values, systems and living (or merely surviving) beings.

On the contrary (but without implying another side to the dichotomy), the holistic-feminist vision perceives all human beings--regardless of gender--as an indivisible whole, as an entity in constant transformation and interchange with our environment, which also requires comprehensive health care.

This vision generates another perspective; it is a multidimensional life process that would broaden our understanding, our relationships and interconnections in accordance with non-linear logic. The result may be a new paradigm that responds to the indivisibility and interconnectedness of the individual and collective needs of all living things on our planet.

If we are this whole and at the same time part of the whole, and if there exists an inter-relatedness and interconnectedness between mind, body and spirit within the human being, should we not then put into practice the same holistic-feminist logic of indivisibility, universality and interconnectedness among all human rights, among all human beings, and among all of the social, political, economic or cultural sub-systems?

Health is a right and should therefore be integrated into every dimension of human beings and of the ecosystem, just as all of the dimensions should be embodied in and give shape to this right. (2) So why shouldn't this hold true with other rights? Why do we separate the right to health from the right to freedom, physical integrity or peace? Should the right to work not be framed in functional harmony with all of the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of a person who is in harmony with the natural and social environment? How is it that we still do not understand that the sexual harassment of one female worker affects the health and work of all women? Let us consider for a moment the impact that this concept of rights and humanity would have on the policies of a government or community or the strategies of a movement.

How can we have a holistic-feminist understanding of life or of the interaction of systems or relationships if we ourselves are so fragmented in our ways of thinking and perceiving? Or, said in less fragmented terms, in our "feeling." How many of the people who are reading this article at this moment are doing so from a partial vision of their brain? Who can feel it and perceive it from the intelligent cells of their bodies, above and beyond words themselves? How many readers will judge it from their dichotomous egos? Who is conscious of the here and now, of her breathing, of the whole and the energy that we are?

We are so programmed to use our divided and fragmented brains to see and even feel that our analyses are processed by the dichotomous unconscious. We generally associate ourselves with the side of the dichotomy that coincides with our values, customs, ideologies, roles, socialization or any of our identities without understanding that we are part of the lack of harmony and balance being lived by planet and every (quasi)living being.

A government made up of human beings without a holistic-feminist perspective will create hierarchies that place civil and political rights above cultural, economic, social and community rights. Or it will separate the principles of universality and indivisibility of human rights from the neo-liberal model that has been imposed on us, the feminization of poverty, the ideological invasion, the policies of the International Monetary Fund, oil exploitation, sovereignty, the planet's ecosystem, the financial politics that favor private industry, the World Trade Organization, space trash, sexual slavery, wars, forced prostitution, the health of all, maternal mortality, the World Bank, etc., etc.

We might even have the impression that human rights have been infected with "the virus of the invisible hand" which offers little in spite of great demand, convincing us that that if we compete willingly, we might someday obtain one of these rights, or even two for the price of one if we're lucky.

How can any government legitimately speak about equality or human dignity when poverty, lack of health services and access to health care, illiteracy, militarization and multiple forms of discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and many other rubrics are exacerbated by the application of public policies that are fragmentary and disconnected from each other? Or do they think that we have pseudo-dignity or that we'll be satisfied with "low-cal" equality?

On the other hand (or maybe on the same hand), the mainstream media --radio, newspapers, the Internet, television and magazines--projects sexist, racist, classist, homophobic and therefore dichotomous images of a desperate world-market, in which full self-realization is confused with selling, buying or killing. We could even argue that the media contribute to planetary unbalance and threaten the overall health of those of us who hear, see and feel a completely dichotomized and terrifying reality. This terror makes neoliberalism attractive because we are made to feel that no other world is possible.

So while the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consecrates the principle of the universality and indivisibility of human rights, globalization divides the world and human beings according to the dichotomous logic of those who globalize and those who are globalized. Comprehensive health and other rights are transformed into mere products available to those who globalize.

The same occurs with the ecclesiastic hierarchy, which by limiting the sexual and reproductive rights of women and other persons violates our rights to life, health, privacy, freedom, personal safety, adequate information, freedom from discrimination, work, education, etc. All of the rights that are part of the whole are violated by an institution that uses the discourse of spirituality and love as a pretext for confusing the masses and using its power with impunity.

The visions and paradigms created under the shadow of dualistic, androcentric logics have had devastating results for all of humanity. But above and beyond our relationship with the State, the Church or the media, I believe that we should reflect on our "personal politics." More exactly, we should know how we contribute to perpetuating this logic in our daily thoughts, feelings and actions. How many of the divisions within our feminist movements are the result of having forgotten that the personal is political, that linear dichotomous logic cannot be applied in these realms?

It is dangerous to propose a political, social, economic and cultural change, or perceive the interrelated whole of human rights if this change, this perception, does not also incorporate our personal and spiritual dimensions.

Divorcing ourselves from our capitalist and patriarchal identity implies simultaneously separating ourselves from the inside out and from the outside in. Feminist spirituality is political because by setting out an individual and collective interior revolution, one proposes a non-dichotomous vision of the world that perceives the interrelatedness and interconnectedness of all living beings beginning with the creative and non-destructive feminine energy.

Our spirituality is so political that women can express and explore our connection with the universes through the rituals, leadership, meditation, pleasure and all of our rights as an indivisible whole.

We cannot continue to work for women's health by putting in eighteen-hour days and failing to taking care of our bodies and of our own mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual health. We should turn all of our attention to the reconstruction of our most intimately political relationships, because this is where the origin of the personal and political revolution lies. We need to continue to preserve the feeling of indignation and conscious struggle in the face of the cruelty of a model, a paradigm, and a logic that, if allowed to continue with impunity, will destroy this planet called "War" to the very last leaf.

We have before us an enormous challenge as a movement and as a human race. Perhaps part of this challenge involves increasing awareness about the interrelations, interconnectedness and indivisibility that exist not only among human rights, systems and subsystems, and ourselves as human beings, but also within our political activity as feminists, our individual transformation and growth, and our spirituality, understood as an energetic and political dimension of our Self.

Notes

(1.) The concept of citizenship that I use here goes beyond the idea of nationality. The laws on human rights hold that developing countries are not obligated to offer the same social, economic and cultural rights to those who are merely residents but not of the same nationality as their host country. This article addresses the need to understand rights as an interrelated whole and inherent to all people and not only in a chosen few.

(2.) In fact, in Romance languages "health" is derived from the Latin saluus, which is in turn derived from the Greek olos, which means "whole."

Bibliography

Bechtel, W. (1985)."1n Defense of a Naturalistic Concept of Health," in Biomedical Ethics Reviews. Humber, M. and R. Almedmer, eds., Clifton, NJ; Humana Press.

Capra, Fritjot (1982). The Turning Point, Science, Society and the Rising Culture. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Krishna, P. (2002)."The Holistic Perception of Reality." Varanasi, India: Rajghat Education Centre, Krishnamurti Foundation India.

Obando, Ana Elena. "La Perspectiva Holistica-Feminista de los Derechos Humanos." Unpublished work in process.

Starhawk (1987). Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority, and Mystery. San Francisco: HarperCollins Publishers.

A feminist lawyer from Costa Rica, Ana Elena Obando holds a Master's degree in justice and gender and is a women's human rights activist and consultant. In preface to this article, Ms. Obando acknowledges her awareness of the limitations of language in expressing the holistic-feminist vision.