At my internship last summer, what I really took away was the importance of pioneering a new approach to human rights. The 20th century approach to human rights was in defining human rights standards - like the International Covenants on Civil & Political Rights, and Economic, Social, & Cultural rights. I’m sure you know how incredibly important these covenants were - they revolutionized the way of thinking about human rights, and they provide some benchmark through which to keep countries accountable. They provided NGOs with a guideline - what standards to follow, what rights to lobby for. They provide a pathway forward. The debate still continues about economic, social, and cultural rights: what obligation does this mean, exactly, for governments? Many people still argue about how exactly to implement these standards.

But this hasn’t been enough, and what we need now is a new and different approach. We need to shift away from a time of declaration and into the era of implementation.

What does this mean? It means we have many of the right laws on the books, particularly enshrined in international covenants and agreements, but we simply haven’t been able to implement these laws properly. Even though the current debate is about social & economic rights - in particular, the rights to things like health, education, credit, water, or even “development” - the older, more accepted civil and political rights are not guaranteed in most countries, either.

Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch - the two most prominent human rights organizations of our time - are doing amazing work in terms of bringing to light the human rights abuses taking place around the globe. However, while Amnesty’s work might result in releasing individual political prisoners, this approach to human rights lobbying and petitioning does not result in systematic transformation. While Amnesty’s lobbying might get a few political prisoners out of jail, the original system that oppressed them and their rights remains. Some might be saved, but more and more will continue to be imprisoned, tortured, or threatened in other ways.

What is needed is systematic change. The systems need to change, themselves, in order for lasting change to occur. Like any other aid organization, the work done by Amnesty is simply like a band-aid on a gashing wound if the broader system and situation in the relevant country does not change. The goal is not just to save individual people, but to change the system and address the root of the problem such that in the future, more people do not undergo the same fate.

How can this be achieved? Systematic change mostly depends on democratization and good governance. It depends on instituting leaders who are accountable to their people and genuinely want to contribute to development and positive social change for people in their countries. In countries with dictators, extremely weak or collapsed governments, or perhaps worst, genocidal governments and leaders, the efforts of human rights organizations simply cannot have a lasting effect. Both an overly strong state/dictatorship and an extremely weak, failed government are both recipes for chaos and violations of civil and political rights.

And at the local level, everyday people are being tortured, denied access to lawyers, and suffer for years in jails without ever going to trial. Prison conditions in many developing countries are terrible. I’ve written about this before. How does systematic transformation work here? Building up domestic legal systems: putting in place more legal aid lawyers, trained judges, prosecutors, paralegals, and other stakeholders who are desperately needed to end legal abuse and human rights violations. Police forces have to be trained in non-coercive interrogation methods.

We need more systematic approaches to addressing civil & political rights by changing the system, and by implementing rights standards on a local level - especially in the latter area (improving legal systems). Why is there so much focus on the former, individualized approach and less focus on systematic reform? It’s a lot harder, a lot more complex, and a lot less straightforward, that’s for sure. But it’s needed if we are to progress in systematic change in the human rights arena.

Dear readers: Thank you all so much for the outpouring of support and incredibly kind, intelligent, and valuable thoughts you provided in response to my previous post. I think, however, I may have given off the wrong impression to all of you. I’m not going to stop blogging - not now, and most likely, not for a long time. Throughout my life, I’ve considered writing to be at the very core of my existence. Writing and using words to reach people is what I love doing. It makes up an intrinsic part of who I am. Perhaps some day I’ll stop blogging. Who knows? But I can tell you with certainty that I’ll never stop writing. For me to stop writing would be like ripping out a core piece of my identity, the very fabric that I’m composed of.

I won’t stop writing. What I hope is to continue using my love for writing to make a tangible difference. Through the law and legal writing - to defend an innocent client on death row or to fight the case of indigenous people whose rights have been violated by environmental contamination. Through the news media - to give voice to those who are voiceless, who have no one to speak for them. Through research papers and articles - to bring important issues to the forefront, and to contribute empirical evidence related to human rights issues that can someday be used to guide and influence policy. Through grant proposals - to obtain valuable funding for organizations and non-profits I believe are doing good work. Through books - that will inspire more people to take action and understand some of the underlying moral quandaries behind human rights issues.

Perhaps, one day, I will realize that there are bigger and better things than this blog. That there are bigger and better ways I can use my voice to defend the poor and marginalized. All the things I have mentioned above rely crucially on writing. Writing is an important part of practically any job now, and particularly plays a huge role in the human rights and legal world.

But until I become trained, educated, and experienced enough to contribute in those areas - I’ll be using this blog as a medium to spread the word in whatever little way I can.

So don’t fear, lovely readers. My blog, my writing, and my voice is here to stay for the time being. I love writing, and I love contributing my voice in some way to the greater good. While it’s true that I am disillusioned in many key ways, I don’t think I’ve given up hope as of yet. If nothing else, I believe that social media has helped me build valuable connections with other passionate young people who care about the same issues and similar causes. This valuable community I’ve found would never have been possible otherwise. Even if I don’t change people’s minds, I know that I have become a stronger advocate myself by tapping into this community. I myself have become more dedicated, better informed, and more ready to take action. If nothing else, I’m contributing in this way to the world…right?

I hope so. And I hope you’ll all stay with me in this journey!

There is a lot of talk of personal branding these days: is it good or bad? How can you build a network of people who respect your personal brand? How can you join a group of people with the same interests to help you make professional connections?

But while we are busy trying to carve an online space for ourselves and create a community of supporters who rally around our “brand”, we forget that the online space we inhabit is also continuously is defining us - and indeed, changing us in ways simultaneously subtle and not-so-subtle.

For instance, when I first got into social media - Twitter, blogging and the like - I was interested, yes, in human rights issues. But the interest was not as full blown of a passion as it is now. Why the change? I attribute much of it to the network I tapped into, which in turn started shaping me.

I began following more and more human rights activists, non-profit leaders, social entrepreneurs, and others in the social space. As I began following people incredibly passionate about bettering the world, it made me a better person. I tapped into these networks, engaged in conversations, and sat back and listened to some of the smartest people in the world debate issues in the human rights, social change, and development arena. And by becoming part of the conversation, I became more and more passionate about these issues myself.

Social media, the blogosphere, and Twitter helped me find my singular passion. Before Twitter, there were always many ideas and many interests swirling around in my head. But after I began actively engaging on Twitter, I learned more fundamentally, who I was. By choosing who to “follow” and dedicate my brain space to — and by choosing who to “unfollow” and ignore — I realized what I personally cared about most. What issues, careers, and industries resonated with me the most.

Social media made me a better person. By surrounding myself by people who genuinely cared, and not only that, cared in an intelligent manner (and yes, there is a distinction) — I began caring more. And more intelligently.

What’s true in real life is also true on the web. Surround yourself with good, smart people, and you will become more like them. Your friends can exert a positive influence on you and make you a better person, or you can fall into bad company and go downhill.

This may sound overdramatic to you, but I swear it’s not. Some people are born knowing what they want to do: be a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant even. They are lucky. I’ve never been that way. I have always had too many interests to narrow down to a single career that would define who I was for the rest of my life (a scary thought, right?). My passions didn’t always fit into the traditional career path. Social media helped me jump into the conversation and find what I really wanted. By finding many more outside my small real-life social circle doing exactly what I loved for a living, I felt my career interests to be validated. I found the courage to follow my heart, knowing that many others out there were also doing so, and sometimes breaking free of societal constraints in the process.

You don’t just create an online network that mirrors your own traits — your online network defines you, and even has the power to change you fundamentally.

Are you engaging with people who make you stronger, more brave, more caring, more intelligent, more informed?

Do you push yourself to join networks that challenge you to be better and to achieve your dreams?

Stop tweeting about what you had for breakfast, or your horrible job. Start conversations with those who intimidate you, with those who you breathlessly admire. Be bold. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll get there too.

How does your online community define and shape who you are?

An old man walks along a beach and sees a young boy throwing something into the water. As he approaches, he sees hundreds of starfish lining the beach, washed in from the tide. The young boy is rushing around, throwing the starfish back into the water one by one. The old man asks why he bothers, it’s pointless. There are too many starfish to help them all. As he flings a starfish deep into the water, the young boy replies, “It mattered to that one.”

The moment I heard this quote, I absolutely loved it. It’s a beautiful story that reminds us that change starts small, and with the individual. Sure, we can have grand visions of eradicating poverty or ending torture - but we must not lose sight of the individual while pursuing these grand visions. Sadly, I think this often happens in development/human rights work. When we become so caught up in our abstract theories and statements, we lose sight of what really matters: the individual. The farmer enduring daily poverty, the refugee displaced by conflict, the victim of torture in Guantanamo Bay. Let’s not lose sight of these people in our quest for “social change.” Let’s not forget to hear the voices of the poor and marginalized when we’re devising solutions to help them.

It makes me wish I could have a more direct impact on people’s lives. Makes me wish I could just directly help a “starfish.” All this work I do, whether it’s marketing/communications for non-profits or writing a senior thesis on transitional justice — is it making any impact? I have no idea. That’s why I really, really, want to be able to work in the field next year so I can see what is happening on the ground. If the opportunity to work abroad doesn’t work out, I’ll at least begin volunteering in something more tangible - whether it’s tutoring or working with immigrants/refugees. I just want to know I’m making an impact. Sometimes, all this non-profit work seems to be anything but.

Maybe it’s just me, but I increasingly see a problem with activism: it can easily slip from passion to elitism. I’ll be honest; as I became more passionate about human rights issues, I started feeling incredibly upset. I started wondering: “Why doesn’t everyone else care? How can they hear about genocide, conflict, women’s rights, torture, lack of access to justice, and not do something about it?” And yes, it made me mad, it made me frustrated and disappointed. But I realized that while I can try to encourage some people to care, many of them just won’t. I also realized that simply because they have different priorities in life, it doesn’t mean they can’t still play a role in activism - and it certainly doesn’t mean that they are “bad” people. Indeed, instead of getting angry at all these people, I should continue to work on human rights issues myself and continue trying to involve them in my work. Ultimately, inclusion will be far more effective than anger.

A lot of activism - whether related to human rights, development, or any NGO work - can turn off the general public when it becomes elitist. It becomes a battle of morals and can even lead to looking down upon those who don’t donate, who don’t seem to care about the issue, who don’t come to events/participate in your non-profit, etc. People start thinking they are “better” simply because they care more. In the case of some development and human rights issues, it starts to seem like the average joe is dismissed as completely ignorant.

But of course, this isn’t realistic. It’s not realistic to expect everyone to be passionate about the same thing; everyone has different roles in life. Not everyone is cut out to be an activist/non-profit person/social entrepreneur. People have their own talents, skills, interests. And an activist is not, in any particular way, a more selfless person than a non-activist. It is just too simplistic of an assumption.

Ultimately, elitism isn’t going to get activists anywhere. Instead of alienating people, activists need to be patient about reaching out to everyone. I feel that there is even some amount of elitism in the online community because I can tell a lot of young people are feeling left out from the discussion. Those who don’t know as much about the issue feel they cannot contribute. I feel that’s one of the reasons Nick Kristof succeeds, because he appeals to the everyday person while also bringing up important issues. He gets people to care and makes everyone feel like they have a say in social change, whether or not they are ‘experts’ or NGO professionals.

Not everyone is going to be an expert on your cause or topic, but that’s also not reason enough to write them off immediately. Yes, everyone has a different role in life — yet, I think every person has the time to contribute in some way to social change. I genuinely believe that everyone can become more informed & civically engaged, but only if activists take the time to make sure that they are being inclusive and making everyone feel like they can play a role. Bottom line? Social change needs everyone - not just NGO experts or scholars. This requires more inclusion, less alienation.