In my previous blogs I started exploring Fundamental Worker Rights by situating these within the universally recognised core principles of the ILO whose expression, understanding and enforcement is directly linked to ethical and moral values. Something is ‘fundamental’ because it is vital to human beings and where denial may destroy its victims. And yet, few societies are successfully able to establish the conditions within which these rights find effective expression. Most, but not all, societies invest resources into education with the aim of eliminating child labour which protects this ‘fundamental’ worker right. Contrast this with “human trafficking” (the modern neologism for slavery or forced labour) is which is extremely difficult to eliminate because, while homo sapiens is an extraordinarily cooperative species, we are also ruthlessly exploitative of those perceived as ‘other’. Effectively, our limitless capacity at inventing ‘otherness’ facilitates this ability by enabling us to become blind to, ignorant of, or worse still – find justifications for exploitation.
Social institutions then, produce and anchor inequality – and do so despite the universal acknowledgement by nations around the world of ‘fundamental’ worker rights. How can such disconnect between rights and reality be explained? It is fairly easy to understand how child labour destroys life chances through stunted growth and lack of access to education. The remedy is also tried and tested: quality education and sufficient resources to allow children to stay in school. Such awareness of the problem and solutions is much more difficult with respect to trafficking or inequality since it requires critical awareness of how culture affects societal outcomes and thus life chances. Awareness distinguishes the importance of and underscores the need for the fourth ‘fundamental’ worker right. Unlike the other three ‘fundamental’ worker rights which are passive and invoke protection against inequality, forced or child labour, the fourth right is active: the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining are rights to agency and self-determination – in other words, the right to exercise power.
As forms of socially constructed norm or value, ‘fundamental’ worker rights represent attempts to establish and set limits on human behaviour. Rights are a form of intervention in the complex and chaotic processes of social change, which are directly and inextricably linked with power and conflict. The tools we use to explore this terrain must therefore account for complexity, be conflict-aware, and recognise that outcomes only become embedded through processes of social learning. Such a multi-dimensional model is proposed below:
Social institutions then, produce and anchor inequality – and do so despite the universal acknowledgement by nations around the world of ‘fundamental’ worker rights. How can such disconnect between rights and reality be explained? It is fairly easy to understand how child labour destroys life chances through stunted growth and lack of access to education. The remedy is also tried and tested: quality education and sufficient resources to allow children to stay in school. Such awareness of the problem and solutions is much more difficult with respect to trafficking or inequality since it requires critical awareness of how culture affects societal outcomes and thus life chances. Awareness distinguishes the importance of and underscores the need for the fourth ‘fundamental’ worker right. Unlike the other three ‘fundamental’ worker rights which are passive and invoke protection against inequality, forced or child labour, the fourth right is active: the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining are rights to agency and self-determination – in other words, the right to exercise power.
As forms of socially constructed norm or value, ‘fundamental’ worker rights represent attempts to establish and set limits on human behaviour. Rights are a form of intervention in the complex and chaotic processes of social change, which are directly and inextricably linked with power and conflict. The tools we use to explore this terrain must therefore account for complexity, be conflict-aware, and recognise that outcomes only become embedded through processes of social learning. Such a multi-dimensional model is proposed below:
Central to this analytical model is the recognition that the
world is a disordered place upon which societies’ merely project permanence and
stability through the establishment of institutions with their accompanying rules,
norms, meanings and values. Institutions achieve stability – to paraphrase
Hannah Arendt [1] – because they allow people to develop shared purpose that
rely solely on valid and binding promises through which an unknowable future
can be disposed of as if it were the present – and which consequently underpins
all forms of collective human interaction by providing us with the sovereignty
to manage our own affairs.
The “Cynefin” model, developed by Snowden [2], allows for
the distinguishing of systems within this disorder defined as ‘simple’,
‘complicated’, ‘complex’, or ‘chaotic’, based on the relationship between cause
and effect and proposes forms of interaction with each system type. In a ‘simple’
system cause and effect appears obvious allowing interaction to be described as
sense, categorise and respond. ‘Complicated’ systems are ones where the cause
and effect relationship requires investigation or expert knowledge, interaction
requires sense, analysis and then response. In ‘complex’ systems the
relationship between cause and effect is only knowable with hindsight;
accordingly interaction is defined in terms as probe, sense and respond, and
leads to emergent practice. Last are ‘chaotic’ systems, where the relationship
between cause and effect is not visible at the level of that system. Interaction
here is defined as act, sense and respond which in turn leads to novel
practice. An institution’s ability to define and set the terms of the system in
which it operates reflects the degree to which the players wield power within
that system. Snowden adds one final feature to this model – a cliff marking the
boundary between simple and chaotic systems and which represents the danger
that lurks to catch out the unwary who, believing they are in a simple system, commit
grievous errors when in fact it is not. It is safer to develop understanding by
crossing systems boundaries from ‘simple’, to ‘complicated’, ‘complex’ and on
to ‘chaotic’.
This progression from simple to chaotic is reflected in the
next level of the model which incorporates conflict as developed by Goodhand [3].
Merely becoming conflict aware is not sufficient agency to overcome the dangers
of conflict blindness. While it is a useful first step to allow individuals and
organisations to work around conflict in an attempt to “do no harm”, conflict
is a necessary and unavoidable part of social life. Denying the existence of
conflict represents a form of privilege – by which I mean that those who
benefit most from a culture are frequently ignorant of the challenges facing
those who benefit least. By recognising that their agency is a form of working
“on” conflict, individuals and organisations are taking a moral stand (and
which I discuss in my Blog “Ethics,
development and worker rights”) with the aim of achieving transformation.
This leads to the third level of critical social leaning
systems as developed by Bawden [4] and into which the earlier models have two
entry points – the intertwined insightful and experiential learning systems in
which emotion interlinks with meaning to form bridges between our concrete and
spiritual worlds. Observations are the perceptions that result from experience,
by meditating and contemplation. Understanding leads to conceptualisation, as focusing
leads to insight. This paves the way for acting to lead to experimentation, and
accepting to application. The cycle then comes full circle with applying and planning
leading to yet more experience.
Next, I want to look at how this model might be applied to
situations where workers are being denied one or more of their ‘fundamental’
rights.
[1] Arendt, H. (1958/1998) The Human Condition (2nd
Edition), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London, p.245
[2] Cognitive Edge (2017) Cynefin Framework Introduction
[online], available at: http://cognitive-edge.com/videos/cynefin-framework-introduction/,
accessed on 19th September 2017
[3] see also: GSDRC (2017) The evolution of conflict
sensitivity and the spectrum of ambition [online], available at: http://www.gsdrc.org/topic-guides/conflict-sensitivity/concepts/the-evolution-of-conflict-sensitivity/,
accessed on 19th September 2017
[4] Bawden, R. (2010) The Community Challenge: The
Learning Response, in Blackmore, C. (2010) Social Learning Systems and
Communities of Practice (Ed), Springer, London, The Open University, Milton
Keynes, p.53