What is the current state of society?

We live in a diverse society ruled by dominant groups – at the expense of vulnerable groups. In other words, Society is essentially characterized by Diversity and Disparity.

Is that a good thing?

Some think it is. Some believe that's how society is supposed to be. Some say it is what it is – and there's not much we can do about it, try as we might. On the other hand, quite a few are convinced society can be transformed for the better.

What's better?

An equitable society that is more accepting and appreciative of Diversity – in short, a society characterized by Equality in Diversity.

[ Some like to call it Peace, activists typically demand Justice, Rotarians like to ask if it is Fair. Fund donors call it Development, government calls it Social Service, NGOs call it Deliverables. The UN calls it Human Rights. ]

How do we get there?

The general population seems convinced all they need is a great leader to get that part done. Political activists have been known to talk about a special breed of people or a political party  that shall lead the masses out of their impoverished state. In some versions, revolutionaries insist no real change until one takes up arms and forces the issue. The religious to priesthood . The academics to masteral degrees and doctorates in social ills. CSOs or NGOs are more fond of special trainings of trainors and trainors of trainors. We say all of the above and one more.

What is that one more?

Public comprehension. Until the people themselves take it upon themselves to see to it that Equality in Diversity  pervades and prevails in society, genuine social transformation is remote. In other words, the one true key element to change is Membership – or if you prefer its fancy nickname, Citizenship . Until Citizens get to behave like responsive and responsible Citizens – and take societal institutions and public officers to task as duty bearers, any theory of change is bound to remain a theory that means little to the very population it propounds to benefit.

How do you build factories that produce such citizens?

Are they manufactured in China?

No, we make them ourselves, and no need to build factories - we already got plenty of them (in fact since as far back as when the country was still a colony of Spain). 1 million instructors handling 30 million students – in 40,000 barangays across the country. These young students are bound to be the nation's consumers, voters, law-abiders, do-gooders, anti-socials as well as leaders. In a matter of a mere couple of decades, they will comprise the great majority of the "public" of the Republic, as it were. Which means, left to its own, the system is bound to replicate the exact same Disparities ad infinitum.

So where do we start?

That's an easy one. Since we're talking about education, we do well to start with the teachers. The harder part is "With what?"

With what?

With a comprehensive and comprehensible narrative of Society itself. Educators need to first gain a reasonably good grasp of how societal concerns evolve and further develop. Some like to call it Social Investigation, development agencies and NGOs prefer Rights-Based Approach, Marxists assert Class Analysis, and Rotarians are known to test such matters 4-Ways! Societrix suggests the less contentious, "harmless" and maybe more acceptable term Peace Education . (Even the Department of Education uses the term in its official prescribed curriculum.)

Anything less than "comprehensive" will not do? 

For sure, one can reasonably argue that anything that positively advances social equity helps. However in many instances, heroes and perpetrators in "social progress" are quite often one and the same companies. For instance a mining or logging corporation that builds schools and employs locals doesn't at all sound undesirable at first blush – until one examines and gets to see the hidden "externalized" grave ecological and traditional toll on the whole community.

It is also through a more comprehensive understanding of societal challenges that educators get to figure out the connections between and among seemingly disparate societal concerns (e.g. labor vis-a-vis gender vis-a-vis the environment vis-a-vis fundamentalism, and so forth) that would otherwise be missed out of a "pragmatic single-issue" approach and perspective.

Perhaps the even more challenging part is putting together a framework that is acceptable to educators from vastly different backgrounds, religious traditions and ideological persuasions, otherwise it defeats the whole purpose if rejected by even a crucial few. The notion is rather quite ambitious, true, but a "common reference" is precisely what we need to drive forward.

An acceptable common reference for all - in an ideologically divisive world?

[ In 1995, on the heels of the epic rift in the Philippine Left, a small group of activists thought it better to try and develop an alternative framework that might help actors from all sides to transcend their differences and deeply held convictions - and somehow manage to get a few useful things accomplished together. Like perhaps Human Rights and Peace Education. Close to three decades later, to cut the story short, a module that merged Human Rights Education with Citizenship and Peace Education was completed. ]

As work progressed, the developers presented sections if not the entire Common Reference Educators Workshop (CREW) – in public and private schools, Local Government Units, NGOs, local communities, as well as activists from a broad spectrum of often contending “blocs” in the “social movement” which Societrix regards as its own political backyard. Quite unusually, the framework was not only accepted by everybody; organizers were even happy to foot the bill for the materials and travel costs of the volunteers.

The countless volunteer-hours it took to put together an integrative socio-analytic narrative that everybody can live with and find instructively helpful – is finally starting to show results. This is the good news.

And the not-so-good news?

The framework is sturdy and substantive, the delivery engaging and innovative – yes and yes. Yet as good as it sounds, the underlying assumption of its delivery system was fatally flawed. We presumed rather erroneously that presenting human rights and peace education in a clear, concise and convincing way is sufficient to motivate educators to cascade the information and instructional technology over to their students – as a matter of course. Wrong.

We found no real evidence that this in fact is what happened spontaneously. On their own, apparently teachers in general are either not motivated or not trained enough to be able to transcribe the training they gain from a workshop, and translate it into classroom discussion.

[ The one happy exception was with a group of primary school teachers who (after attending the workshop) went on to try and develop locally sourced age-and-grade-level-appropriate manipulative learning aids that suit their needs. However this was done as follow-up exercise upon instruction by the school principal – which means local organizers have a crucial role. ]

In short, to get their students infected with the Citizenship, Rights and Peace Education virus, teachers will need more than a Citizenship, Human Rights and Peace Education “orientation” – though that too.

Like what more?

In so many words, building in Citizenship, Human Rights and Peace Education (CRPE) into the Department of Education’s officially mandated curriculum and topical learning areas syllabus. At any given interval of years, DepEd adopts a definitive set of typically 8 Learning Areas with corresponding prescribed syllabuses of sequential topics according to grade levels.

Question, how do you tackle Human Rights then, if the subject is not systematically built into the system? Answer, by integrating it into all the learning areas, like Mathematics, Literature, Sciences…and so forth. Result in the last 40 plus years = zero Human Rights Education overall.

There is a crucial and pressing need to come up with better answers if we want better results after another 40 years. Graders attend class about 6 hours a day for 200-220 days in one year. Tackling human rights during Human Rights Day, or peace education for one hour once a year under other vaguely defined learning areas – counts for practically nothing, really.

What's the alternative then?

Of all the learning areas outside Maths and Sciences, the most strategic and coherent outline that resonates well with Human Rights and Peace Education clearly lies in Araling Panlipunan (Social Studies). Over the longhaul, the Societrix proposal is to develop “exemplars” or lesson plan templates that teachers can use following the 3-year (Grades 4-6) and the sequenced 96 topics (32 per year level) enumerated in the pre-Matatag curriculum. That way, at least once a week, Citizenship, Rights and Peace Education get to be systematically discussed in class by teachers equipped with readily usable and helpful facilitation guides. Right, easy to say!

Could you please briefly break down "Diversity and Disparity"? 

Certainly. The diversities in our world may be categorized along the 4 bulk domains of Societrix:

ONE, as Species in the domain of Ecology . On one side, there's humans homo sapiens sapiens ; on the other hand, there's others. Because humans are the dominant species, we get to subdue other species and have it our way as we please. Do you consult the birds or the earthworms before cutting down a tree or laying concrete? Does anyone go to jail for premeditated murder of a goat or lobster? Of course not, your friends will even sing you happy birthday if you did.

Humanity is such a brutal force that when they took control of the earth, the rate of extinction of other species surged ten thousandfold! Nor are we even shy about it; it’s perfectly legal to acquire murder weapons from the grocer across the street – pesticides, poisons, chainsaws…

The way we abuse our planet propel climate disruption and disasters driven by human activity – bringing to the fore at least five crucial interrelated considerations and ecological challenges:

[ 1 ] Biodiversity – sustaining life in the only planet that we know of that has life in it!

[ 2 ] Climate Change – adapting to human induced and nature driven climatic shifts;

[ 3 ] Ecological Livability – establishing a sustainable habitat and quality of life for all.

[ 4 ] Disaster Resiliency – building preparedness and adaptability to ecologic disruptions;

[ 5 ] Intergenerational Provision – assuring environmental justness across generations.

TWO, as Fellow Human Beings with respect to the circumstances in which we are born, raised and molded as Peoples and Persons – in at least six arenas of dominance:

[ 1 ] Between Sexes (whether males or females) –
setting a patriarchal global stage wherein men get to get ahead of women;

[ 2 ] Among Races (whites, blacks, other, mixed descents) –
stirring racial biases that prompt supremacists to debase minorities;

[ 3 ] Across Ages (whether younger or older) –
instigating age discrimination in many societal aspects throughout one’s lifetime;

[ 4 ] Concerning Physical and Mental States (apparent or not) –
triggering social diminution and isolation;

[ 5 ] Regarding Skills Set and Occupation (whether highly regarded or undervalued) –
leading to overwork and demoralization;

[ 6 ] Involving Orientation and Preference (whether conventional or "deviant") –
provoking scorn, demonization and social defamation.

THREE, as Classes in the domain of Economics – between the 1% "haves" or the Owning Class  who get to corner over half the world's wealth; and the “have nots” or the dispossessed and forever indebted Working Class who rely upon manual and mental labor to survive.

What's at stake? Twelve fundamental economic needs. Food, water, clothing, health; housing, education, employment, energy; communication, transport, safe spaces, rest and recreation. The economic disparity equation is plain: The poor work for businesses that work for the rich (thanks to the banking and monetary system) – that altogether generate the exact opposite of:

[ 1 ] Food Security

[ 2 ] Community Water

[ 3 ] Provisioned Clothing

[ 4 ] Universal Healthcare

[ 5 ] Socialized Housing

[ 6 ] Free Education

[ 7 ] Full Employment

[ 8 ] Renewable Energy

[ 9 ] Communication Commons

[ 10 ] Mass Transportation

[ 11 ] Safe Spaces

[ 12 ] Rest and Leisure

FOUR, as Adherents of Belief Systems in the domain of Ideologies . It is apparent that religious prejudice persists in both institutional church (Muslim, Buddhist, Roman, Protestant, Orthodox) and secular (Marketist, Welfarist, Socialist, Communist, Anarchist) partisan ideological settings.

Along with hunger that adds 150 million more to the ranks of the undernourished, UN reports, wars too are on the rise, forcibly displacing 100 million worldwide. Not to be outdone, religious violence is likewise undergoing a revival, affecting virtually every religious group, with bloody encounters recorded in over 50 countries.

Whether “faith-based” communities or “party-based” social movements, the historical record in the ideological domain may be summed up in three words: exclusivist, moralistic, autocratic.  To be completely fair however, one may say as well, like in the parable of the wheat and weeds, that here and there the better part of human imagination bears the bounty of hope and peace:

[ 1 ] Open Communication

[ 2 ] Peaceful Coexistence

[ 3 ] Global Cooperation

All in all, Disparities are but logical consequences of Diversities in all its various permutations. On one hand, Diversity is a universal good, otherwise life as we know it would not be possible. Conversely, that very same Diversity serves as main generator of conflicting interests in society. As absurd as it may sound, does sex bias mean anything in an all-women society? Or racism if everybody is black? Or age bias if we all shared the same birthday? Or body shaming if we all looked the same? Or preferential treatment if anyone can just as well do what anyone can do?

So the dominant groups in 4 domains are (1) humans; (2) dominant peoples and persons on account of sex, race, age, physical and mental states, skills set and occupation, orientation and preferences; (3) the “haves”; and (4) organized spiritual and secular religions/ideologies. Briefly and concretely, how then are the interests of dominant groups propagated in society?

Four ways too, thru “what society knows” and abides by as norm. In short, thru its Pedagogies . The entire body of knowledge that a society gets to accumulate is generated, disseminated and inherited across generations throughout history:

[ 1 ] thru Legislation – laws and policies that advance dominant interests;

[ 2 ] thru Culture – rites and traditions that customarily project the social elite;

[ 3 ] thru Technology – socially detrimental equipment and applications;

[ 4 ] thru Language – vocabularies that typically demean vulnerable groups.

You mean, to transform and steer society towards Equality in Diversity, one needs to install changes in public policy, popular culture, science and technology, and accepted vocabulary?

Not all in law, popular culture, science and technology, and common language are detrimental to disadvantaged groups – so it’s a little more complex than that. On one hand, you sort what are there already in legislation, culture, technology and language – that need either pushing or modifying or even scrapping; at the same time, figure out what new policies, cultural practices, technologies and vocabularies – need to be introduced or resisted. Quite a handful, actually. And that is precisely what the term Campaign in social activism briefly and concretely means.

Alright, got it. Would you care to explain “Equality in Diversity” a bit more?

Been meaning too, good of you to ask. I guess the heart of the matter is, why work for Equality? Is it worth the trouble? Is it even doable? Well, two reasons.

One, there is good evidence that people in societies that are more equitable get to live longer, tend to be more knowledgeable, as well as enjoy more opportunities for improving their lot, along with the general population.

Two, like it or not, it says so in the fine print of the international contract that we committed to fulfill as an independent state and nation, together with all the nations in the United Nations. The name of that Covenant is the UDHR, short for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Philippines is an original signatory. UDHR’s Preamble and 30 Articles are riddled with the recurring theme of Equality , one might well call it the  Universal Declaration of Equality ! In there, we vowed to uphold and promote the universal principle that (Article 1, Sentence 1), “All are born equal in dignity and rights.” To learn more, watch the one-hour video at 1hr.org .

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UDHR. Hmm… would that happen to be the same “rights” they’re referring to in the popular pet NGO meme “rights-based approach” projects?

Correct. Development projects that employ a rights-based approach are understood to uphold, defend, abide by and advance the standards set by the UN – in principle, process and conduct. The hub of those standards revolve around the Prime Directive of Equality .

That is why Societrix also calls its Equality in Diversity workshop Rights Based Peace Education . Like two surfaces of a single coin, the UDHR (Human Rights Education) sets the bar for Equality, while the Societrix learning devices (Peace Education) sort the societal architecture of Diversity.

So, in taking action to effect change, who do we mobilize and who do we hold accountable for upholding human rights? Who are allies and who are adversaries?

 

Communities and Institutions

 

There are no villains and heroes, or enemies and friends in our story – but rather Rights Holders  and Duty Bearers . First, identify the vulnerable group affected by the issue at hand – whether women, workers, PWDs, children, minorities, “outsiders”… It is crucial to emphasize that while they may be persons who we know personally as blood relatives or neighbors or close friends, they belong to vulnerable groups of rights holders whose rights are compromised. As a group, they are the most effective articulators and advocates of their concerns – and ought to assume the leading roles in campaigns and mobilizations as credible sufferers and firsthand witnesses.

Like most everyone, vulnerable people belong to Communities that provide physical, affective, intellectual, moral and spiritual support ( Get them actively involved! ) – whether as:

[ 1 ] Personal Community (household, family, friends, intentional);

[ 2 ] Local Community (neighborhood, barangay, town, province);

[ 3 ] National Community (linguistic group, nation, country);

[ 4 ] Global Community (regions, pals from anywhere on the planet).

On the other hand, duty bearers are social establishments or Institutions that exercise sizeable clout and influence over populations. With that power comes duty, hence these institutions get to be accountable for ensuring that the rights of vulnerable groups are secured and promoted. The state being most prevalent of course leads the pack, though not solely:

[ 1 ] State (government agencies, police and military, legislature, judiciary)

[ 2 ] Corporate (private corporations, business enterprises, financial institutions)

[ 3 ] Civic (schools, churches, media, NGOs, civil society, social movements)

[ 4 ] Insurgent (revolutionary movements, armed insurgents, separatist groups).

Besides protect and uphold the rights of rights holders – can you be more specific regarding the mandate and function of institutions in a society characterized, as you say, by inequality?

In an unequal world, as you say, duty-bearing institutions assume the role of social “equalizers”.

In much the same way that each and every member of a household (in a “family institution”) gets to share the same food at the same table regardless of age or earning capacity or limitation or disability – duty bearers work to democratize access and reallocate resources accordingly to help build a more equitable society. In other words, Institutions are agencies of redistribution. At least in theory.

“Global” Citizenship

While at it, it might be instructive to think of communities and institutions in terms of the meme “work-life balance”. Institutions are where people work, communities are where people live; institutions are centers of power, communities are circles of friendships; institutions are where we make a living, communities are where we get a life. The distinction though often gets fuzzy, thanks to the fact that we circulate in both communities and institutions. We bring home work or work from home (especially during the pandemic) – just like we have friends in workplaces. As it were, we are all members or citizens of both social organizations – at least ten global ways:

[ 1 ] as Taxpayers and Citizens (in public spaces)

[ 2 ] as Voters and Constituents (during elections)

[ 3 ] as Managers and Workers (in workplaces)

[ 4 ] as Suppliers and Consumers (in marketplaces)

[ 5 ] as Teachers and Students (in schools)

[ 6 ] as Clergy and Parishioners (in churches)

[ 7 ] as Transients and Residents (in neighborhoods)

[ 8 ] as Friends and Family (in households)

[ 9 ] as Pals and Partners (in “organizations of two”)

[ 10 ] as Enthusiasts and Advocates (in interest groups)

If so, in the sense of Peoplehood, that makes all of us then both rights holders and duty bearers.

Does that amount to a rights-based theory of change?

In so many words, a rights-based theory of change considers the integrative question:

What particular right/s (in the Declaration and derived Conventions) of which vulnerable group (of rights holders) involving what sphere/s of community (personal, local, national and global) – is claimed before which institutions (state, corporate, civic and/or insurgent – in their capacity as duty bearers) requiring action in which pedagogies (policy, culture, technology or language)?