THIS IS VAUGHN'S POST.
Thursday's seminar was nothing short of amazing. "A Crisis in the Subjectivity of the Analyst" was one of the most thought-provoking readings this semester. There were a couple concepts discussed in the reading itself as well asin class that particularly intrigued me. The first was the recognition by Katiria that Straker was fearful of her wellbeing. I agree totally, however, I think she was always afraid of physical harm whether at the hands of those she initially saw as good (Stanley) or those she saw as evil (Apartheid). What I believe changed was her view of where she stood in the fight against this good and evil we've been at odds with for some time. Whether you're winning or losing everything seems to be worthwhile when you know you're fighting for the just. The moment that picture became blurry Straker lost her sight of the evil she saw in the beginning. Insome weird way all violence is perceived as bad even if it's in hopes of fostering change. How can change be fostered in a violent situation without resorting to violence as well? Katiria again brought up a valid point that yes, Dr. King accomplished it to some extent but even he used the threat of further violence by those who weren't as peaceful as he (Malcolm X, Black Panthers, and other militant groups.) The thought that people in general are inherently good ties into this very broad subject matter. I'm not sure where I stand on it. I don't think Professor Waterston got to finish her thought. On the one hand, I want to believe taht there is good in all of us. On the other, I'm not sure what the classification of good really is. Does the face that Stanley took part in this necklacing make him any less good than the millions of people who sit and watch conflicts just like these on the big screen for entertainment not doing anything to help the cause? Aren't spectators to be held just as accountable for their actions as those we deem as evil? Bringing the concept back full circle, judges in our criminal justice system hand out hundreds of thousands of sentences a year. Judges as well as appointed officials know that the flaws in the system prevent the exercise of any real justice. On the other hand they've also dedicated their whole life to a system that they don't want to believe is unjust. How many of these judges can we say make an effort to help the overall problem? So in that sense judges and government officials come into conflict with the same trauma of morality Straker faces, and if they don't god help us all!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I'm so glad that scary Drs Stein, Waterston and Reitz have terrified all of you into commenting early! Perhaps we need to consider Vaughn's post about considering the efficacy of violence...
I think Vaughn raises a lot of important questions and I don't want to get in their way. But I also wanted to throw out something we didn't have time to address in class which is the role of racial difference between subject and analyst. Straker grants that but implies that their bond as anti-apartheid people overrides the difference in race. We touched a bit on the significance of the gender difference (in terms of her fear for safety, her link to the necklaced woman), but what role in that dynamic did racial difference play (particularly against the backdrop of such an intensely racialized world of apartheid South Africa)?
I think Straker would have been much more likely to condemn Stanley had he been white.
"Nevetheless I came to understand that white guilt, like all guilt, has a potential to have an unconscious, potentially destructive underbelly. It encourages us to give away parts of ourselves and immobilize us." The white guilt that Straker describes, as well has her position as a social scientist, keeps Straker from outright condemning Stanley as she would have with a white man I think. Straker tries to convince herself throughout the article that perhaps there is another perspective in which the actions committed against Maki are horrible but somehow acceptable. She states that "however I had to acknowledge that it was not my comrades and/or family members who had been destroyed by the information the police had obtained. I might have felt differently had this been so. This knowledge inhibited me in sharing my response." I don't think one can justify killing the woman--even though she essentially took people’s lives by divulging information--because two wrongs do not make a right. It would be like justifying capital punishment which has never made sense to me because quite simply if we teach that killing is wrong how can capital punishment be right? I don't think there is a way to justify Maki's killing or Stanley's part in it. No one deserves to be treated so cruelly no matter what. And what does it say about someone capable of committing such an act or one who takes pleasure in doing so?
Certainly we must admit that all human beings are capable of such acts but our morality, our conscience is there to prevent it. For what kind of just world does Stanley stand for if he cannot see the wrong in killing Maki? It is true that Maki's killing served the purpose of warning the rest of the community not to betray the cause but how can enforcing rules or keeping people in line through terror and fear be justified? One of the things that bothered me in the article (among many) was that Stanley felt afraid that Gillian would condemn him for his momentary pause in killing Maki. This made me feel that Stanley felt that killing Maki was a duty or something expected of him as a leader. And this is where I think Stanley is different from the judges in our current court systems or spectators (and I must say I don't agree that people watching through a television screen are as accountable as a person committing violence...nor do I think a person standing nearby able to try to stop the violence--although that person would have some accountability). Stanley was part of a revolution where he was establishing the rules of the game through his position as a leader. He had the power to set new rules, new standards…to set an example for people. I feel that by killing Maki, he fails to be a good leader. There is a reason why we are so critical of any moral smudge on our leaders, and although it is silly because our leaders are as human as the rest of us, that need for perfection has good reasoning at its foundation I think.
Vaughn your post has picked up on my same thoughts during this weekend. I watched Frost/Nixon and then Fahrenheit 911 and I could not be more overwhelmed with emotions than before.
Frost/ Nixon startled the conflict between morality and social justice. Nixon who all wished was not pardoned and got the trial and sentence he well deserved walked away. The whole country, or at least those who did not benefit, was enraged. The movie does a great job cinematography . It humanizes Nixon into a person who made a mistake and seeks condolences and forgiveness. A man whom one can sympathize with. when Frost “wins” after the interview, a close up of Nixon shows a face “swollen, ravaged by loneliness, self-loathing and defeat.” I could not help but related back to our last seminar where the conflict of morality was the main topic. On the one hand, I felt terrible for this lonely man who seems to be sincerely apologetic for his actions and who is so close to death... A devastated, ruined man seeking nothing but forgiveness, whose burden and guilt he can no longer carry with himself. On one particular scene, I got emotional and forgave him. On the other hand, I ten remembered, “wait a minute, he doesn’t deserve it and he’s not sincere as he’s clearly still trying to win! He is still in control.” I know Im being incredibly vague, but for those of you who have not watched the movie I strongly recommend it, and for those of you who have, think about the night before the last interview, the beginning of the interview and at the end, after Nixon receives the present (a beautiful slap in the face) the question he asks Frost regarding the elusive conversation the night before the last interview.
Now watching fahrenheit 911, it is only natural to realize how much of a tool we all really are... how this government being controlled by the corrupt elite, has taken all it wants right from our hands, manipulating the population into believing all the false accusations and constructs to induce fear and hence “logically” control everything. Yes, as a spectator, I am held accountable and so are you. and yet at the same time with the passing of the patriot act,how can we even do a single thing? this country was founded by pockets of frustrated angry farmers rebelling against the government which suffocated them. They stood up to defend their natural human rights and won. Now a days a simple disgruntled employee can be considered a terrorist. If we did anything about it we’d be shot down and killed instantly, rights removed because of the patriot act in “defense” of the nation.... We’d be legally,considered terrorists. This is no longer a democracy. Through the manipulation of fear, we have given up our rights and made this country into a indirect oligarchy. The senators and representatives are tools and fearful themselves, yet not even they fully read the act and what it entails. Vaughn, how can we trust the very same people who are passing these bills without reading them?!?!!?!?!? God help us all indeed...
I'm going to agree with Vaughn on this one. Social change through peaceful means involves going through the very system that people are trying to change. This is ineffective. Non-violent social movements often employ illegal activities such as marching without permits or defying certain laws which often result in violence by those in charge.
Even Martin Luther King Jr. alluded to the possibility of future violence if the U.S. Government did not confer upon African Americans the rights they deserved. This violence would not come from him or his people, but Dr. King spoke of radicals who could take more drastic measures if their rights were not respected as an incentive for the government to guarantee civil rights for African-Americans as soon as possible.
I do not think that we can really judge Stanley. Though what was done to Maki was truly awful, in a black community under Apartheid an informant could spell the death of many, many individuals. I would never advocate murder, but at the same time I am cognizant of the fact that I have never faced a situation where serious violence or murder even enter the realm of options.
“Can we transcend binary definitions as we are labeled patriotic or unpatriotic, or even traitorous, on the basis of simplistic criteria such as “for or against”? It’s easy to have a conversation about war, abortion, death penalty, etc. but discussing where you stand can create a feeling like knots in your stomach. Often we feel too uninformed to conclude we’re in the “pro” or “against” side (a losing battle because you can never know all sides of an argument –it’s never just “binary”), but it resolves an internal conflict to decide we’re against whatever makes the issue negative. Since birth we’ve compartmentalized to make the world around us make sense (ie. “don’t touch the stove” example…it takes one lesson to learn touching it isn’t good). Our brain compartmentalizes automatically to leave room for the stuff that we have time (or are getting paid for) to ponder. It takes a lot of self-reflection to understand the things we do automatically. As Vaugh stated, what changed Straker’s view was one-on-one engagement with Stanley, an activist, who shown the other side of what had once “riveted [her] in horror.” As a treatment provider, Straker had the time and money to listen to his story even when she wanted to escape it, become educated in regard to his struggle, wear Stanley’s chains as their relationship progressed (gained empathy), discuss with colleagues her immobilizing, freshly surfaced guilt, and become transformed by their encounter/her conflict by the recognition that “the position of ontological (reality of) innocence is not sustainable.” This reminds me of Thomas Giovanni’s comment about putting a judge’s child through the system and observing whether or not he remains an exemplary of the problems the CJ system faces today.
Neethu, on capital punishment, there’s the “for” side of the argument - some people seem to have a compulsion to behave antisocially. They seem resistant to any type of treatment psychologists have found. Cost in keeping them in prison is something around 30 thousand dollars per year, where there are lesser treatment options available. Then there’s the “against” side – that a country, so fixated on quantifying results, hasn’t found conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty, and failure of justice from the DP is irreversible. In cases like Tim McVeigh, who apparently didn’t have a compulsion to kill but killed thousands at once, his death was symbolic. It’s true he was deeply troubled over issues out of his control and influenced by every negative piece of governmental propaganda around him, but I’m pretty sure therapy would have helped. The purpose of the DP is to put an end to the risk the perpetrator poses to the community when they’ve shown no remorse or ability to be rehabilitated. Furthermore, continuing the hunt for Osama bin Ladin is most likely purposeless regarding our future safety as a country…HOWEVER, he’s the face of terrorism. Americans want to kill him for cathartic purposes only, at this point. If any of us were on that jury, even if we saw him 100 lbs with a failing kidney and dialysis bag, being the ones to end his life is symbolic to all of us for different reasons.
I am a jock aspiring to be an intellectual, so maybe it’s the B-baller speaking when I say an eye for an eye doesn’t solve the problem but it sure levels the playing feel. I never understood the idea that the oppressed should somehow be the bigger person in conflicts where it is clear that their not the aggressors. Although white guilt is a good argument as to why Straker didn’t feel obligated to judge, a more simplistic question could ask how she can judge when she isn’t fighting for the cause. Should it matter that Straker is White? The blackest of black Nigerian couldn’t have came to Stanley with the nerve to tell him what he and his brothers did was morally wrong. Thomas said something funny but true when I told him what I thought about the topic. It made me laugh “you and me I can’t have the nerve to Judge him or anyone else when we stand on top of Indian land”.
Before I leave my comment, I have to say that I wrote it before reading Vaughn's latest entry. Vaughn, we're on the same page here...
My post is so long I have to put it in two parts. Please bear with me:
I’m not sure exactly where to begin to respond to the many strands of argument, discussion, and issues raised so far in the blog.I guess I’ll start by responding to Vaughn’s observation that “I don't think Professor Waterston got to finish her thought” (about whether or not people are inherently good). Vaughn is correct.I didn’t finish the thought—or, rather, I didn’t express what I was really trying to say, so I’ll try to do so here.
“History makes man,” is part of a quotation attributed to Marx.These words capture an aspect of what I wanted to say about human beings and “doing good.” We don’t make the world we are born into (although we can work to change the world, which is what we in the Vera Seminar are all trying to do—change what is not right in the world we’ve been born into).And by “the world,” I don’t mean just our own individual family or household unit.If we are born into a world marked by equality and equity, not inequality and disparity, what kind of characteristics and attributes of personality might we see nurtured?If we are born into a world marked by poverty (amidst wealth), inequality (amidst privilege for some) and brutality (against some, not others), what do we expect from people who live it, observe it, survive in it, endure it, or resist it?
I must confess that Straker rubs me the wrong way—I found myself irritated reading her essay, and so have been trying to figure out what it is that bothers me (I’ve learned to pay attention to what irritates me—dig at it a bit to figure out why).Here’s what I’ve come up with.As I began reading the essay, I was wondering if the author was a South African black, mixed-race, or white woman (and what I’m about to say here relates to Professor Reitz’s question about race that she posted on the blog).Of course, as I read on, it became clear that the author is white.Why was this important? Well, if she were a white woman writing about a therapeutic relationship with a black man, and a set of events situated in apartheid South Africa, you’d think it would be important to make her own racialized social identity explicit right up front. Instead, her “whiteness,” her privilege is just there, assumed. She’s the one (Stanley is the other)—or as James Baldwin once wrote, “being white means never having to think about it” (except when people revolt).
NOTE: I've got more written in a second entry.....
Here’s another part of what bothers me. There’s a flavor of what Tim Wise calls “examining the crimes of thee but not of me.” This doesn’t mean I think Stanley’s actions are condonable, but maybe the point is that we ought to try to understand the roots of Stanley’s violence. It’s not about condoning or forgiving. If we really want to “prevent” such violences, then we need to be asking different questions. For example, if Straker asked more of herself—for example, “what are the crimes of violence perpetrated against human beings by the system that provides me privilege, and how did that violence, that structural violence if you will, create Stanley, create a Stanley who killed his black sister—she who was even more vulnerable than he?” But Straker doesn’t “examine the crimes of me,” only of he.
So when I wanted to talk in class about “goodness” in people, it was more about this: under what conditions does the worst in people emerge—violence and brutality? And under what conditions does the best in people emerge—caring and concern for others?Stanley’s life experience—under the brutal dictatorship of apartheid and all that it actually meant for people like Stanley—created a habitus of violence. Why would we expect people to behave other than brutally? Are they supposed to be “above” the brutality and violence of the world they were born into and did not create? Why would we expect those who are victims of brutality and violence to be different from that, exceptional to that? Why are we surprised when the victim becomes the victimizer? We have a lot of historical evidence to suggest that this is what we ought to expect.
These are not just abstractions, but a reflection of systemic brutality and violence and the predictable psychological wounds that result.
I disagree with M. Patino I would not go as far as to say that non-violence is ineffective but I may agree more with Vaughn regarding the civil rights movement when he says “Dr. King accomplished it to some extent but even he used the threat of further violence by those who weren't as peaceful as he (Malcolm X, Black Panthers, and other militant groups)”. In my humble opinion it is unfortunate but true life is a balance and it is simply worst to remain neutral towards injustice (keeping in mind that I am a pacifist and do not support violence).
In response to Professor Waterston’s post I feel the worst in people, violence and brutality emerges during times of great conflict and when no other escape can be seen or believed possible. Many Sociologists believe that everyone starts on a blank slate and that human beings can be molded. I do not doubt this one moment, I believe that human beings can easily be influenced into doing things they would not have otherwise done. Some individuals of course more than others but overall a majority of the populations suffers from this phenomenon. As we had previously discussed in class many fall victims of the mob mentality as occurred to Stanley whom had a sudden epiphany over Maki’s burning hair, but to no avail. Stanley quickly awoke from his epiphany and continued his actions once he saw no one else was backing off.
I feel the same thing happened in Nazi Germany with many former Nazi Soldiers and individuals who participated in such cruelty. Many have claimed they were never racist and simply have no idea how they could have allowed themselves to have been dragged into such a horrific situation. Insisting that this was out of character and that they felt they had been taken advantage off by the Hitler and his Nazi Regime through trickery. Many were German Citizens whom were victims of poor political decision by their government and poverty (this is not to justify) and brained washed into believing the solution was getting rid of their Jewish neighbors because they were to “blame”. Here we clearly see how the victim becomes the victimizer and I agree with Professor Waterston it still shocks me when some are shocked when things like this happening. History has indeed proven to us over and over again that this to be unfortunately expected
I agree that it is perhaps not so strange that someone who lives in a world of violence and hate will also commit violence themselves but I think saying that growing up with violence=committing violence and that is acceptable simplifies things too much. It removes human agency, volition, reflective functioning, and empathy. History has shown that human beings commit violence even in a peaceful setting and even if they did not grow up in a violent environment. It is understandable that children who grow up in abusive homes become abusive themselves or that Stanley who grew up in a violent environment responds through violent means himself but I do think people must rise "above" it. Perhaps this is incredibly naive but I think accepting violence is a slippery slope and you can only go downhill. I feel sympathy for Stanley in apartheid South Africa but not for Stanley who commits violence as a result of his life.
Vaughn, I must say that there are judges out there that know that there are serious problems with the system and try their best to be just. During my internship with a few judges in the Bronx, I was lucky to be able to spend some time with a judge in misdemeanors. She knew that the ridiculous charges that people were getting arrested for was a failure of our system. Often times she would read the arresting officers account of the situation and found the story did not make sense, plus the reason that the person was arrested for was for something petty (i.e. carrying a little knife, loitering, marijuana possession, etc). This made me think about the time when I overheard an officer speaking - I overheard a police officer one time say to his fellow officer “You know what I do when I am desperate for a collar? I throw a $5 bill onto the tracks and just watch” – I was shocked!
I also found out later that my friend actually faced this same judge many years ago when he was 15 years old for marijuana possession. Because he was locked up for two days she dismissed his case but made sure she told him that he should lead a straight path and she didn’t want to see him in court ever again. His perception of her was very positive and it helped change his habits.
Reading Straker’s essay made me think about this documentary film that I watched recently in the theaters called “The Cove”. The documentary is about a small town in Japan that slaughters hundreds of thousands of dolphins a year (it begins in October and lasts for about 3 months – the slaughter goes on daily for 3 months). The film helped us relate to these intelligent creatures and in a way humanizes them. This can be compared to Straker’s essay because “The Cove” also deals with culture. The Japanese claim that this is a cultural thing yet a lot of people in Japanese do not know the truth to the story. Ric O’Barry (the first dolphin trainer that trained Flipper for the TV series) who spent 10 years building this dolphin training empire has been trying to tear down this empire for 35 years. He finally captured the truth behind the slaughter in Japan in this documentary. How do you convince someone of another culture that what they are doing is wrong? This may be a bit different from Staker’s situation, but yet somewhat similar.
Neethu I couldn't have said it better myself, violence is never the answer. It is sad that some resort to it before they resort to and exhaust their intellect. In my humble opinion resorting to violence illustrates poor character because using violence to resolve conflicts is the easy way out.
I would like to share three quotes with you all to think about:
“Peace cannot be achieved through violence; it can only be attained through understanding”. Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages”.
Thomas A. Edison
“Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself”. Lao Tzu
I just want to briefly respond to Neethu's statement: "saying that growing up with violence = committing violence and that is acceptable."
I'm not sure Neethu was referring to my comments, but if so, I want to reiterate my point that examining, understanding and implicating structural violence in this case "doesn’t mean I think Stanley’s actions are condonable...It’s not about condoning or forgiving." I feel it important to clarify this in case my statements were misinterpreted.
I must say that I disagree with Neethu's feelings toward Stanley. I do not think he is a bad role model for his cause because of his actions against Maki. The insistence of seeing Stanley as bad or immoral due to the necklacing crime prevent us from really acknowledging the seed of the problem.
The problem does not lie with the individual (Stanley), it lays within the structure of society. If Stanley did not lived in such a violent, and unjust environment his actions would be different. The fact that he felt apprehensive when he smell the burning hair of Maki let us know that the actions he was committing bother some inner part of his being. I believe part of Stanley (his personal morality or values) knew his actions were bad, but his communal morality (his responsibility to the well being of his people) forced him to push away or supress his personal values. I personally cannot blame Stanley for taking such radical measures.I understand why he took his actions and that is why I can't write him off as a cold blooded murder because he is not one.
I also believe that Stroker had the right to fear Stanley for his actions, but she had no right to decide whether he was a good or bad person. It was okay to fear for her safety after finding out Stanley had murder someone, but to say he did wrong and pass judgement is just not acceptable. She tries to make sense of his actions, excuse him to a certain extent, because she understood how his environment molded his actions. I also felt that she had no right to criticize Stanley's morality because she was aware of her society's unjustness and had done nothing.
It is like being at a crossroad, you want to fight against apartheid, but you also want to take the path of morality. We are taught that violence is not the way, but then the greatest achievement of freedom have been through violent means. The French Revolution, American Revolution, and the Civil Rights have had to use violent means to progress. It kind of reminds me of a quote from the movie Wanted, “Kill one, save a thousand.” Sometimes to achieve a greater good, we have to use violence against our oppressors (of course in extreme situations like apartheid.) I know that it is strange to see such a digressing and primitive act as one of the primary sources towards progression. So I can understand how Straker felt at odds with her feelings towards Stanley She felt strong towards fighting the apartheid, but after shutting herself off of politics and going to university she couldn’t understand why violence was necessary. Also the issue that it was “black on black” incident, rather than an actual white oppressor brings about more speculation. In my opinion I think that necklacing a fellow oppressed person does nothing for the cause, in fact it may further digress it. If it were an representative of apartheid, I think it may have caused more of an impact. Impact can lead to progression or it can dig one deeper into a hole. But the issue at hand is more with Straker, and how she deals with it because it reflects on ourselves personally. How would I react if I knew Stanley, and how could I proceed to do my job? Well like Professor Stein and the others said, it is your job to listen about 75% and the rest you have to give advice in helping him find out significance of the hair burning (the root source.) I can not judge Stanley, because I do not know what it feels like to live in an apartheid. But I do admire his rebellion, “Be a rebel with a cause” states the poster in our conference room. I believe in taking a stand and protesting for causes in the U.S. like Gay rights, and I think that gay bashing is appalling. Many times I have gotten into shouting matches and almost violence against those attempting to gay bash. Violence may begot violence, but showing people that you wont take their crap (excuse my language) is progression in my opinion.
Our conversation also reminded me of a quote from the book Dante’s Inferno “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Would you rather be moral and pacifist when people are being killed around you and oppressed or would you fight back? Maybe I am being too extreme, but in a world where justice so rarely given maybe extremism is necessary.
I completely agree with some of your points Neethu. First yes, If Stanley had been white, or if Mika had been white or a political figure for apartheid the difference would be significant enough where not much of a morality dilemma would rise. Then you bring up the points of capital punishment and the justification of taking a life. I am not a radical pacifist and I must admit that if it were my mother burning on the stake or my sister or daughter, I would demand Stanley’s death. I strongly believe we must first put ourselves in their shoes before we can judge on “I would never condone that.” I agree with Manny, we cannot say until we’ve experienced it. On another point ,I agree with professor Waterston, since I too shared the same difficulty with Staker’s work in respect to her race...
You ask how can one justify keeping people in fear in order to keep them in line? Well haven’t they been kept in fear to be controlled? and sure, two wrongs don’t make a right and even worse that its black on black crime.... But the beauty of the human mind is that it can find a justification in anything.. “well you have to make sacrifices for the cause” and is that not the point of war? sacrifice men to save a nation? sacrifice men to save the economy? sacrifice men to keep the elite in social economical power? Fahrenheit 911 states that just one senator’s child in enlisted in the armed forces. just one, an no other, in their right mind, would send his or her child to fight for the elites pockets. Ana you’re right... “The problem does not lie within Stanley” but within the state.. and by no means do I intend to disassociate as well..but I suppose it is only natural to find justification
Wow... I have once again been left breathless... “standing on top of Indian land.” I have never had the honor to meet someone who would always say something that would feed my soul.. even if its takes a piece of my humanity away.... We didn’t choose to step on their land... Lets not forget history, African Americans were brought forcefully to work... Me an incredibly mixed hispanic, would much rather be a free Nicarao- Cali (aboriginals from Nicaragua) than breathing toxic recycled air restrained by invisible chains I do not feel or see but oppress non the less when I think about the extremities of this great nation. I am sorry to keep bringing up the movies I watched over the weekend, but there’s no better example I can think of. There’s a scene in Fahrenheit 911 where the American soldiers are getting “pumped” for battle listening to “let the bodies hit the floor” by Drowning pool. It is a very creepy scene that embodies mob mentality... the soldiers get in a frenzy mental state, ready to kill and destroy their enemy....
Reading everyone's comment, it makes me think that there is no solid solution to all the problems being discussed. There may be theories or compromises that dissolve the heat between these debates. Fro example, lets take Danielle's discussion of the death penalty. In the U.S, as it is aroung the globe, many people actually believe that the death penalty will deter people from committing crimes. However, there are also those who believe that the death penalty is unnecessary for it does not deter people from committing crimes. Back in high school, I wrote a research paper on the death penalty, and surprisingly, I found that the cost for an inmate to be executed is around the two million dollar range, from the moment the perpetrator enters the CRJ to the point where he is executed, whereas the cost to keep an inmate in prison for life without parole is 3 times less. In a country so diversified like the United States, morility plays a tremendous role. If we take discussions concerning abortion, the death penalty, prostitution, legalizing mariguana, and so on, people will never come to a definate conclusio of what is right and what is wrong. Most of the time, it depends on the individuals morals and virtues. The virtues being who the person is as an individual, and the morals being the system of beliefs he or she was brought up upon. For example, what I, as a Latino,think is right--or at least--would categorized as ethical, a white person or blac person may not agree. It all depends on the personal and cultural beliefs one is brought and thought from an early age.
Another serious discussion taking place as of today, and which has been going on ever since the attacks on the World Trade Center, is Terrorism. If I am not mistaken Danielle brought up the case of Timothy McVeigh. According to some criminal justice experts, Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, and perhaps he was. The main point here is that his rage was against the political system. As a former army veteran, McVeight thought that the system was crooked and that he needed to make an statement ( source: Fagin (2007) Criminal Justice). And what a better statement than blowing up a federal building, where many judges, lawyers, and senators spent their time. The central point here is that--by the way I not condoning his actions--that was what he thought was a morally correct thiung to do to show the system that they needed to make reformns. All depends one every person's moral beliefs.
Another strong example involving morality is the incident that recently happened in Fort Hood, Texas, where the army Dr killed 13 people and injured 30'something others. Many army experts as well as legal experts in the CRJ are conducting an investigation on the individual to find out whether he was sane or insane and what led him to kill so many people. Some people argue that it may have beenb his moral beliefs since he, supposedly, had strong connections with the Islamic culture or beliefs. the point here is that morality is very important on a person's life. Most of the decisions, we as in everyone, are based on some sort of moral standard, and those decisions will say much of who we are as human beings.
I just wanted to share this with you. It's a very powerful short piece that appeared in the NYTimes on September 27th from the "Lives" column. It's titled "The Lost Student."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/magazine/27lives-t.html?scp=1&sq=Lives:%20The%20Lost%20Student&st=cse
While I love the enthusiasm on the blog I think we’ve drifted away from the real moral dilemma in the article. Yes as Vera Fellows we can all agree that violence is not the preferable action in any conflict. However, by saying things like “Violence is never the answer” are we taking a position that it is not at all understandable? What intellect is there to be exhausted when your brains are being blown out? My real problem with this article lies in the hypocrisy so heavy within the thoughts of Straker. I laugh at the idea that someone would flee to the U.S because of a problem that they aren’t threatened by to then return and come to the conclusion that not only doesn’t she know what to believe but passes judgment on those who do. I mean Straker left because she didn’t agree with what was taking place. When you don’t agree with something you express if even only in the smallest way you can. You guys have proven that in your blogs. I think we need to realize who she really came back for, herself. The problem was always within her. Professor Reitz I apologize, after further contemplation you deserve more credit than I gave you in regards to white guilt (as if you didn’t know). I’m not the authority on this (I know we are all anxious to hear professor Steins thought ha-ha) but I don’t think Straker came to terms with the color of her skin until she saw Maki being Necklaced. Maybe what she was saying in her mind while watching the television was “wait a minute look what these people are capable of, and I’m an outsider so what would they do to me? Hey, Just a thought. Remember, in class when we were asked what is her duty to Stanley? I implore you to examine that further.
I first learned about this subject matter from my sister whose professor also left Aparatheid South Africa to Oxford and furthered his education at Harvard graduate school. The story he told at the thanksgiving table was one of how he left because he and his wife were helping the cause while his father was fighting for it. One day while hiding revolutionaries in his house his father who was a high ranking officer in the army told the soldiers skip over that house it’s only my sons only to later that night come to visit and find out the shocking truth. He couldn’t deal with what was going on so he fled but never did I hear him pass a judgment towards the people who did what they had to. He had nothing to prove. In some ways Straker received more from her meetings with Stanley than he did!
Lisa I’m intrigued by your story of your friend and that judge. It’s great that there are those judges out there that see the flaws in the system and take action. Nevertheless how many people did she have to put behind bars before she made this one exception? The fact is she’s dealt with hundreds of cases just like this one, and id be surprise to find out that shed like to be the laughing stock of the Bronx courts or even worse loose her job. You see it is not her job to be fair but instead to exercise the law which isn’t always. Was she a D.A or was she a public defender. I’m sure we can count on our fingers the amount of public defenders that are judges in the Bronx. So just to make it clear I’m not bashing these judges in anyway I’m bashing the system which brings them to the point where they’ve been so inclined to practice injustice. I am so thankful for this fellowship and to be able to work with Thomas, yet another quote I must give him credit for introducing me to “we can’t always blame the tools and not the carpenter”. I think it’s useful in this scenario Lisa.
I have been biting my tongue for days. This blog has felt rather like a therapy session, where the therapist puts out a provocative question and then tries to hear the answer(s) as fully as possible before responding. Even Vaughn’s calling me out to weigh in a few posts back sounded like the client finally fed up with the therapist’s silent neutrality. Which brings up to Straker, who aims an arrow at those very thoughts: Is it possible to be neutral? What are the implications of one’s silence? Straker’s questions are applicable to both her one on one experiences with Stanley, and her growing awareness that Stanley cannot be analyzed without a deeper personal analysis of Straker’s own subjectivity regarding her position in Apartheid South Africa.
So let me say first that I am certain that Straker would agree with almost every single thing that Prof. Waterston said. The reason that she has a “crisis” at all is because she has become conscious of her own political complicity in the situation that creates Stanley’s violent act, a set of thoughts that she has formerly dissociated. She recognizes that she is indeed not a neutral witness to Stanley’s violence, and this makes her call into question the purpose of the psychoanalytic project in places like South Africa (where most therapists are white) and Palestine (where most therapists are Jewish).
The second question to raise has to do with the “job” of the therapist, which Vaughn puts on the table again. If the usual job of an analyst is to help clients become aware of the full complexity of the choices they face so that they can make decisions in a fully conscious way, how might this impede social actions, particularly violent ones? The example that comes to mind is one facing military psychiatrists all the time. You are treating a soldier who has returned from a war zone. The usual way of working would be to help him or her become aware of the range of their reactions to violence (disgust, awe, terror, dread, arousal, etc.) and to process the meaning of those reactions in terms of moving forward. You might try to dismantle some of the defensive reactions the soldier is having: dissociation, paranoia, rage. But what if the soldier is likely to be redeployed? Perhaps the worst thing you could do would be to take away these defensive reactions: after all they are there precisely to defend the soldier’s psyche against being in the traumatic clutches of war. Humans are neither innately good nor bad but we are innately survivors, beings who acquire a set of defenses to protect us against traumatic impingements. In a world where survival needs are most basic (food, water, shelter, safety), defenses are most primitive and often encompass violence. In situations where survival needs are more esoteric (needing to maintain a good GPA; needing to choose the right mate) defenses are substantially less primitive and notably less physically aggressive. What is the therapist’s duty to the patient then when he or she is living in a situation of continuous trauma? In regard to Stanley: if you help him become aware of, and even accept, the feelings he has when he smells Maki’s burning hair, have you made him less effective-too soft-to be a leader and a fighter? Psychoanalysts differ certainly but I think most would agree on the basic premise that if one “knows” in the fullest sense the cost of their violence, they will no longer be able to act violently. And, as so many of you have said, don’t some situations require a violent response?
Finally, I hope that we can keep the role of empathy in a therapist’s office in mind as we read the articles on judicial empathy. Empathy is not all of a piece, and always has unintended negative consequences as well as legitimate ones. To what degree does one’s role determine the benefits and costs of their empathic response?
Really interesting discussion. Am looking forward to continuing it in class, but I wanted to retrieve an idea that seems so central to me but is getting lost here. The idea is that violence may be too imprecise of a vehicle for justice. We might all be able to agree that there are contexts in which violence is understandable, or even if we don't, that the positions of people who choose violence are sympathetic (or perhaps too outside the realm of our experience to pass judgment). But what I see happening over and over again is that violence gets directed not at the cause (or agents) of injustice but inward -- in oppressed communities (black-on-black crime) or within selves (the self-destructive effects of doing violence). The stories of the "effective" revolutions that Marling (I think -- it's been a long blog!)brings up are filled with tales of collateral or excessive violence, meaning violence might have been necessary in advancing the particular just causes, but then there is a tipping point where violence, like a wildfire, becomes its own logic. And it is impossible to say when just violence shades into plain violence. I think that is the meaning behind the saying "the revolution eats its own." To me, this is the tragedy of Stanley and Maki's story. I don't judge Stanley for his violence, but I also don't judge Maki for her alleged participation (who knows how those informers are threatened/blackmailed? how their families are brought into it and used against them?) The fact that the fight against Apartheid is played out in a war between these two says everything about the limits of violence as a political strategy.
Post a Comment