Summary of Research

John Kusumalayam, OP

Human Rights: Individual or/and Group Rights?  An Attempt towards a Holistic Understanding of Human Rights Based on the Christian Concept of the Human Person as the Imago Trinitatis, lxxxii + 310 p.
 
      The basic question that is asked here is whether human rights are individual rights, or are they group/collective rights, or further whether they are both.  On the basis of our study, we propose that we need to develop a holistic and integral approach to human rights, if it has to be meaningful and relevant for our times.
     Our research is based on two things: firstly, the concrete developments in the contemporary human-rights-debate under the patronage of the United Nations and its subordinate bodies that work towards creating a humane, peaceful, just and livable society in the world; secondly the theological developments related to the doctrine of the Trinity and specifically the concept of the human person as the imago trinitatis, a concept that was already present in the classical theology (Augustine and Aquinas).
     Taking multi-dimensionality of the human person seriously requires that we reject an idea of human rights that is limited to only one of these dimensions, and hold for a notion of human rights that can help the humans achieve both their ‘individual’ as well as ‘social/relational’ dimensions of personhood.  In the conflicting historical rivalries between the Western and the Eastern political blocs, emphasis has been placed for a long time only on one of these dimensions, which in turn resulted in an individualistic or group/collectivist approach to human rights, respectively.  Since the realization of the fulness of human personhood demands that we consider both the individual and social/relational aspects of the human person in a balanced manner, our notion of human rights requires a holistic approach that can integrate in it both the dimensions of the human personhood.  
     Our examination of the contemporary human-rights-debate reveals that there is a ‘dynamic’ aspect to the notion of human rights.  New types of rights are emerging as we advance in our understanding of the human person based on our life-experiences around the world.  We have analyzed particularly three of these rights: the right to self-determination, the right to development, and the right to a safe and healthy environment.  We find that these rights are recognized and promoted as group rights, and are being included in the family of human rights which are indivisible and universal.  We also realize the intimate link between the individual and the collective dimensions in these rights – they are both individual rights as well as rights of the group/collectivity.  In our discussion regarding the future generations, we find that though due to ‘facelessness and namelessness’, some deny them the status of ‘rights-holders’, we can hold ourselves bound by obligations towards the future generations on two accounts: firstly, on the basis of their future interests; and secondly, on the basis of the fact that they are part of the human family which has rights on the basis of the principles of intergenerational justice and the common heritage of mankind.  The examination of these principles, in the context of the right to development and the right to a safe and healthy environment, reveals that if we neglect the dimension of responsibility and accountability in our approach to human rights, catastrophic results will follow affecting the universe and human well-being.
   We find that the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while affirming ‘human dignity’ as the basis for human rights, did not give any explanation for human dignity in the document.  Thus they left the possibility open for us to interpret the idea of ‘human dignity’ in our own terms.  Thus we develop the basis for a Christian argument for human rights and human dignity - the fact that God created the human persons in the image and likeness of God. 
     The classical Christian theology (e.g. Augustine and T. Aquinas) has taught that the statement that the ‘human person is created in the image of God’ is to be understood, as created in the image of a trinitarian God.  The revelatory evidence gathered from the Old and the New Testaments in general would lead us to the theological conclusion that the human person is created in the image of (not simply) God, but in the image of God who is a trinity.   Thus, if we are created in the image of God, we are created in the image of the Trinity, since God is a Trinity, and each human person is called to become more and more an ‘image’ of the Trinity.
     We propose that we should use the concept of imago trinitatis in the place of imago Dei, in accordance with the classical theology, and strengthened by the examination of the inner dynamics of the trinitarian life.  We find that our anthropology should be based on a relational ontology, based on the inner life of the Trinity.  The human person is created to be in relationship.  This relationality is not something that is added to the human person, but is the essence of being a human person.   This relationality or communion is not something limited or restricted.  The human person is related not only to the fellow humans here and now, but this interrelatedness is to be extended to the future as well as spatially, making the whole of human family as one unit, since not only the individual human person but also the whole of humanity, collectively, is the imago trinitatis.  The Scripture scholars tell us that the word used in the creation narrative in the book of Genesis (Adam) is a generic word which could mean ‘mankind’, or ‘humanity’.  Thus it is not only the individual human person, but the whole of humanity is the image of the Trinity, and is called to ‘image’ the Trinity. 
     The interrelatedness does not end there, since the whole of creation reveals the ‘traces’ of the trinitarian God.  This relationality extends also to the whole universe which is entrusted to the humans (individually and collectively) to be cared for in a responsible manner, imaging God’s own creativity and caring.  In a Christian reflection on human rights, this is significant, especially, in the context where the international bodies are beginning to condemn the unjust and irresponsible exploitation of the natural resources in the universe.  The whole creation/universe is to be taken care of by the creative and responsible stewardship of the humans for the well-being and flourishing of everyone there.
      The trinitarian concepts that we have analysed give us a relational anthropology, which can sustain neither pure individualism nor pure collectivism, but envision a community where both the individual persons as well as their relationality is adequately and responsibly integrated, valued and respected.  On the basis of the implications of trinitarian theology, and on the basis of our examination of the developments regarding the notion of human rights in the contemporary debate, we say that our approach to human rights has to be broadened to develop a holistic and integral view of human rights.  
      The official catholic social thought has not made use of this concept of imago trinitatis sufficiently to draw its nuances for its human rights tradition.   The use of this concept and its implications in catholic social thought can help in developing and reconstructing an integral and holistic approach to human rights and can serve as a firm theological basis for responsible and dignified human life and behaviour.