Speaking Rights to Power: Strategies for Reach, Voice and Response

Her latest book, 'Speaking Rights to Power' is the topic of today's talk. The book's overarching agenda sets out to detail how human rights rhetoric works, and how we can make it work better. It takes a forensic look at the key dynamics of empathy, socialisation, interdependence and how all of these collectively construct human rights as we understand it in what Brysk calls the 'social imaginary'. Building on the work of Keck and Sikkink, Brysk argues that there is a narrative form to all political communication. The narrative form of an advocacy campaign can be neatly compartmentalised into five elements: voice, message, performance, media and audience. Using these five elements as her yardstick, Brysk tries to track the relationship between acquiring global recognition for human rights problems, evincing solidarity for them, and the subsequent achievement of reform.

The first of these elements is voice, or rather, the 'globalisation of charismatic voice', wherein a diffuse or chronic human rights problem is channelled through a specific person. Brysk uses historic examples to illustrate the different dimensions of charismatic voice. In perhaps its most obvious guise we have the typical hero trope, in which leadership, communication and presence are the optimal traits. Nelson Mandela is very interesting in this regard. He was consciously selected by the African National Congress (ANC) to target their efforts and achieve global resonance through his natural charisma and ability to connect with diverse constituencies. This tactic of humanising a group in response to dehumanisation is a common thread within many successful human rights campaigns. The Dalai Lama and Aung San Suu Kyi are two further examples when personifying international efforts leads to an effective outcome. A different sort of charismatic voice is martyrdom. Here Brysk discusses the role of the 'Mothers of the Disappeared' in Argentina, which has now diversified to a worldwide repertoire of families of the disappeared. There is also the charisma of the professionals, which manifests itself in the expertise of intellectuals like Amartya Sen, or humanitarian NGOs such as Doctors Without Borders.

Uncontroversially, Brysk also argues that a campaign's message is important. Here, the use of framing is vital. Brysk notes that there is a particular power in evoking an established frame. So for instance, if you classify something as a 'genocide' it leverages a whole set of resources, and the same deaths seem to be received differently in the international system. But it is also about telling a causal story. Brysk mentions the contrast between Darfur's ability to harness international resources due to its recognition as a genocide, with the much lower levels of international support for the higher death tolls in Congo which were ascribed to war and poverty. Brysk also talks about the relabeling of female genital mutilation as a health issue, and the subsequent capacity for much greater transnational solidarity that this triggered.

In the book Brysk talks about a particular allegorical use of performance: the genre of performance, and what kinds of stories and performances are particularly effective. Protests, speeches and the occupation of public space are typical modes of performance. Increasingly too, theatre, film and other media forms are being used as a platform for human rights campaigns. One example that Brysk hones in on in the lecture is the performance of global solidarity during the Pussy Riot protests. With the widespread suppression of freedoms in Russia, the Pussy Riot's typically striking garb of lurid balaclavas were worn by protestors across the globe as a protest against the oppressive Russian Government.

The next element Brysk casts her eye over is media. Much more attention has been paid to the role of new media since the Arab Spring. In her book, Brysk has looked closely at media as a tool and as a mechanism that makes it effective for protest in general and human rights claims specifically. To do this she points to three key features that new media facilitates: diffusion of ideas, transnational interactivity and the presence of new voices. While old media still has significant diffusion power, it falls behind on the other two. Brysk then reels off several examples of when new media has been effective: one of which was the social media campaign to counter the disproportionately high levels of domestic abuse in Brazil. The campaign gained much exposure and success through the use of the hashtag #IDontDeserveToBeRaped, attached to pictures of Brazilian feminists posing naked. Brysk contrasts this with a 'negative' or unsuccessful case in 'Kony 2012' - a reminder that a polished social media campaign cannot substitute for a wonky message.

The final aspect that Brysk touches on is audience. We have this basic idea that one has to mobilise world public opinion for a successful advocacy campaign on human rights. But here is one of Brysk's more controversial opinions: there is no such thing as world public opinion, even more so in the 21st century. There are audiences (plural), and there are publics, and they have very selective attention patterns. There is a lot of message overload, and what Brysk really tries to drill down into is what constructs these circuits of audience attention. She has two prominent ideas here. One is that there are now transnational circuits of identification. In some cases these are social movements, and in other cases international organisations; some of what we think of as mobilisation or social construction is really constructing attention and circuits of information. Of course most of the world's professional associations now have this level of transnational interconnection, but co-religionists in other societies also share this sense of mutual regard. The second idea Brysk discusses in relation to audience is the notion of 'bridging narratives' and the connection of distinct groups through the suffering of similar forms of abuse. One fascinating example cited is the uncharacteristically vocal role played by the Japanese Americans following 9/11. They cross-identified with the stigma attached to Arab Americans following the terrorist attacks and drew parallels with their own post-war securitisation civil rights abuse.

So what is the take home message from an advocacy or policy perspective? For an advocacy or human rights campaign there are certain tick-box criteria that can improve its chances of success. You want to look for a way to personify the issue; you want to look at organising it in a frame; think about the dynamics of the performance and where the relevant space is; strive to have a message of humanisation, which contests the dominance system where the chronic oppression is; think about the use of media strategically for reach, voice and response; explain why distant publics are connected in the abuse; and in your message suggest a solution - do not just wring your hands and say its wrong!