Sunday, September 7, 2008
Are All Dreams Attainable In Society Despite Ones Past?
I was very lost in what I should choose to blog about. The very theme of being lost and our discussion in our class of our personal experiences helped me bring it all together. As I was reading the speech to M.L.K I had many emotions that overwhelmed me with how many people in today’s age are still suppressed, despite their rights as an American. One example that came to my mind was a man that one of my mentors works with. She told me his story, and how times she deals with these type of clients. From the ages of 16-55 he was in and out of jail. He has been so accustomed to the way of living inside the jail system that he is faced with serious issues with being able to reintegrate him back into society. His whole entire life he has not had a job and can’t seem to learn the life skills that C.E.O offers. This is not only the struggle of one man, in fact there are millions of released felons that are faced=2 0with the same issue. This is in a sense a monopoly affect caused by our society. If we keep suppressing their voting rights and not allowing them to hold certain jobs of employment, than how can those handful be determined to alter their lives? What happens to those individuals that have changed and learned from a turning point in their lives but could no longer follow their dreams because we as a society have shut the doors on them? The question I raise is if we all have dreams shouldn’t every equal man be able to pursue theirs despite obstacles every imperfect human may have encountered?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Elizabeth, I found your post to be very moving. There are two words in your comments that strike me as so significant: "lost" and "obstacles." The client you describe sounds so "lost," but I'd like to focus on us instead of on him. It seems to me that so many of us are "lost" in the sense that we don't know why there is the kind of oppression (that continues to exist despite some progress) that limits the opportunities for so many people in our society--not to mention the whole world. Dr. King had dreams and hopes for all oppressed people to find a non-violent way to emerge out of oppression and into true freedom. Of course we can debate what is meant by "true" freedom. For me, it has to do with providing the conditions within which individuals can fulfill their potential, and within which groups can interact cooperatively, not competitively. In other words, the obstacles to getting there must be removed. But first we need to know what those obstacles are. My struggle has been to find my way--not to be so lost--to SEE and to UNDERSTAND these larger obstacles, how they have come to be, who is behind constructing those obstacles and what their interest is in perpetuating them. This is why my focus tends to go to the political-economic realm rather than the personal, individual realm. Yes, I believe we need to work with individuals and help them find their way as best we can--especially given their vulnerabilities and limitations. However, we can't lose sight of the importance of identifying the larger structural forces that are implicated in the suffering of individuals. Their suffering is not just their own fault or the result of their own poor decision-making or just bad luck (though these may be part of it). The explanation is bigger than that. In my view, if we are to prevent and heal such social suffering, we must find a way to implement social solutions (and there are models for this). -- Prof. Waterston
I just deleted the response I wrote because I remembered a documentary I watched last night.
It was produced by Noggin (I think it's the Canadian version of Nikelodeon).
The documentary was following a team of 12 students who tried to desegregate their lunchroom.. in the present day.
When we think about offenders who get caught in the "revolving door" of our justice system, I think part of the solution to some of these big problems need to start at the individual level (sorry Professor Waterston!)
Challenging our own "norms" and stereotypes is critcal, especially in the field we're in. Starting by really thinking about who we sit with at lunch, who is in our social circle, and how we label others in our minds will help us more objectively serve the offenders we work with who are "stuck" in this system.
Individual level solutions can be integrated, and implemented, with more macro level analyses. Check out "Star at Conference on Women: Banker Who Lends to the Poor" at nytimes.com. It is a 1995 article about the economist who began the micro-credit industry (he went on to win a Nobel prize). Micro credit is the system whereby teeny amounts of money are lent to extremely poor people in the third world to begin their own businesses. This is an example of individuals and the global banking industry working a problem from both ends. Things needn't be either/or.
Prof. Waterston I could not have agreed with you more. I also believe that more emphasis should be placed on the political-economic realm not only to increase resources for individuals to take advantage of, but also to level the plain field so that there is truly equal opportunity for all. Many people are suppressed because, frankly, they do not have the same opportunities as others. As President Johnson once said, "You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."
It was through these beliefs that polices such as Affirmative Action was born, and Barack Obama's auspicious life is living proof.
I do not believe goverment can fix everything that is wrong with our lives, but I think it can play an important role of impartiality, a role many individuals may not know how to play.
Hey everyone! I think before a person judges an ex-offender, they should try to visualize themselves in that position. It really is a case of “Don’t judge someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes”. I’ve encountered so many situations where my coworkers have treated former prisoners significantly different than other clients. However, I agree with Renee that attempting to change one person’s personal thoughts at a time could lead to a big change in how society views recently released offenders or any outsiders who are facing obstacles in achieving their dreams. Attempting to overhaul society’s structure itself can’t happen unless we take the smaller steps of changing the viewpoints of each person. Dr. King reached out to the masses in order to change society itself. Though he kept the larger structure in mind, it would not have been possible had he not had so many individual supporters.
Great comments, everyone. I'm glad that Renee reminds us that we need to examine our individual choices, Dr. Waterston that we need to keep in mind larger social forces and that Dr. Stein reminds us that we don't have to choose but rather strive to see the connections between individual agents and larger systems.
But to be the devil's advocate here, what if a victim's family member read Elizabeth's post? It is quite right to hope that someone who has paid his/her debt to society can dream again, but some victims of crime can't dream anymore. How does/should the justice system address questions of equity? vengeance?
I must start off with the fact that I am so excited to be talking about offender rehabilitation! I loved reading everyone's comments and have to say that I agree with them all... this is such a multi-faceted dilemma that there is no one way of looking at it.
Also, I admire professor Reitz's point that it is so easy for people in our positions (people working mainly with the rights of offenders)to forget the victims.
However, I must take a stand. Though I whole-heatedly agree that rehabilitation needs to start taking form at the individual level, I also feel strongly about removing the cultural stigmas attached to ex-offenders and people with drug and alcohol addictions (for as we know, majority of ex-offenders suffer from addiction problems). In addition to this, there is also a stigma attached to obtaining treatment; shirts like "Rehab is for Quitters", and "Alcoholics go to Meetings", as well as songs like "Rehab", by Amy Winehouse (assuming everyone has heard this), are all testaments to the fact that our culture has some type of vendetta against seeking treatment for their demons. I feel that we as a society need to work to relieve ourselves of these stigmas in order for these problems to be resolved. Once these stigmas are removed, it is likely that more money can be put into rehabilitating offenders more adequately. Money...
In the end, it is money that will fund the programs necessary for proper offender rehabilitation. However, money comes from people who need to be persuaded by empirical data and statistics.
Data, leading me to bring up the age old debate:
Addiction - Disease or Not?
Last night in my psych 268 we argued back and forth until one student brought up a point; as long as the overall goal is to help the person rehabilitate, does it really matter whether or not addiction is a disease? Where I retorted:
"Unfortunately, the answer seems to be yes. Our state and local governments do not want to fund programs for people who are 'morally weak'; they want to hear (especially for political reasons) that they are funding programs that will help cure people of a disease. In the eyes of the people funding such programs, it is very important that these people have a legitimate, bona fide disease."
Dreams are attainable despite our past. The real hard part is holding on to a dream. Life tests our weakest points. The individual who comes out of prison must overcome his weakness by overcoming stigma and societal biases for being in jail. Dr. King had to overcome racial prejudice in order to achieve his own dream. Yes, it is also true that many of us are born into our disadvantaged positions. These disadvantages include our race, class and even gender. In addition a wrong decision or an injustice may also serve as an impediment in achieving our dream. However, disadvantages should never be used as excuses. I am sorry for placing such a huge emphasis on the individual but we ultimately hold the power to give up our dream or never give it up.
I'm not sure if I am allowed two posts, but here goes: Maureen, I think that definitions and labels are critically important to examine. For example, the New York State legislature recently changed a law, redesignating juvenile prostitutes as victims of sexual trafficking. Formerly, of course, children arrested for prostitution were treated as mini-criminals.
Just to keep a critical eye open though, history is replete with the abuses that occur when we pathologize something. Sometimes making something a "disease" instead of a crime does little good on the ground: historic examples would be homosexuality and even women's sufferage; sometimes the change just means locking people up in mental institutions instead of jails. The more we see human frailty on a continuum, the more we can perhaps forfeit labels, which so often do more harm than good.
Hey Dr. Stein, leave as many comments as you'd like! This is my second. I just wanted to point out a new section on the blog called "Check it Out." I'm going to put links there to the stuff that you folks mention in your posts and comments. For example, you can click on a video of the Amy Winehouse song, "Rehab," that Maureen mentioned and you can watch the MLK speech. As an English teacher, I'd be very interested in talking about the difference between an oral text and a written text.
I have recently finished an interesting reading titled, “Inside Rikers”. The book is a collection of readings about people that have been or still are incarcerated at Rikers. The stories of these people are so different, but in fact also so similar. All of them engage in crime at early ages. What stunned me was the easiness with each of these ex-offenders recidivate. Even the most promising people that leave jails or prison and receive help as part of the reintegration process find themselves back in there. I start to believe in part it is a choice they make. There are quite a few programs that try to help ex offenders to reintegrate into society. Most of us have the great opportunity to work with some of them as part of this fellowship. I work with CASES who offer alternative sentencing and employment services. I see cases in with first time offenders that were offered an opportunity to avoid jail and did not show up or complete the requirement for the program. Is this still societies problem?
America offers to thousand of foreign people annually the opportunity to become a permanent resident. However this is the end of their offers. Immigrants are excluded from voting and a good majority have limited job options. This is due in part to a language barrier or to their immigrant label. Even so the majority of them do not engage in criminal activities. In the end it all comes back to the individual. It is true that most of them come from socio-economic environment that offer them limited options. However, in the same environments are still people that do not engage in criminal activities. As one of the greatest criminal theories explains the offender is a rational choice individual. Their limited choices are an answer to their initial choices they made.
Elizabeth, thanks for your great post. Some of the comments in your post immediately made me think of past readings from other classes (Author’s and title’s slip my mind . . .) about how prisons are controlling institutions and have served as another way to control and disenfranchise certain populations (specifically the black community). You ask a very good question, about how can we expect certain individual’s to turn their life around if we are continually forbidding them (legally and socially) from accessing the tools necessary for them to do so? You say “if we all have dreams, shouldn’t every equal man be able to pursue them . . .” The problem here is that society is not seeing everyone as equal. We are labeling people as “less than the perfect citizen” and that is the biggest, foremost problem. Professor Waterson raises a great point in that it is important to identify who is creating these obstacles and for what reason. It is often times the identification and realization as to why the obstacles exist that leads us to overcome them. Unfortunately, though, for ex-offenders (as well as Martin Luther King) it can be much more difficult to overcome the obstacles because of the legal issues that make it near impossible to be “equal.” Renee, you said that assessment of norms should start on the individual level, and I agree that we must spend time reflecting on our behaviors and thoughts and why they are what they are- but our individual norms and judgments are largely (if not wholly) shaped by society- how we have been socialized. We must reflect on our personal norms, but we cannot do so without acknowledging where those norms have come from- by recognizing who/what played a role in our socialization. Sure, mostly it comes down to the individual to make choices and act on things- but his ability to do so is often dependent on society.
Professor Reitz raises a very good and question about victims. Many of my courses have touched on offender punishments that seek to not only serve the offender but also the victim- there never seems to be an appropriate solution. I don’t know that one exists. I believe we should give offenders the resources they need to successfully integrate back into society, but I’ll admit I often take a step back and wonder how these efforts “look” to the victim or even those who have not been a victim to crime nor have they committed crimes. Unfair? Probably. It probably doesn’t seem right that people are aiding offenders who have taken so much away from their victims. A lot of people believe that offenders should be locked up- key thrown away. They wonder why we should offer anything to offenders. I’ll admit, there are times when I have found myself in that camp. I am able to bring myself out of it when I ask myself what the goal is. For me, the goal is safer communities- remembering that offering help to offenders is actually serving the larger community. I think this is one point that MLK made in his speech- that allowing blacks equal rights not only serves blacks, but everyone in the community.
I feel that all people should have the right to pursue their dreams; and however foolishly optimistic or naïve of me it seems that in America vast numbers of people do. For me, much of this discussion comes down to the differences between liberalism and conservatism. Is it the government’s responsibility to “level the playing field”, or is this detrimental to the individual competition that fuels innovation and greatness? As with most debates, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Despite their politically correct names as centers of “correction” or “rehabilitation”, they do not serve these purposes. And while large scale reforms are needed, even larger societal reforms are needed as well. However, in America, there is always hope. The opportunities are out there, what varies is the degree to which one must work to attain them. For us, the most feasible change is to personally reject the stigmas and labels attached to people, and view them as Dr. King would have wanted, by the content of their character.
Post a Comment