Everyone,
Thank you for such a fun and engaging seminar. The energy was great, the comments were insightful, and it was great (and very entertaining) to moderate the fierce debate. I hope that it was a learning experience to see, even on a small fictitious scale, how the worlds of non-profits and alternative to incarcerations function, especially when it comes to funding.
So to recap, we saw that when pitted against each other, to programs that have similar goals (reducing or combatting violence) and want to essentially help people can get hostile very quickly. The way philanthropy has been set up has created a world where organizations, advocates, and non-profits have to fight for limited resources, most of the time in a very formal respectful manner but nonetheless as competitors. However, as we saw today (and not to say that how class was run is how funding is determined), groups can be quick to antagonize other groups, come up with negative press, or fight tooth and nail for money. The stakes are high, with the lives of the community, the victim, the offender, and let us not forget the donors of the funds and the politicians, up in the air. In our class, we saw how even collaboration may be difficult, especially after the critiques of each project.
Something that was brought up during the debates by Minerva and Sylvie, which was not discussed in length during the debate, was the concept of misinterpretation. Both ceasefire and common justice have components that tried to respect and work with identification. For Ceasefire, it was by respecting masculinity and gang culture. In Common Justice, it was about addressing how offenders, or the responsible party, may also be victims of violence and starting a conversation about context. Both try to respect the interpretation of identity, be it masculinity, or what it means to be a victim, which is integral to the success of each program. However, this also leads room for misinterpretation. Imagine someone coming in and telling you how you should identify yourself, or using what they believe your identity to be as a way to interact with you. Who is to say that the interpretation is correct? And what if it isn't correct? Can it be harmful?
Imagine for a moment if there was a program founded on the premise that it wanted to help Grendel, simply because he was a monster and he needed help fitting in. As we have discussed in class, Grendel was not necessarily a monster. He had a mother, experienced fear, and was very human at times, more human that the humans themselves (which is up for debate). So, isn't the program that is trying to help Grendel doing some harm in already labeling him with an identity that he himself did not agree to? Furthermore, who has the authority to give him an identity anyways?
The question is - how can using what we think we know about masculinity or victims harm the people that both Ceasefire and Common Justice are trying to help? What does this mean on an individual level, on a organizational level, and also for society? And to make this more relatable, how have we been effected by instances where the use of our identification has harmed us. For example, me being a Latino may sometimes bring with it assumptions that may hurt me - such as me being an undocumented immigrant, poor, having already fathered a child, etc. The list of stereotypes can go on. The same goes for the implication of calling someone masculine or a victim. What if they don't identify as such, or disagree? Thought on how these labels and identifications can harm instead of help.
Again, thanks for a great class! It was valid and epic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Nico, heard it was a great class, sorry I couldn’t make it.
Just speaking from the experiences I’ve had at Vera, all of our projects are contingent on grant funding, so I can imagine the debate you all must have had in class. “Competing agencies” often become opponents, fighting for the last bit of funding, rather than unified agents for social justice. At the same time, competition (in theory) does have the goal of finding the most innovative, effective, and usually cost-efficient approaches to justice.
Misinterpretation is a sticky issue. One the one hand, I agree with you, Nico: you don’t want to risk labeling and misidentifying people. On the other hand, I think a unifying purpose and cause generally calls for a theory or hypothesis of the “problem” at hand, however limiting and generalizing that may be. From a research approach, I would say broad and exploratory intentions are the initial norm, before moving to more nuanced inquiries. Ceasefire and the restorative justice approaches posit, for example, different ideas for improving community relations and responses to crime, but that’s because we just don’t know what exactly works, why it works, where it works, or where to start.
How a program’s respective paradigms impact its efficacy is a really good question (if that’s what you’re asking), but I’m not quite sure how to answer it. Can a program—like your Grendel example—come off as dehumanizing and not entirely accurate? Probably so. Could it prevent people (“Grendels”) from taking part who may benefit from it? Maybe. It’s a very important consideration to take in, and a potential issue when presenting a caricature as your poster boy/girl. But, I guess from a human-logical perspective, to solve or reduce a certain woe in society, we need to assist the “problem” and thus define the “problem.” But, problems are multifaceted issues, representing many faces. It’s a tough balance reaching a specific audience using a specific identification.
To, I think, answer your final question on a personal level, such is the nature of humans and stereotypes. I believe my whiteness can tend to imply homogeneity with other “white” people; wealth; oppressiveness; perhaps even a savior complex by working in a “helping profession” or for social justice causes. I recently had an experience where I believe the latter of this list was implied based on my experiences. To wrap this up, and touch on programs again, to “help” a “population” or a “group of people” is almost always a worthy effort, and a necessary one for unity; but, a respect for diversity is also imperative.
Nico, the class was truly amazing not only for the well thought out class structure and your brilliance in moderating intellectual debate, but also for the implication of the this mock debate in the reality of the non-profit world, a world that is good in nature but is filled with cutthroat competitions.
As I was reading your blog post, I really admire your observation in non-profit program’s tendency to classify individuals into some sort of collective identities. This issue, however, is not limited to the business models of the Ceasefire Project and Common Justice. Since non-profit programs are mostly designed to assist specific groups, nearly all non-profit programs need to assign a group identity to their clients. The tradition, however, undermines the importance of individuality as the moment a client enter a program, he or she falls under a larger group identity. Let us take CEO’s participants as an example. Prior to their engagement with CEO’s services, our participants may each possess unique personal identity, some might have gang affiliation, while others might be some ambitious young men and women who dream big about their future careers. However, the moment they become part of CEO’s program, they are identified by their group identities. Some might find themselves being classified as Unsupervised Criminal Justice (UCJs), while others earn their new “title” as Parolees, let’s not forget those you are known as Young Adults (YAs). To put it differently, this type of program structures, be they those of Common Justice or CEO’s, are not individual oriented, that is the programs strip away, or in some cases alter individual identity as they try to fit them into a identity that is relatable to the population that the program is designed to service.
Do I necessarily find these practices wrong? Not really. But neither do I worship their approach. Part of me agrees with Nico’s concern about whether we are truly qualified to define an individual’s identity, regardless of our intentions. However, I also want to point out that how can we ever be so sure that self-perceived identity are not as dogmatic as those that have been assigned to us? Isn’t it also true that Grendel himself is struggling to arrive at a precise understanding of his own nature and identity? I once heard an interesting saying about human identity. It roughly goes like this: our identities various in different settings, a man could be a lovely father and a fearsome individual all at once; and the significance of our existence is mainly defined by our identities. So maybe, just maybe, it is possible for one to search for a true self-understanding amidst various, and possibly fabricated identities.
At last, my conclusion is—sorry Nico, the question you posed is too ingenious, though I enjoyed the thinking process very much, I have no answer to it.
Thanks again for a great class. The debate was fun and reminded me of the good ol days!
Lets start by putting your Grendel metaphor into perspective. Grendel was viewed as a monster. He did not resemble the humans enough in action or appearance for the towns people to consider him as one of their own. Because of this he was exiled as a monster and his only place in society was to terrorize. The towns people made him into a monster whereas on the inside he may have been something greater than human.
These stereotypes stump social justice programs in the same exact way. For example, the police. Te police are always targeted by individuals ready to criticize them for ether not doing enough or trying to do too much. CEASEFIRE had to overcome this steryotype in order to have some success but scholars still question the relevance of the program. This became increasingly evident as Professor Stein called it a "police crackdown program" a couple of times during the debates. The strategy of working with police and government officials opens the program to critique.
In the opposite light, restorative justice programs do not use these methods. They are community driven and do not use government or police forces. We, as a society, are wired to believe that although authority can become tyrannical, it is necessary to get the job done. Restorative justice models can be seen as ineffective are community driven and does not use our already appointed officials.
All in all, these stereotypes may not be damning for the mobilization of these programs. As so far as funding is concerned, the impact of these stereotypes are, dare I say, up for debate.
Nico, thanks again for a great class, I am not used to the debating format, so for me it was a true learning experience.
As for your question on misrepresentation, I agree with Joseph and Sylvie, I am not sure how to answer this. However in my understanding of the question, the identifying or characterizing of an individual in a particular category can and does in many instances take away a person’s identity or minimizes their individuality. I agree with your concern that by labeling a person a victim who does not view himself in that way might do more harm than what is intended to remediate.
I think however, that the importance of the conversation is not to impress the meaning of the word “victim” as a helpless, hopeless and weak individual but rather to emphasize the fact that we all humans who can and in many circumstances, will be confronted with a situation that is out our control. Whether you are a young man trying to survive in your neighborhood or a gang member, wishing to impress upon others your desire for respect, the fact of the matter is that when you’ve experienced an event that, in one way or another, harms you, you are considered a victim.
In my particular agency the word “victim” is being replaced in many conversations. When referring to an individual who has suffered or is dealing with a domestic violence situation the term being used now is “survivor.” My take on this is that a domestic violence victim is already someone whose identity and individuality has been taken away from. A person struggling with domestic violence is involved in a situation that is out of their control. I understand that many women who have experience the trauma of DV and have overcome it want to be called “survivors” because they are no longer victims and that is a great and healthy way to proceed and overcome the hurt. However the sad truth is that in many circumstances, DV victims, just as the victims of many other crimes or circumstances in our society, do not survive. Gang members who were shot by other gang members and survive might not considered themselves as victims but whether they survive or not, they are the victims of gang violence. How do we differentiate between victims and survivors and how do we emphasize the meaning or structure of any outreach program design to help or navigate the violent currents from producing more victims? Do we create a more harmful outlook when we call someone a victim, instead of survivor, if that individual has been harmed? Your question provokes a lot of thinking Nico and is very hard to answer.
Unfortunately the premises behind many of the social justice organizations and outreach programs, is to help individuals, communities or groups who cannot help themselves or are unable to overcome certain obstacles. Whether the victim of a crime, the surrounding environment, our upbringing or our own bad decisions, if we are considered able pull ourselves up, get pass the difficulties and achieve our goals on our own, despite the hardship, help is hard to find.
I want to thank Nico for facilitating such a fruitful and stimulating discussion.
I have a difficult time trying to answer the first question posed dealing with the misinterpretation aspect and identity. Certainly labels and who creates the labels will always be open to criticism, especially when the labeling involves subjective terms like terrorist. For example, is President Obama a terrorist for using drone to kill unarmed civilians in Somalia and Pakistan? The answer to this question depends on one’s viewpoint and perspective. So there is no correct answer for whose interpretation is correct. As Joe mentioned, labeling creates unification so individuals can begin on the same playing to identify certain causes. Perhaps there may be some harm in labeling someone who does not consider them to be part of a certain label; however, generating support and allocation of resource may be difficult to generate without a common understanding or concrete definition for a proposed problem.
As I mentioned above, the authority to create labels depends on the individuals in power. For example, the legitimacy in international law does not stem from compelling theoretical claims and investment in a unified system. Rather, the legitimacy stems from force, military power, and wealth. For example, labeling individuals in Pakistan as terrorist is much either for the United States than other countries. The U.S. has representatives throughout the world who have agreed to uphold the foreign policy definition and terms. The U.S. commands so much attention from the United Nations—primarily due to dependent relationships. More importantly, the U.S. relies on a culture that is able to disseminate literature to solidify terms and definitions of individuals without any challenge. Along the same lines, I am sure the stigmatization associated with labeling someone as a drug offender may undermine his confidence, especially if he does not do drug. But, yet, again, what type of systems allows for unifying individuals without creating stigmatization or harming the individual?
I share many of Minerva’s experiences dealing with the current shift in labeling trafficked “victims” as survivors. Like you Nico, I too have been the target of unjustified assumption, e.g. terrorist, oppressed, and hostile. At the same time, while I think there are certain examples where definitions/labels and their impacts need to be explored, I fear that spending too much time on trying to understand the complexities shifts focus away from more impactful opportunities. That being said, I can’t help but think of my final paper topic. Many individuals in the international human rights field spend so much time trying to debate and define certain vague and ambitious terms like rights and dignity because terms like these vary from person to person. Similarly, the whole “East” versus “West” debate highlights the negative impacts of labeling. The “East” and “West” do not capture the tremendous diversity of religions, cultural, governments, and so on. Yet there is tremendous reliance on these words during debates. When I was in Egypt, at one point my views were ignored because I was considered to be “Western” due to my citizenship. As frustration as this may have been, the point to take away from the experience is to not attack or come up different labeling systems. Instead, common ground needs to be found to shatter some of the misconceptions and to create genuine dialogue between individuals.
9851
You guys have given me an artificial sense of my own power. Glad to see these excellent comments up today! I don't want to write at length and steer discussion away from your comments. I just want to point out that there is such an interesting bridge between Thomas's class and Nico's, as different as the topics and professorial styles were. I left both seminars (and especially Nico's blog post) thinking about the importance of remembering the individual human life in all of these social justice questions. Too often, I think that the focus on the individual takes attention away from social structures and larger wrongs. We look at individual victims or heroes and lose sight of larger questions; we miss the forest for the tree. But both Thomas and Nico point out that remembering that idiosyncratic individual -- forcing yourself to picture your best friend's kid, or remembering the uniqueness of Grendel -- requires you revisit the assumptions of whatever you are doing, whether that is providing victim services or putting someone on trial.
You have said so many important things. I feel a teacher-ish need to summarize.
Labels as tentative descriptors give us a mutually agreed upon language to talk about problems and, thus, may be a necessary precursor to brainstorming solutions (Joe). The problem arises when we reify labels, in other words, confuse a description of what we see with something essentially true about a person or thing. This is an especially dangerous mistake, as labels are often affixed by the powerful (Sally) and tend to evoke stereotypes (Andre). So, it may be true that Grendel appears monstrous (and, I would argue, IS monstrous in certain ways) but that is different than being a monster, period, end of sentence. Beings are complex; the fact that no single label can define them does not necessarily mean that different labels do not appropriately describe parts of their personality of experience (Minerva). Finally, the labels we put on ourselves are just as limiting and potentially erroneous as the ones put on us by others, maybe more so (Sylvie).
Nico asks what the consequence of misidentifying people might be. It can be huge. It cost Grendel his life. But, in another circumstance, it might have gotten him “appropriate services”, to borrow our agency lingo. I can’t help but see Grendel on the couch, recognizing that he is victim, survivor, monster, child, and hero all at the same time. Early identification of his pain and anger may have gotten him to some helpful personal insights and may even have freed him up to fight the good fight against the State’s monopoly on violence, without succumbing to violence himself. Like Joe says, even considering the pitfalls, in order to posit solutions we do have to label the problem.
Hello Nico,
Excellent class! Very well organized and idea behind it all was great!
Touching on the point about Ceasefire and the idea of masculinity, couldn’t one make the argument that once the juvenile listens to the police officer/authority figure and stop his gun violence, he is also not masculine because they are “afraid” and giving in to threats? During an individuals’ teenage years, that is when he is most likely to rebel. Though I do understand the reasoning against Restorative Justice and the idea of masculinity, by giving in to the police officers orders, doesn’t that (to a certain extent) take away masculinity too? He is “supposed to be tough,” not care about authority, etc. etc.
As I was reading your blog post, I too thought of my experience at FedCap. You make a great point that we are technically harming the individuals we sought to help by labeling them. At FedCap, we help individuals who are on probation and parole find sustainable employment. These individuals have a record that could range from a variety of crimes. However, we still implement some type of labels or “stereotypes” in them to figure out what their struggles may be to ultimately be able to help them overcome the struggles and find employment. To an extent, I do agree that we are harming them by placing labels, but in a way, it is also needed (and I use that term loosely) in order to effectively help them. If at FedCap, we were to assume they had an easy life, living under conditions as they would without a record, we would never have our mission (of the agency) completed. By realizing the struggles and labeling them, we understand in a way. However, I don’t believe that labeling in this case is the right word. What I mean is by understanding their struggles and seeing them collectively with all their “flaws,” we are better able to help, if that makes sense.
Thanks Nico for such an interesting class especially the fun debate.
In regards to the use of misinterpretation, I believe that it is a double edge sword. The first issue raised from the practice in mislabeling individuals is that when those individuals are placed into a collective group of identities; nonprofits are able to respond on a wide scale approach to a large number of individuals. I agree with Sylvie’s earlier statement that “non-profit programs are mostly designed to assist specific groups, nearly all non-profit programs need to assign a group identity to their clients.” I agree with Sylvie comment because nonprofits usually have a specific specialization which requires the need for group identity. I believe that it is an effective model to work on a wide scale approach because it affects more people. For example in Esperanza we work with children who has been placed on probation, we use probation as an identifier for entrance into our program. The benefits for the use of such co-option are to service individuals who need the assistance.
Thank you, Nico for a fantastic set of lessons that were thought-provoking and revealing about how things may work in the real world (even if the set-up was somewhat artificial and not exactly how things go in actuality).
I love Professor Stein’s synthesis of the various positions each of you (most of you) expressed on the identity issue. This part of the discussion reminds me of Edward Said’s line about the danger of “difference becoming an ideological infection.” “Difference” in itself is not problematic—indeed as several of you suggest, a category of identity (difference/diversity) can serve as an organizing principle for positive ends (whether on the level of the individual or the level of the collective) but can also be used against people (in powerful hands, stereotyping and demonizing are useful mechanisms of social management and control).
I’d like to comment on something else that came out of the class. I don’t know if anyone will even be looking at this post since I’m last to come on board, but I’ll say this in the hopes it will be read.
I found it fascinating that the three judges were leaning towards supporting Common Justice against Ceasefire (2:1) but in just a few minutes changed their decision to unanimously support Ceasefire (0:3). Why? Was Ceasefire determined to be the “better” program? Or was something else going on?
I think something else was going on. The two programs were ultimately NOT judged on the basis of the quality of the program BUT on the attributes of the advocates. Advocates for Ceasefire were willing to negotiate and compromise. Advocates for Common Justice were not. I believe that was the main basis for the judge’s decision to support Ceasefire. Indeed, I felt uncomfortable going along with the judges on that. I understood the point, but felt we weren’t fully considering the programs themselves—as articulated by the advocates, what of the quality, objectives and sustainability of the programs?
The fact of resource scarcity (and thus the dog-eat-dog competition for resources) is not a condition created by the two organizations or their advocates (of course, in Nico’s set-up, the resource pool was quite generous—not a reflection of the reality out there!) nor is the competitive framework one that is created by the “two” sides. Yet they (and we all) have to operate under conditions not of their/our own making. In a society where resources for social services ARE scarce (relative to the allocation of resources for other things—see for example, the ample military budget), it is ironic that those who get rewarded are those who are willing to compromise. Those who stand up to their principles are at risk for losing out.
The Common Justice group argued against “sharing” the resources on the basis of principle (and here I am not making a judgment about whether or not the principle was just or appropriate). Representing the Common Justice position, Sally argued against compromising with an organization on the basis that its program (Ceasefire) is not just ineffective but serves as an arm of social control. Putting aside for the moment whether or not this is “true” about Ceasefire, it is interesting that the quality of the program was not the determining factor in who got the money (we didn’t have time to engage Sally’s important point); instead, the determining factor was the winning organization’s willingness to compromise.
I worry about this. In a dog-eat-dog system set up as a competition over resources (planned scarcity), is there an unfair—indeed a hypocritical—expectation that participants come to a compromise? I’m not suggesting that compromise is a bad thing. But I am wondering and worrying if there’s any room in such a system for standing up to principle.
Everyone,
Thank you for your insightful and challenging comments. They were all amazing - and thank you for making class so memorable. It was fun to watch and be a part of.
On a note to end and perhaps connect to tomorrow (unfortunately I won't be there), I want to touch upon something everyone here has discussed. In the parameters of our agencies and social justice, the labels we use have a positive intention and are extremely valuable, for research and pragmatism. This is not exclusive to label politics. Often times, when we invest in an approach, we will defend it tooth and nail. That may be why, sometimes, techniques such as labeling are hard to fight against. However, as you walk within the walls of Eastern State Penitentiary, it may be a good idea to quickly think about the defense put up when people critiqued the prison complex. In retrospect, we see the harm it did to many people, and how it seems unimaginable that it lasted so long, however, just as many of us on the blog have defended labeling, in the same spirit many probably defended the complex. We see the more harm than good, but is that easy to admit, as we saw When Thomas Giovanni taught class and we reflected on why people still held on to wrongful convictions.
This poses a problem. When do we realize, and then admit, what we have invested in is doing more harm than good. A question, enormous I know, but perhaps something to think about tomorrow.
HAVE FUN!
Post a Comment