HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DIALOGUE AMONG CULTURES IN THE 21ST CENTURY

UNIVERSAL DREAM-VALUES, RELIGIOUS CULTURES AND A SECULAR PROJECT: HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DIALOGUE AMONG CULTURES IN THE 21ST CENTURY Key- Note Speech presented by Dr Abamfo Ofori Atiemo, at the Interfaith Conference on Human Rights, Culture and Religion – Towards a Common Ground organised by the International Students Chaplaincy and Initiatives of Change Netherlands at the Institute of Social Studies of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam 12th November, 2016. It is good to be back here. I was a student here in 2003 on the post-graduate diploma programme in human rights. I returned in June 2004 to join the PhD Class in research methods. My participation in that course was meant to prepare me for my PhD thesis which was about how religion contributes to the embedding of human rights in societies in Southern Ghana. I worked with Prof Gerrie ter Haar of the ISS and Prof Martin Brinkman of the Free University of Amsterdam as my promotors. Being not just a scholar of religions but a practicing African Evangelical Christian, my faith means so much to me and therefore, in my days at the ISS, the Chaplaincy was my natural home. I am happy to be back here after so many years and I am grateful to the organisers, especially, Rev Stroh and Jansen, for inviting me. My topic is Universal Dream-Values, Religious Cultures and A Secular Project: Human Rights and the Dialogue Among Cultures in the 21st Century. Instead of introduction, I wish to share a personal story. In 1988 I was a pastor in charge of a Presbyterian congregation in Yeji, a commercial centre on the Volta lake in the middle belt of Ghana. Yeji, like most towns in Ghana, is a place where traditional governance structures headed by chiefs and elders exist side by side with the local government structures of the nation-state. Even though the laws of Ghana do not allow the chiefs to try cases in their courts, it allows them arbitration powers in certain matters of customary nature. One day, it was reported to me that a female member of my congregation (let us call her Maku), had been arraigned before the court of the paramount chief. Her rival in a polygamous marriage had accused her of attempting to kill her daughter through witchcraft. Maku denied the accusation. So, the chief referred her to a shrine to be tried by ordeal. Maku protested that as a Christian it was a violation of her rights to be forced to submit herself to practices strange to her faith. Her protests were ignored. She was going to be taken to the shrine by force. Another church member sneaked out of the palace to inform me. I went to the palace at once and introduced myself as the pastor of the accused and explained how her Christian faith did not allow her to go the shrine and how the country’s laws frowned on evidence gained through trial by ordeal. I then pleaded with the court to release her. It was a tough process of negotiation. But in the end the chief agreed to release Maku on the condition that I as a pastor, should agree to pray for the alleged victim of Maku to be healed. The victim was a girl of about fourteen years old. I accepted the condition with the understanding that my praying for her did not indicate or imply admission that Maku was responsible for her alleged illness. The following day, I took the girl to the hospital in Salaga, a town across the Volta Lake. The doctors detected that the girl had been coached to pretend that she could not hold her neck upright. It was claimed the accused person was spiritually breaking her neck with the intention of killing her. They tricked her into straightening up the neck which was bent to the left for two days; and I returned her to her parents. It was important to prevent Maku from going to the shrine. Not only was her right to fair trial going to be violated but she, also possibly, would not have returned from the shrine alive! The trial involved the drinking of specially prepared herbal concoction. The assumption was that if an accused person was a witch the concoction would kill her; if she was not a witch then she would not die. However, the widespread suspicion making the rounds in the public domain was that, in many cases, the suspect died because the concoction was mixed with poison. This was how my interest in issues of culture, religion and human rights was born. I realised at the time that the mix of religious and customary elements with secular governance principles in grassroots communities fosters direct abuse of the human rights of many. However, I also realised how useful pastors and religious functionaries with the right education and attitude could be in the effort to minimise human rights abuses instigated by religion and custom. What I still find amazing was the fact that Maku, who had no formal education could in her defence, invoke an idea such as the right not to be forced in matters of religion. Since that time, I have tried to encourage other pastors and religious workers to pay attention to human rights issues in their work so that they themselves would not be guilty of abusing the human rights of others but to play advocacy on behalf of persons caught in situations like that of Maku. My enthusiasm and confidence soared high when the initial research for my PhD led me to the discovery of indigenous Akan and Ewe notions and norms regarding the human being as a unique specie who ought to be treated always with dignity. Reflecting over my experience later, I realised that what happened at the palace in the Maku story was part of an ongoing spontaneous (or unconscious) dialogue between local norms and global ideas of human rights. Comparing the discovery with how ideas about the dignity and the right of the human being have evolved in the histories of global north societies, as they became refined and expanded over several epochs, I arrived at the general conclusion that human rights are universal dream-values. They are universal values because they exist in one form or another in all human societies. It does not mean they are recognised, activated and being obeyed by all societies or upheld by all members of a society. Most societies and individuals can identify with them as good and desirable even if they are not consciously lived out in actual life situations. Researches and reflections by anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and political scientists, have established that there are such things as ‘universal values.’ They are dream-values because they are values that are awakened in the collective consciousness of humanity in the context of community when faced with ‘primary threats’ − threat of loss of dignity, threat of disintegration and threat of annihilation – threats, which from time to time, occur because of what Michael Ignatieff has called the ‘natural human propensity to misuse power in social relations.’ They float on the borders of consciousness and do not easily lend themselves to being named until they are more clearly articulated by sophisticated thinkers, prophets, sages or law-givers. Such are the values represented in human rights. Indeed, in 1948 what the drafters of the UDHR produced was a meld of ‘universal dream-values’ that had been beckoning the human spirit through many historical epochs and in diverse geographical contexts. In the face of a ‘primary threat’ posed to humanity by the horrors of the Second World War, the UDHR was offered to the world as a protective mechanism for the preservation of humans on earth. It was humanity imposing rights and obligations on itself for the sake of its own survival. These values are the guiding values of globalisation in the 21st century. Ideally, globalisation should provide opportunities for all peoples everywhere to share in the great achievements of humanity. Yet everybody does not experience globalisation in the same way. Everyone’s experience depends on where they stand on the globe. If you are standing in Amsterdam, New York or Tokyo you may experience globalisation in the easy access to the best of technology, food and information. But if you live in the outskirts of Accra, Abidjan or in the Niger River Delta, your experience of globalisation is likely to be the frequent sight of scores of adults and children at the waste dump, engaged in what has been euphemistically called ‘survival industry’, scavenging through heaps of toxic waste, exported to their backyard by agents of industries in the global north, mindless of the dangers to their health. One’s position on the globe also connects with the subject of culture. Cultural diversity is one of the marks of globalisation. It has resulted from increased migration and an ever-expanding cyberspace that enables, in real time, cross-cultural and cross-regional encounters among people. Contemporary technologies have enhanced the possibilities of creating virtual global communities also with their own cultures. This means there can be a virtual community whose members feel more bonded than a cultural community in a physical location. Such a global virtual community may have a secular or religious culture. Groups and individuals of religious and secular persuasions have been found to harp on difference to underscore what they believe to be their unique identity; and, mobilise and motivate their followers for activism along the lines of difference. It seems some individuals and groups have become malcontents of globalisation because their experience of it has brought them more losses than benefits. Thus, instead of celebrating globalisation they have elected to resist it; no one celebrates a devouring monster! Consequences of these developments have included the heightening of awareness of diversity with its accompanying challenges such as mutual suspicion, intolerance, religious radicalisation and the several different phobias which result from the negative profiling of persons and groups who appear different or whose ways of life are unlike our own. If humanity will be saved from itself in the context of the challenges of the age of globalisation, there must be an ongoing dialogue of cultures. Human rights as dream-values in which all humanity shares are most suited as the principal guiding values of the global community. Human rights supply a spiritual lingua franca that unite the struggling masses in different parts of the world around issues of justice, equality and social progress. Human rights provide the most meaningful and workable framework within which a dialogue among cultures may take place because they focus on humanity. Human rights themselves, as set out in the UDHR and related documents, are meant to be received as a project for the good of humanity whether represented in the collective or in the individual. They are presented as a secular project. Yet, they are not anti-religious. Their focal concern is humanity. Therefore, the dialogue among cultures in the framework of human rights must centre on humanity as the common ground. Everybody must come to the table with what, in their own cultural context, constitute dream-values related to the dignity and flourishing of humanity. Inter-cultural engagement about such ideas will reveal surprising commonalities of views of humanity that can serve as grounds for dialogue and collaboration between and among cultures − secular or religious. While everybody will expect me, and rightly so, to draw on examples from various cultures and religions around the world to illustrate what kind of dream-values they may bring to the table, let me crave your indulgence to focus on the Akan and the Ewe of Southern Ghana, where I have concentrated most of my research on issues relevant to the present discussion. Neither the Akan nor the Ewe developed a literary culture before their encounter with the outside world. In that sense, most of their treasures of wisdom in which we may discover elements of universal dream-values may be found in sources other than written ones. Taboos, rituals, proverbs, traditional political and judicial practices would contain their collective wisdom. In the collective wisdom of both groups, the human being is set apart as a specie whose dignity ought to be respected always. Among both groups, there are certain prohibitions or taboos with respect to the human being. These taboos are of different types. Some apply to all human beings and others apply to people because of their status as adults, office-bearers, men, women, children, twins or a new mother. These taboos are called akyiwadze (abominable things) by the Akan and egudodoame by the Ewe. The term has two parts: egudodo – ‘to reduce,’ ‘to disgrace,’ ‘to demean,’ ‘to degrade,’ and ame – ‘human being.’ Therefore, it means, ‘things that degrade or demean or disgrace human beings.’ Examples of akyiwadze or egudodoame that apply to all humans are: hitting somebody with a broom kicking somebody with the feet stepping across another person spitting on another person using foul language on another person invoking the slave-ancestry of another person to humiliate them hitting somebody with a shoe or with sandals illegally taking another person’s life taking one’s own life do deny water to a stranger who asks. subjecting an innocent person to torture. These acts are believed to undermine the efficient functioning of the vital life forces of the individual and the community because they are grossly insulting symbolic acts. For example, to hit another person with a broom or with sandals or shoe from under one’s feet is regarded as a terrible form of violence. Brooms are used to sweep refuse, garbage, the dross we do not want near human habitation. A similar explanation could be given for the taboo about using your feet or your sandals or shoe on another person. The foot is not only the lowest part of the human body but, metaphorically, also the dirtiest. It is a show of the grossest disrespect to use one’s feet on any human being. Among taboos regarding specific group of persons, we may list the following examples: For women Starving a pregnant woman Hitting a woman on the breast Hitting a woman in the abdomen Forcing to have sex with a woman(rape) Neglecting to cater for the widow of your dead relative For children Assigning adult-sized tasks to a child Starving children of food Maltreating an orphan child of your deceased relative Neglecting to conduct the customary naming rite for a child Defiling a child These are not just empty taboos without basis. They are based on certain metaphysical convictions that assign dignity to all members of the human family in equal measure. Among the Akan, the human being occupies special position in the worldview. The human being is primarily a child of the spiritual world, which overlaps with the physical. There is a constant flow of movement forth and back between the two realms. The person of each human being is believed to be connected to three spiritual entities: Onyame (God), the Abosom (deities) and Nananom Nsamanfo (Ancestors). Every human being has an okra (soul) directly from God; Sunsum (spirit) from the deities through a person’s father; and Mogya (blood) from the Ancestors through a person’s mother. This makes every human being a child of God, a child of the deities and a child of the Ancestral spirits. The physical body is the total expression of these spiritual entities. Being a child of God, you belong the wider human family (adasa); being a child of the deities, you belong to a social group called ntoro (connected through one’s father); and as a child of the Ancestral spirits, you belong to a social group called abusua (connected through one’s mother). Membership of each of these groups affords a sense of solidarity and, involves mutual rights and obligations. Implications of this worldview for our purposes – universal dream-values and dialogue among cultures in the framework of human rights – are several. The concept of the okra, which all human beings received from God serves as basis of the idea of humanity transcending narrow clan, ethnic, or religious identity borders. It means, while abusua and ntoro focus one’s identity on local considerations, an idea of humanity as implied in the idea of okra can be the beginning of an Akan understanding of a common humanity of peoples. Placing humanity in the category of the sacred, makes human beings a unique category that entitles them to certain basic forms of respect. By specifying certain taboo-acts as ‘never to be done’ to any human being, Ghanaian indigenous societies showed that they believed in a threshold of dignity below which no human being should be allowed to fall. Furthermore, ideas of rights and obligations imposed by the Akan and the Ewe worldviews go beyond humanity and the present. They extend the relationship and the derived and implied rights and responsibilities to include future generations and the environment. The idea of a human community has three dimensions: the spirits of the dead, who are recognised through various ritual acts, and to whom belong the land and treasures of the group. They are also the custodians of morality. The unborn or yet-to-be born are also kept in focus. They are acknowledged by certain important moral injunctions, the most prominent being taboos against outright sale of lineage land. Elements in the environment such as plants and animals are believed to possess a soul, which makes them more than just things to use. They must be shown respect, in fact, reverence. There are, for example, days in various societies on which nobody tills the land, or goes fishing in the river or the sea because the spirits rest. There are certain animals as well as trees that cannot be killed or felled carelessly. They are killed or felled only after elaborate ritual to appease their spirits. Though, most of these injunctions are disregarded in the present time in most urbanised communities, agencies concerned about the preservation of the environment focus on them in their policy formulation and public education campaign. It can be the beginning of a dialogue on the rights and responsibilities toward the environment. They are important because, they are linked to the survival of humanity on earth. Humanity as the common ground for dialogue seems to me the best way to ground any set of values for the global community. As the Ghanaian case-study presented above illustrates, various cultures possess, at least, rudimentary ideas and practices that are, conceptually, akin to the values of humanity promoted by the modern regime of human rights. This can serve as the basis of dialogue in the globalised world of diversity. However, certain obstacles remain to be surmounted. For example, In Africa, there seems to be a widening cleavage between secular and religious players in the public arena of civil society over certain issues, the most important one being the case of the human rights LGBTI persons and its related phenomenon of homophobia. Unfortunately, the issue has come to be framed in terms of the secular versus the religious, which, in fact, is a subtle way of echoing the ‘West versus the rest’ proposition embedded in theses such as the ‘Clash of Civilizations.’ In Ghana, this issue is increasingly, making it difficult for civil society players who operate from religious platforms to work with their secular counterparts. This situation leaves a gap, which is usually, seized by populists who negatively profile LGBTI persons and manipulate religious sentiments to spread homophobic attitudes. The other obstacle to dialogue is Islamophobia. Even though in Ghana, there is still largely, peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims, trust suffers whenever there is news in the media about Boko Haram or another Islamic group attacking Christians in Nigeria or elsewhere in the region. Lastly, it seems to me that secular players in the human rights arena ought to tone down on the assumption that it is easy for religious communities to give up on convictions they have held over several epochs. For example, pressing for sudden change in outlook over controversial issues such as LGBTI identity and relationships can be unsettling for most religious groups, especially, in the global south. However, it is also important for the religious traditions themselves to engage in internal dialogue aimed at recovering their claimed ownership of cherished values such as love, inclusion, unity, non-violence and peace with which they are now perceived to be associated more in their violation than their promotion. Continued dialogue, in which positions are clarified and reclarified until a kind of consensus is reached, is to be preferred. Patience is needed in these controversial matters. Dreams are realised gradually over time; not at once. Thank you. 7