In the early years of the Cold War following World War II, tensions were high globally. After the biggest and bloodiest war ever fought in human history only two super powers remained, the United States and the Soviet Union. The general consensus of citizens and global leaders alike was the avoidance of another global conflict which could lead to the possible use of atomic weaponry. Thankfully armed conflict was avoided, but from 1945 to the early 1990s a war of ideas including political, economic, and social was waged with the US and Western Europe on one side, and the USSR and its satellite states of Eastern Europe on the other. In spite of these warring ideologies, the nations of the world began to slowly come together with the creation of the United Nations and began ushering in an age of globalization, which is still ever-present and growing in the 21st century. One of the first, key issues discussed between world leaders was the creation of the standard of basic human rights to be shared by all citizens of the world. Going along with universal human rights, popular culture was even getting behind the globalizing trends of the postwar world. A famous exhibit named The Family of Man, famously depicts a wide variety of pictures of people from around the world. The standard of human rights, and depictions of people from across the globe would reinforce the claim that the world was moving in a more inclusive, globalized direction.
At the time many different people offered unique interpretations as to what basic human rights meant. Some general themes observed are that humans are entitled to broad political and social rights, the opportunity to further their own personal growth, and to have access to basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. E.H. Carr weighed in on the conversation summarizing that “any declaration of rights and obligations…should…be regarded as a declaration of intention or as a standard to be aimed at…” [1]. He believed that until the questions of what rights were being enjoyed currently by citizens, and what rights citizens hold most dear, that the UN could not put forth any such International Declaration of Rights. A second man, Humayun Kabir, gave his interpretation of basic human rights which, as opposed to Carr’s subjective stance, offered some concrete examples. He was for the provision and security of basic human necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter. I do not believe is was from a humanitarian stance, but I believe he saw those as the bare necessities to further the development of all peoples around the world. After much discussion and input from people around the world, the United Nation put forth its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948. Marking a milestone for global unity the Preamble states, “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” [2]. The wording places emphasis on “all members of the human family”, marking for the first time a step away from staunch nationalism towards international cooperation. It was a landmark declaration and its effects are still being felt decades later in the 21st century.
In relation to the “human family” defined in the UDHR, another project was undertaken in the 1950s by a man named Edward Steichen. Steichen was a photographer who had documented some moments of World War II in his exhibits, but after the war ended he began thinking of his next exhibit, which would become known as The Family of Man, debuting in 1955. The exhibit is essentially a collage spread out over a whole floor of the Museum of Modern Art in which Steichen depicts “men and women of myriad nations working, walking, marrying, fighting” [3]. While Steichen’s exhibit was subject to rather harsh criticism from people, many others saw it for what it truly was meant to represent. In its design, The Family of Man was meant to an open-ended viewing experience with pictures of people from around the globe shown in different sizes, angles, and heights. Steichen, who observed a lot of the authoritarian regimes of WWII, sought to contrast his open-ended viewing experience with the censored media from places like Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. One of my favorite parts of the exhibit, which is also attached here, is a set of massive hanging photos showing various family groups from around the world. The images include a Japanese farming family, an African polygamous family, two rural Italian families, and a large white American family. To me this exhibit as a whole shows that no matter the differences of race or ideas, we all fit under the same sky, so why not also have universal, basic human rights? It is easy to see the trends of globalism start to emerge after WWII with the formation of the United Nations and the UDHR, but something as simple as photographs can also depict the slow process of unity. In the years since WWII a variety of inter-country unions have formed, such as the European and African Unions, as well as a large variety of international organization who’s focuses lie on making life easier and safer for all people.
One major legacy of World War II was the beginnings of international cooperation and relationships. With that came the creation of the United Nations, an international organization with the intent of creating unity throughout the world. Nearly every country has joined the United Nations because they feel as though conflict should be mitigated through discourse and negotiation rather and guns and bombs. Obviously this organization cannot prevent all armed conflict, as evident by current global events. But one thing the UN can accomplish is numerous large scale relief programs, which can help ease suffering around the world. In 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights was passed, a standard of human care was created. Since those uneasy postwar years the world has seemingly become smaller, as nations have come together in times of both conflict and celebration. Edward Steichen’s Family of Man, is also a good example of popular culture getting behind the growing trends of globalism and global unity. One of his biggest goals with his exhibit was turning away from the authoritarian regimes of WWII and towards more inclusive and free media. It is a mystery of what the future holds, but one thing is for certain, the call for globalism will not die out for many years to come.
[1] J Maritain, “Human Rights – Comments and Interpretations”, ed. UNESCO (1949).
[2] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, United Nations. Accessed 23 September, 2016.
[3] Fred Turner, “The Family of Man and the Politics of Attention in Cold War America”, Public Culture (2012).
I think it is really important that you mentioned that people had different view points on human rights. I think until the United Nations gave it an actual definition a lot of people had different ideas and view points on what human rights should be. I think that Steichen’s exhibit would have been really neat and beautiful to see. I think it gives people the opportunity to see the world from another perspective which is nice. I really agree with you that there should be no difference between a human being and another human being and that all people deserve basic human rights and the idea to be treated respectfully by one another.
I suppose people started to realize that violence is not always going to solve the world’s problems. The global process of unity under the heading of human rights was one way to prevent another massive war. Another way people tried to convince the world of people’s similarities was through art. However, I think it is interesting that you said that “something as simple as photographs can also depict the slow process of unity.” Many people interpret this exhibit as propaganda and that the artist tried to force his ideals on other people. I love that you say that Steichen was imitating what he saw in the world. After all, art is a description and illustration of the world around the artist.
I agree that the Human Rights push was a huge step for humanity at the time. It must have been weird for some with people because of how high “National Identity” was then. But I think that the push was more due to the evil than just because we need to get this done. I believe that Nazi Germany indirectly pushed the human rights. It’s like someone did something wrong, but it wasn’t a rule, so now we need to make it a rue. But you had a great analysis and great points!
I really like how you mentioned that in order to determine the human rights, one had to first look at the right’s that were valued. For if you grant someone a right, say the right to attend church, but that is not something valued in that society then it is negligible. An undervalued right is equivalent to not owing that right in the first place. This dilemma proves especially challenging for the United Nations, since they were trying to determine universal human rights.