The Path to Revolution

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a commonly referenced theory which describes a path to higher-order needs by which the lower, more basic needs, are met first. Abraham Maslow defined his ideas in "A Theory of Revolution" (1943) which can be found here: link.

Maslow defines a hierarchy, a metaphorical stepladder if you will, which depict the order in which the needs of an individual must be met. He claims that one's motivation for satisfying needs starts at the bottom and in order to move up to the next level, the current level's needs must be met.

"Physiological needs are the most pre-potent of all needs," or in other words, we need food and other basic necessities before we begin to worry about other parts. The next levels, in order, are:

• safety and stability,
• love (both giving and receiving),
• esteem (which includes "importance" and "reputation", but also "independence and freedom"), and
• self-actualization ("doing what he is fitted for")

Here's an easy image to help visual-learner's understand:

I had always heard this theory referenced, but I had never looked up the paper or thought about it in the context of revolution. It can help predict the focus of revolt's based on the lowest-order needs not being accommodated to a group of people and it can help policy-maker's define basic human rights. Maslow's writing can help us understand people's motivations for revolution, especially the differences between revolutions in the developed, developing, and undeveloped worlds. One can see that those without sustainable access to water are not worried about being free but that politically stable countries containing people with high self-esteem will focus on creative problems, revolutions in technology, and other problems further up the hierarchy.

The Right to Water

Hi everyone,

In class we discussed how the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights did not include the right to water. I had thought that recently the United Nations had  recognized water as a human right. In 2010 the UN did recognize access to water and sanitation as a human right through Resolution 64/292. The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights stated that "The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity." However, while being recognized as a human right it has not been added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not know what the consequences of such a legal distinction are, if anyone does please share.

Here is the resolution itself and the link to the UN's website on the right to water.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml

Even without being added to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the UN has started many initiatives to make the right a reality. However, long term enforcement does bring up some interesting questions.

First, the World Health Organization states that "50 to 100 liters of water per person per day are needed to ensure that most basic needs are met." This is what the UN wishes to make reality though the resolution itself gives not minimum value. However, we must assume that some minimum quantity of water per day will eventually be fulling recognized. This implies that every region of the planet, even rainforests, now have a population cap on them.For regions where population is already well over that limit does that mean that we must now begin sending vast quantities of water to those regions or does it mean that we should mandate that a certain number of people should move from there to reduce ecological stress on that region. Does Colorado, which currently is able to provide water to everyone but due to huge growth will face a great challenge to do so in the future have a right to kick people out of the state to protect the water rights of those already there? This would seem to violate many other rights in the declaration about freedom to have a nationality, freedom to leave a country and come back, and even the right to work etc.

The statistic itself, 50 to 100 liters, is deceiving as well. I believe statistics on water per person per day are calculated by total water used in a region, including domestic, agricultural, and industrial, divided by total people living there. Thus, if we let it stand that people are entitled to 50 liters minimum of personal use then water may be taken away from places where it is very much needed.

Finally, what should the United Nations do when member states explicitly deny this right to their people, as what has occurred recently in impoverished areas of Detroit. Imposing sanctions or pursuing military action against a state violating this right is may destroy more life than violating the right would.

What is Freedom?

While reading Hannah Arendt’s writing in “The Meaning of Revolution”, one phrase in particular caught me as peculiar – that is, “the life of a free man needed the presence of others”.  Having read Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, in the past few months, along with having picked up Edward Abbey’s Desert Solitaire, just the other day, this string of words put forth by Arendt seemed like an oxymoron. For the two philosophers I have mentioned, freedom is being completely and utterly alone. Freedom is being left to explore your surroundings, free to your own thoughts (and even words if one is so inclined to speak to one’s self). With this concept of freedom still fresh in my mind, Arendt’s words caught me off guard. I was still thinking of freedom at the personal level, instead of a broader viewpoint. This very well my be because I have had the privilege to know freedom of oppression, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion my entire life – I have not had to think of freedom as something that must be brought about by revolution. How do you personally view the ideal of freedom? Do you tend to side more with Arendt, or Thoreau and Abbey?

Arendt’s work quickly brought my mind around to a more revolutionary mindset. In the revolutionary sense, it is very clear that many, even if led by one, must enforce the movement for revolution. If one man were to stand up against a dictator, or a military, he would simply be gotten rid of. If however, the majority of citizens were to stand against the oppressing party, the fight may at least be equal. This point was reinforced after my reading in a very surprising manner. While relaxing over the weekend at home watching Robin Hood, I could not help but notice that a reoccurring phrase tied in perfectly with the topic of liberty and revolution: “rise and rise again, until lambs become lions”. A bit cheesy quoting a Hollywood motion film, I’m aware, but for me, this completely reinforced Arendt’s assertion that freedom is taken by groups, not by individuals. And maybe most importantly, that the groups fighting, those that have the most at stake, are indeed the lambs.

Evolve or Revolve?

While thinking about this blog I did a YouTube search for a TED talk about revolution. A TED talk should be the resource for me to solve the question of what a revolution is, right? These are supposed to be the brilliant minds of our age. During my search I came across this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9LelXa3U_I

During this lecture about a need for a revolution in education Sir Ken Robinson presents the idea of revolution in a very similar manner to Hannah Arendt. Both paint revolutions as a return to the basics of what it means to be human. For Arendt this meant undeniable freedoms such as assembly, unjustified restraint, and the ability to petition. For Robinson this meant returning education to an individualized approach. He proposes to make education more humanized. In this talk Robinson says, "We don't need evolution, we need revolution." Basically, when we cannot progress me must return to where we originated. For me this answers a lot of questions, but it the question still arises: why evolve we the final solution is to revolve?

Personally I believe that we need to evolve because we need to change. Without a consistent definition of person-hood the human body must constantly to adapt to what culture it faces. However, I believe that the body wants to naturally return to the state from which it came, or, the body wants to revolve. The difficulty lies in how we define the natural state of the body. For example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the natural rights vary from assembly and speech (much like Arendt) to abstract ideas such as marriage and education. Even this 'universal' declaration cannot look past certain social constraints. I believe that if we as people evolve into a universal state then we will revolve back to the basics of survival, which isn't really an evolution at all.

Tough questions about rights.

 I have a small problem, I read too much Mark twain.

While I was reading the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights', I recalled a quote from Twain's notebook (written down below) that started off a brainstorm of questions that I want another opinion on. 

Rights are a rather touchy subject. I personally believe that human rights should exist. There should be a 'baseline' of good in which all peoples of all cultures, races, and etc. should respect. Not only should they exist, but they should also be enforced, e.g. what is the point of a law if nobody follows it? However, I also believe that Human Rights are inherently selfish (albeit a good selfish) and stems from a rather sanctimonious mindset. 

These are the questions I have regarding rights.

-Do rights truly exist?

-What do rights stem from and why are they 'inalienable'?

- If rights do exist, then why should we stop at defining 'rights' at humanity? Why not extend these rights or an equivalent set of rights to animals or other life in general?

Note the below quote:

"Man has not a single right which is the product of anything but might. Not a single right is indestructible: a new might can at any time abolish it, hence, man possesses not a single permanent right."
- Mark Twain's Notebook

-If rights can be abolished, then what is their use? I understand that in the short run they can do some 'good', but if they can be abolished in the long run, then what is their point?

My answers to the above questions:
-Rights do not truly exist as they have no foundation to rest on. Just because one is human doesn't entail them with any special qualities or rights. 
Note: I am not saying that rights shouldn't exist. 

-Rights are not inalienable. Any human at any time can oppress another human being, nothing will stop them short of might, force, or fear.
Note: I am not saying that rights should not be inalienable.

-If rights do not truly exist, then we shouldn't create rights for other living creatures or beings.

-The only 'point' to rights is to do some amount of 'good' in the world. I do not know their point in the long run.

Your opnions?

Edit: I have never blogged before and for some reason can't get the background of the letters to match the same color of this page. I apologize.

Evaluation of Revolution

The success of revolution seems to be universally tied to the ability of its members to adhere to a guiding set of principles. Whether those are principles like freedom, nuance of thought, etc. as outlined by Arendt, or others as seen in "revolutions" in varying spheres, the consistent adherence to principles appears to drive the success of revolution. This idea is evident in Arendt's belief the American revolution was more successful than the French revolution.

In regards to this apparent situation, I've posed two major questions that I am interested in hearing feedback on. The driving idea behind my questions is whether or not modern revolution will continue to rely on consistent individual large-scale ideology or adaptation to new tools that segment revolution into tangible, measurable goals.

1. In today's modern society, are there tools available to monitor revolutions in real time? 

 

Having taken the McBride social media course, I've put quite a bit of thought into the use of social media during revolutions. Is it truly something that is innovative? Effective? Are there other outlets that are not social media related that could be used by revolutionaries to track progress? 

Part of my inspiration for revisiting this question is the guiding principles behind one of my classes this semester, which is taught on the principle that many of today's largest scientific principles are based on assumptions that essentially piggy-backed off actual revolutionary ideas. While I'm not sure I agree with the class's main principle from a scientific perspective, I am tempted to believe that significant side-effects from revolution are quite real. If revolutions had onset goals that could be tracked in terms of progress, perhaps the side-effects could be reduced. 

2. Following from above, can revolutions even be tracked in terms of measurable progress? 

The nature of revolution is something that is difficult to track in terms of measurable progress. Can you really quantify freedom? Some would probably argue that you can, or at least make an effort too. The concepts driving revolution are usually extremely large, adding even more difficulty in measuring success. Are multiple small revolutions with clearly defined goals better than large ones? 

Up until this point, history has largely been the deciding factor on whether or not a particular revolution had success. Ultimately, this would still remain the case even if revolutions could be tracked in real time as long term political and social effects are extremely difficult to predict in the present. However, I also foresee modern evaluation combined with historical knowledge having the ability to have large impacts on the success rate of revolution, especially in regards to smaller subsets of goals.