Thank you Quantum. I think what you call "self determination" is related to and possibly included in what Maslow called "self actualization", but more on this later...
Quantum Quack said:
I would go a little further in this discourse and suggest that empowerment does not require a giving of power as the person already has the power but more a case of removing obstacles so that power is not frustrated.
An example could be when designing a new building that out of landscape necessity requires a step at the enterance to facilitate access to the building. The designer has a simple decision to make, does he design in a small ramp or does he design a step. The difference in cost is truely insignificant. However the benefit of a ramp is enormous to wheel chair bound or other wise disabled persons.
The designer has the ability to empower disabled persons by removing uneccessary frustrations to their use of power.
Also in doing so he increases patronage to his building at no extra expense to either design asthetics or material costs.
Another example would be to purchase a box of crayons or pencils for a young child, thus providing the tools for the child to express him/herself, giving the child the ability to use his / her creativity thus empowering the childs power of imagination and learning.
No, it is not giving power that it is about but more about facilitating a persons pre-existing power by removing obstacles and reducing frustration.
Good examples. Parents encourage a child to experience success, by rearranging its surroundings to
facilitate success. They still move around and interact with the surroundings themselves, but with greater chance of success. This is also what parents do when they teach their children basic skills like language and visualization: they are providing tools for meaningful expression (
and interpretation). Parents or tutors provide a
superimposed environment of values, norms and emotions, that the child can interact and associate with.
But it's the opposite of this that is the issue here. Many (if not most) children are under great pressure by parents and peers to
conform (rather than simply interact meaningfully). The parents feel the child must empower
them, and the child never develops a sense of self (i.e. is disempowered). It doesn't only apply to children, either. We are all continually developing and learning - it's a lifelong quest, like you said. There is always pressure - constructive (like education) and abusive (like peer pressure) - that compete with each other to shape and influence our lives. Frustration and conflict is part of life.
It's when there is no
counter-pressure that we cave in. This is where I think self-actualizion and "rights" (which is just means asserting one's identity) come in.
In a truely nuturing relationship it is the individuals power that is the focus of each partner. To allow and facilitate the individuals personal growth with out actually leading the person but inspiring self leadership, a power that we all have.
And this is where the road splits. In a nurturing relationship there is little or no place for selfishness. If there is selfishness it will be all about what we can
get from the other. I think this is the fine line that
Baron Max pointed out: Rights must not be demands (even thinking of them as something we "deserve" can be dangerous).
I like to describe a healthy relationship this way: It's when neither party in the relationship is the
centre of it. To be a "centre", others must revolve around you. It is
just as dangerous for someone in power to be a centre (even if they feel they have deserved the position) as for someone who is not in power, or disempowered (who may also feel justified to demand such special attention). See how the words "demand" and "deserve" might be used in both cases? Who can really tell a successful businessman he hasn't "deserved" his power, and who can really tell a victim they don't "deserve" consideration? They both have valid claims to "centre-hood". But if there is to be a nurturing relationship,
the centre must be elsewhere. On a purely transactional level, this centre is expressed through compromise: finding the point where all parties win (or "are empowered"). But relationships aren't just business transactions. The centre must be like a third party, representing all levels of a person's identity - able to authorize all our "rights".
As I said above, rights are an expression of identity. Which means we are essentially working with an "image" of ourselves. But where does our claim to this image, this identity, come from? When we insist on personal rights we imply the belief that there is an objective identity that
should be universally recognized (and this is not a personal, selfish and demanding should, but a universal, dependent and imploring should). We express this in our laws for example, by codifying as much of these intuitive requirements as we can express, tailored to our circumstances and our place in time. We try to do this with as much agreement as mankind can muster, and simply
declare them as binding, almost like a statement of faith: "this is the truest expression available of who we should be". It's tempting to think that only justice represents this universal image of ourselves, but laws don't define us, they merely describe an aspect of us. If we look for the love, nurture, or peace that is rightfully ours, we won't find these in any of the laws that protect us - they're already implicit. A law or a government simply
can't enforce love. It's also possible to think of this image as a universal "self", a divine
impersonality or manifestation of final harmony and complete unity, but that would be to deify our own creation - since
we would be the personality and identity of this ideal projection.
It's also for this reason that I think the concept of universal human rights, like expressed in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, can be deceptive. It comes too close to deifying ourselves - putting ourselves collectively "centre". Sure enough, "
the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights" but they can only claim themselves as its highest authority: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" (29:3). It states an identity, empowered by its own authority.
Legalized human rights are a great example of what I mean by the third centre, as an "objective" system for self-regulation and mutual empowerment. It gives everyone a maypole to swing around. But it's not rooted anywhere - it depends on the same species who made it necessary.
I personally believe that to learn how to empower people [in this context] is the greatest leadership ability a person can learn. This is also what defines good government from not so good government, how they empower their electorate is what makes for a good measuring stick as to the benefit of their governance.
And if they try to keep that power, insist on their status at all costs, they become corrupt, and they eventually lose not just their power and status, but also their humanity. People talk about the "balance of power", and for some this just means keeping people happy enough to get re-elected. But spoilt people, although happy, eventually want to be the centre of attention too. Everybody demands their own rights, and use the justice system to insist on them.
Governments also consist of people, and through their policies they have an indirect relationship with their people. If this relationship is about power or money it will be no more than a business transaction, and because it's already so impersonal and indirect that will make it worse. If someone's god is money and power, he will strive to bear the image of money and power, and will measure his success by it.
Another example that I feel is also relevant is a more personal one.
//...//
So empowerment is in itself an empowering issue.
I applaud you both for remaining true to your conscience! You have given an excellent example of how affirmations of faith, identity and conscience - "rights" - can be asserted
for what they were intended for: enduring, healthy relationships. The moment rights are abused, insisted upon at the cost of others - used for manipulation, extortion, and all forms of selfishness - they cease to be rights; they lose their "right-hood" and actually become wrongs. If our precious rights don't empower other people, we disempower ourselves.
And your priest showed how well he understood the role of the church. It was established by Jesus with the express purpose of facilitation and reconciliation. The Pharisees in Jesus' time were also experts on rights, expressed in various laws and traditions, and they exercized them meticulously, with great care and attention. But they forgot the reason why these rights existed in the first place, and God found fault with them (Matt. 23:23). He restored the proper perspective, brought reconciliation between disempowered man and the God of all power, and "committed to them the message of reconciliation" (2 Cor. 5:18-19).
You also asked,
Would considering the episode of the apple and the tree in Eden as a statement of self determination [metaphorically] be of benefit do you think?
I definitely think so, because that is what is at the core (no pun intended on the "apple"
) of the account. Genesis 1-11 might be called "The rise and fall of Adam and Eve", and it's a story repeats itself in every human life. God, as Creator, was per definition the centre of all life, and it's a position only He can properly occupy. His laws (which we understand though conscience and other requirements for justice)
give us our rights. They don't disempower us, but arrange our environment in a way that is conducive to a healthy relationship with Him, each other and ourselves (not to mention with nature itself). By adhering to these rights we empower ourselves, and get a more accurate understanding of the image we were created in. Contrary to this is the desire to be God and to place ourselves centre - to take from the tree at the centre of the garden (did you notice this was where the forbidden tree was?) because someone decided we're entitled to. The price Adam and Eve payed was a broken relationship with God and nature. They became disempowered, not divinely-empowered like they expected.
I think I would put it this way: Self-determination is a right and a mandate, because when we actualize ourselves we get to know ourselves as God's image. But when we abuse it (which happens when we put ourselves before other people), we get a skewed image of who we are (and who God is): we rise above who we were
created to be, and we're not self-actualizing anymore, we're trying to become God. That's when our rights becomes wrongs, and everybody suffers. If people empower themselves it usually turns out differenty than if God empowers them.
