Perspectives From My Discipline

¶ … Discipline

The particular academic discipline I have chosen to pursue is a major in a General Studies with a double minor in both Biology and Sociology. However, after spending the past several weeks engaged in readings related to human rights, it has become quite clear to me that the consideration of human rights can apply to virtually any field of study. Still, when considering the relationship between human rights and psychology in particular, there are a number of aspects of the former that directly correlate to the latter. The most foremost of these entails a psychological evaluation or analysis of the political leaders who mandate ethnic cleansings or who order entire races or nationalities, tribes, etc. Of people to die. Several of these orders inherently pertain to political objectives that are either being impeded by or can be achieved by the extermination of a group of people. But there is a definite psychological component of this compunction as well, which is definitely worthy of psychological examination to determine how national leaders can choose to reserve the sole means of accomplishing their political objectives by pursuing legalized murder within their countries -- which is highly illegal under the terms, conditions and treaties propagated by international laws of human rights.

In fact, what is really at the root of this particular relationship between human rights violations of leaders of nation states and the need to psychologically examine them is a consideration of the corrupting influence of power. Just because a person can do something does not mean that he should do so. However, in many of the cases of human rights violators, such as Augusto Pinochet in Nicaragua, for example, although there are countless others to choose from as well (Farer, 2000, p. 91) the devaluation of human life is so common, and the lives lost are of so little esteem, that such leaders consider these violations as merely functions of their duties as leaders and have no trouble going on with their lives, oftentimes in countries other than those in which they committed such violations, as if they have done nothing wrong. Psychologically speaking, an examination into the corrupting influence of power could shed considerable insight into the justification on the behalf of such leaders, and perhaps offer such insight into how the international community can prevent future travesties.

My reading of human rights literature has also caused me to reconsider and reevaluate certain principles of sociology, particularly as they relate to the United States. Before becoming more aware of issues that are relevant to the field of sociology, I believed that the political structure of the U.S. -- meaning democracy -- which enables a number of social institutions in which people have a fair amount of autonomy, was one of the best forms of government and reinforcement of social structures available to a country. After reading about how the U.S. refuses to involve itself in the International Criminal Court and its attempted international enforcement of human rights, I am not so sure if the sociological implications of the U.S.'s infrastructure are so ideal. In fact, Jaymie Mayerfield's article "Who Shall Be Judge" leads me to believe that the price of democracy and its many sociological implications in this country come at a price of restricting those of people in other countries. I really do not know how else to explain the fact that the U.S. refuses to become involved in the ICC -- primarily because it recognizes that doing so would severely restrict and even bring under scrutiny its actions in its foreign policy in areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries (Mayerfield, 2003, p. 104) The sociological institutions in this country that support U.S. Policy decision making on this particular issue and on human rights in general require some serious reevaluation.

One of the many fundamental truths that I learned about human rights is that essentially there is a highly limited degree of international enforcement that can take place for these type of crimes (Peskin, 2009, p. 659). In fact, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests that prosecution, let alone justice obtained for those who have violated human rights is more than likely unattainable (Osiel, 2000, p. 119). In light of both of these considerations, one of the most eminent things that I can do within my field of study to improve human rights is alluded to in the final sentence of the preceding paragraph. In terms of sociology, the relationship between the U.S. And the United Nations, and that of the particular lobbyists and voters that have the most influence on the decisions of the policy makers as to whether or not the U.S. will become part of the ICC requires serious examination and reevaluation. Specifically, such a study would attempt to accurately gauge what the price of liberty and democracy within U.S. borders means for people in other countries.