The debate over human rights has been marked by a social divide – progressives versus conservatives. (I say social rather than political, as there are social progressives on the conservative political side and vice versa.) Behavioural psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, explained in a recent TED talk ["The real difference between conservatives and liberals", 2008] how conservatives and progressives focus on different – yet also legitimate – concerns.
Conservatives tend to focus on order: institutions, authority and tradition. Haidt points out that the insight here is that order in human society is very hard to achieve and therefore very precious. The main fear of those who oppose a Charter of Rights is that Australia’s system will lose something precious which will be difficult or impossible to regain.
- One objection to the overriding importance of maintaining the authority and tradition is that those whom the status quo doesn’t suit remain perpetual losers in society.
(The concern in human rights for protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority – is sometimes a tension for those with a conservative social philosophy.)
Progressives, Haidt notes, often speak for change, diversity and the questioning of traditions and institutions. They are more willing to risk major change – even chaos – in seeking to include the marginalised. Perhaps a weak, yet illustrative, historical example is the French Revolution – with its passionate idealism and its chaotic aftermath, epitomised by the mass executions at the guillotine.
- One objection from conservatives is that progressives take far too little account of the effects of their changes, which, it’s claimed, can end up causing more harm than help.
In response, progressives point out that conservatives also resisted key social changes such as the abolition of slave trading, racial equality and women’s access to vote, work and be educated, because they feared the effects on tradition, authority & order. Yet such social norms are cherished by most today, and they certainly didn’t lead to the end of civilization.
Despite the philosophical differences, debate about rights is not so much about ends – broadly speaking – but means. All of us want Australia to be a country which is just. Most of us agree that human rights are vital to this end (although there is a strong undercurrent against human rights, which Nicholas Wolterstorff’s recent book, Justice analyses.)
When we turn to Scripture we find both concern for order as expressed in institution, tradition and authority on the one hand (reflected in Hebrews 13:17), and for going to Christ ‘outside the camp’. This passage speaks of identifying with the Christ who himself identified with the unclean, the excluded and marginalised in his life and death (Hebrews 13:12-13 and see also for instance 1 Cor 1:28-29)
In the debate over a Charter, then, whatever our philosophical or personal tendencies, it is good to remember that:
- we have a common goal in mind (a just and caring society);
- we bring important and legitimate concerns to the table – which Scripture bears witness to;
- we need to ground our theories, principles or hunches in specific examples and evidence.