Hello all. This week's reading was interesting as always.
Professor Stein asked (a paraphrase) if those who come from privilege can effectively address social justice issues as opposed to those who have "felt the pain" by living with those issues? Please forgive me Professor Stein if I have incorrectly paraphrased your question but this is what I think you were asking.) Unfortunately, those with the financial means have not experienced the
pain and those that have experienced the pain do not have the financial
means. I believe addressing social justice issues should be a collaboration between both. As James said, those from privilege need to scrutinize themselves. I'll add that both sides need to constantly do self-evaluations to ensure that the recipients are not forgotten in the process.
Sometimes the financiers "have not walked a mile in someone else's shoes", they are unable to empathize and may bring rigid conditions as part of the package. On the other side, those who have experienced those issues first-hand may be on either of two extremes. Either they become too lenient or they are too harsh because they may have transitioned out of the situation and may feel that if they did it, so can everyone else. The key is to finding the balance but I realize that it is only theoretical. The person who have lived in the situation, for example poverty, and has transitioned out of it, may experience the splitting that we spoke about, the multiple moralities. It is very important for constant and honest self-scrutiny. The "splitting" be painful but it can serve to keep us grounded and help us to remember those we seek to help.
Many systems categorize the clients as a group instead of individually. The reality is that there is no solution that fits all as what works for one may not work for another. The key though, is to try to do the best you can. Always remember that we are all individuals first. As Battistoni said, "poverty is sometimes the result of people making poor choices and is not just limited to the poor." Although her quote is directly related to poverty, it can be extended to any circumstance. A problem does not define the individual. At times we may be faced with moral dilemmas as our personal morals might conflict with that of the group/agency. What do we do then? Do we do as Straker did and hold on to our beliefs about right and wrong knowing that we can have a stake in the society of which we hope for? Or do we do as Stanley did and replaced our personal conscience by that of the group or agency? The answers to these are subjective and it's up to the individual to decide but I believe that we always need to remain true to who we are at our core.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Simonne, thank you for your post.
I would like to add that economic status may not be the only indicator of privilege among people who desire to do social justice work. Race and even gender (Apple can speak better on this) play a role in elevating people into positions of privilege. Therefore, we should also consider the effects of such factors. For example, how would women perceive and respond to men who are committed to gender equality issues? Or, how do the poor perceive philanthropists who, in some way, benefit from an economic order that contributes to their impoverished state? I anticipate that these privileged persons will or should probably be closely scrutinized by their target populations.
With that said, experience may not necessarily be a mandatory prerequisite for social justice work, neither might it significantly influence an individual’s efficacy in the said work. What is more important is for individuals interested in social justice work to develop an organized approach that demonstrates feasibility, accountability, and all related parameters that we have deliberated on thus far in our seminar (Farmer, Buffett et al.).
On the issue of our multiple moralities, I call on our professors to kindly explain to us the meaning of “projective identification,” one of the clinical terms, which Straker uses to describe her encounter with Stanley. I read that the concept deals with the transfer of traits from a subject to an object. What transfers take place between herself and Straker? Her “beliefs of right and wrong,” in Simonne’s words?
Thank you.
Thank you for your post, Simmone!
This is a difficult conversation for me. I grew up in a middle class home, and money was not really a problem for my family and I. Although I have been disadvantaged because of my ethnicity and religion, I am not personally familiar with issues of poverty, and have been financially privileged. With that being said, however, I believe myself to be devoted to social justice and to economic justice, alike. Although i have not necessarily been a victim of our unjust capitalist system, I can join the fight for those who have.
If we advocate that social justice work is exclusive to those who have been affected by a given injustice, then we will further perpetuate the mindset that these issues should not be important to everyone. That, i believe is the problem with many social justice causes. They target a specific group of people, rather than mobilizing the entire country to fight, and end up becoming a small, marginalized group that no one pays much attention to. It is important to have everyone working towards any social justice issue because, irrespective of whether or not they are as effective, they have something to offer that the next person will not. They will have access to a different group of people, experiences, and opportunities. Moreover, a social justice cause that has a diverse support group just strengthens its claim to justice and the belief that justice is blind!
Thank you Simonne! I will write at length later but I did want to clarify for James the meaning of some of the psychological terms that Straker used in her article.
I'll start with "projection". This is a fancy way of saying that we tend to attribute to others feelings or thoughts that we cannot bear to face within ourselves. An example might be when a person uses homophobic slurs or even engages in violence against gays because they find themselves sexual aroused by someone of the same sex. We all may be aroused by lots of different things in fantasy, whether or not we want to actually do them, but someone who is very homophobic may find those feelings intolerable in themselves and so feel extra threatened by what they imagine is a proposition by someone of the same sex. The feeling makes them lash out. Can you think of qualities that Straker "projected" onto Stanley, either because she dissociated them in herself or, conversely, because she wished herself to have them? States that she deposits in Stanley so that se doesn't have to face them in herself or, the opposite, so that she can imagine herself as having certain admirable qualities?
"Projective Identification" is when we attempt to make others feel something that we feel strongly. For example, often, when people are violent, they have been victims of violence. This is such a disempowering and profoundly lonely state that the victim wishes someone else to feel it, too. The violence a prior victim commits ends up being a way to emotionally transfer the terror he or she once felt to another human being so as not to be so alone. How do you see this operating for Stanley as a leader? As a patient?
Great post Simonne!
I have to say I wholeheartedly agree with Leena’s suggestion that limiting social justice work to only those affected by a given injustice perpetuates the mindset that these issues should not be important to everyone. I believe limiting the pool of people that can help with the fight against a particular injustice, to only those affected by that injustice, is one of the biggest mistakes advocates for social justice can make. When social justice advocates use this type of rationale, they exclude a large portion of the population that would potentially help their cause. Just because these individuals have been excluded from the injustices, doesn’t means they need to be excluded from the fight to end them.
I fully acknowledge that the niche for these individuals in the fight for social justice will be very different form the individuals impacted by particular injustices, but it does not mean their niche doesn’t exist. Most policy makers in this country have been fortunate enough to come from very privileged backgrounds and have not experienced any injustice. If social justice is approached with the mindset that only those who understand the problem on a personal level can help to solve it, you have to also keep in mind you are also excluding the individuals with the power to catalyze institutional change (which we have all acknowledged in class all to often as vital to many social justice ventures) from helping.
I would also like to ask Leena a few questions on her comment. Could you please clarify what you mean when you refer to this being a problem in social justice causes? Are you referring to non-profits, or other types of initiatives? I would also like to know how whatever type of initiative you are referring to necessarily supports the claim that only those impacted by an injustice can help in the fight against it? I am not entirely sure I agree with your claim that this is a problem of current social justice causes, but I would appreciate it if you could clarify before I make my decision on where I stand. Thank you.
I just want to tweak a little. I'm not sure that the critical question raised is the closed ended "should people who have not themselves been oppressed, victimized, etc. join the fight for social justice?" but "what internal obstacles exist that impede their consciousness, making their help less fruitful than it might be?" For example, what does Straker conclude she must examine in herself before she can be of any help to Stanley and others like him? Why is it important that she self-analyze before analyzing another person?
Thank you for getting us started, Simmone.
In response to Professor Stein's question about Straker's self-examination, I think that Straker concludes that she must be rid of her unconscious belief that "all that was good and right was invested in those in the struggle and all that was bad located outside ourselves in the State". She is deeply conflicted with Stanley's account of Maki's death because of her belief that only the State has committed harmful acts against innocent people. Furthermore, she concludes that she can no longer run away and strip (or deny) her own identity as a South African privileged woman. Her realization of such is paramount to her work as a psychologist. Self-analysis is important because the psychologist (in this case) must know who they are, their behavior, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses, and so on and so forth. Without having a solid image of oneself, having the ability to "help" others may be quickly compromised, especially when working with patients that have undergone traumatic experiences. It is too easy to lose oneself in the experiences of others.
I am so interested in Ana's comment. In some sense, her recap is right on. Straker is "deeply conflicted" by her realization that things might not be as easy as struggle=good/State=bad. But Ana's language in her final sentences -- "solid image of oneself" -- might be part of what, in addition to binaries of good/bad, that Straker has to let go. Is Straker saying that in some ways an analyst does have to at least temporarily "lose oneself" in the experiences of others in order to understand all the investments of our multiple selves?
I am also taken with Ana's comment about Straker's self exploration. Simonne too calls for constant vigilance and self scrutiny. And Prof. Reitz virtually channels Straker when she notes that the idea of unitary conscousness, or a single morality, is an illusion perhaps best abandoned.
I confronted Straker's dilemma when I first worked with violent men on a forensic unit at Bellevue; specifically when a murderer first pulled out a chair and offered it to my very pregnant younger self. Over the years, I became adept at noting the fractures in the men's moral selves but it took forever to understand the dynamic interplay between us and what it implied about my own shifting moralities.
In you agencies, have you felt conflicted morally about program participants and their behaviors or, conversely, about the moral stances taken by your fellow workers or the culture of your agency? Some of the worst sins have been committed by those claiming they are helping (see the history of giving lobotomies to the mentally ill or taking Native American children away from their parents to put them in "good Christian homes" to name but a few interventions once deemed helpful).
I believe many of my colleagues in my Vera agency have become jaded. When a defendant does not give an audible answer or is unsure of the question, my colleagues carelessly skip the question or input wrong information. They simply go through the motions of their job, gambling with people's lives. These drawn out states of being jaded, however, are abruptly halted on extreme cases of fracturing.
For example, a normally jaded colleague of mine experienced a very serious fracturing episode while interviewing the defendant in the recent press case of the girl who had a fetus in her shopping bag. After the interview, she described to us the mixed emotions she had as she tried to remain neutral, but thoroughly explained each question and input answers which would get her a recommendation to be released without paying bail. Throughout her recollection of the interview, she kept reciting the same phrase, "she reminded me so much of my daughter." In the moment, that girl was no longer a docket number and a NYSID ID, but an individual with humanity.
For this reason, I think fracturing can be very beneficial at times. The intersection between these moral dilemmas and our professional ethics ground us, making us realize the gravity of the work we are doing. Straker knew she had to be careful because Stanley was leading a movement to end apartheid, so any recommendation which might cause instability within his mind could compromise the movement. Similarly, the defendant I mentioned earlier is thrown into the spotlight at only 17 years old, and is subject to great peer scrutiny. We are dealing with real situation all the time and a shock to the system may be exactly what we need to make us realize this.
I'd like to inject a question into this discussion:
In this article, is Straker as self-reflective as the title of her piece suggests she will be?
To touch on Simone's point, It is very much possible for someone to help a community in a social justice realm without being from that said community. It is actually essential that people from other communities, whether more privileged or not, can sympathize with an issue that doesn't necessarily impact them directly. What comes to mind is an old adage from the Holocaust period that goes as follows:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
I don't even know if that is relevant but I just felt that was an important statement to share in reference to Simone's post. Also, to touch on Professor Stein's comment about moral conflict in agencies, reading into people's motives and genuineness is hard to grasp from a participant in a program. I remember seeing at common justice, a responsible party who was really doing well in re-evaluating his morals but at the same time still wearing his gang paraphernalia (beads around his neck representing gang affiliation) that made me question how much the program has really impacted his willingness to change his perspective.
And to Professor Waterston, can you explain exactly what you mean by that question?
Simmone, thank you for this very thought-evoking blog post!
First, I would like to touch on the idea of being able to advocate for a people/movement/issue when you are not directly affected by the end result. I believe that one CAN be effective in eliciting positive changes within a movement even if they might part of the oppression in the beginning (i.e., a white person pushing for the Civil Rights Movement). The most important thing here though, for this to be effective, is that one must always check their own contributions to the oppression. Checking of one's own benefits from the system in which they are trying to dismantle, as well as checking one's own privilege from being a part of the oppressing group (i.e. Men advocating for Women's Rights).
If one doesn't realize their own benefits and privileges from a certain system, they might be actually creating more harm than good because they will essentially be blinded from the truth and doing work based on "guilt" or from a "savior complex".
I also think that upon acknowledging your privilege, etc, you have to find an avenue in which you are working towards the cause but not speaking FOR the cause. This is also detrimental because then you, as the oppressing party, are furthering such oppression. I work very heavily with the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community, and advocate in every way that I can for them, but the moment I speak FOR that community, is the moment I strip them of their agency and perpetuate their oppression. Of course, I speak from my own distinct experiences from being a Child of a Deaf Adult, but nonetheless, no one should speak FOR a people except the people themselves.
I think the above are some of the most important factors when working in the social justice area because there is such a thin line between helping and hurting, and we all have to be aware where those lines lay.
I'll try to answer Spencer's question back at me.
It seems to me that Straker raises questions about “morality” and “moral dilemmas,” hinting she will interrogate her own, but she really seems to focus so much of her attention on Stanley. This leaves me wondering: whose “morals” and “moral dilemmas” are being discussed in this piece? Straker’s? Stanley’s? If Stanley, why would she or we be discussing his moral dilemma if the focus of the article is supposed to be Straker’s and other therapists’ struggles and dilemmas that arise in the treatment setting? If Straker’s, what is the choice about a future action she is supposed to be struggling with? I think that this key aspect gets very muddled throughout the piece. And I think this muddling reflects that Straker is not as self-reflective as the title of her article suggests she will be.
Beginning on p. 159, Straker “turns to her own subjectivity,” and her crisis. However much credit we may give to Straker for attempting to confront her struggle, I suppose I am just impatient with what seems to be her naïveté. On p. 160 Straker writes, “I did not want this messy and terrible experience embodying violence and brutality to become part of us. I wanted violence and brutality to remain in the Other (i.e., the State),” a point also noted by Ana. I don’t understand Straker on this. Does she really believe that in a state of siege, in a state of war, in the brutal white police state that was South Africa under apartheid that there would be neat divisions of good and bad, purity and evil? Brutal police states are gory structures. Revolutions are gory responses. My surprise is that she was shocked and appalled to hear Stanley’s story. What did she expect she might hear? As a South African, she must have known of “the bitter [and bloody] struggle against apartheid [that] made soldiers out of children and turned black townships into breakaway armed camps” (Scheper-Hughes 1996: 896).
The fact of her own surprise is the red flag for me. Yet she doesn’t examine this. She never really explores how her own [race/class] privilege continued to shield her from the full horror of apartheid, even as we go through all the pages of the article. It is not enough to say as she does on p. 154 that, “I had unwittingly allowed myself to be shielded from the full horror of apartheid. This cocooning…was not unusual, as the whole social structure…supported this sequestering.” Yes, by the end of the article she comes to recognize that violent structures (from colonialism to apartheid) generate atrocities (pp. 162-163). But I don’t see how she connects this “understanding” to her own “coming to terms with [Stanley’s] act” (p. 161). I feel that if she truly “unpacked” her own privileged positionality in the history and context of the nation that Straker and Stanley call home, she would have come to understand Stanley’s own struggle, his own suffering as a result of what he did. I believe that if she truly unpacked her own privileged positionality, her own “subjectivity” would not keep getting in the way of her being the very best counsel to Stanley she could be (p. 162: “…I felt my subjectivity challenged once again”).
Also, I find her description of Stanley in the moment he described the attack on Maki Skosana to be dangerously “subjective.” She writes, “He became very excited and animated as if caught in an awful jouissance, a sexualized pleasure” (p. 158). Obviously, she was there and I was not. Still, I can’t help but be suspect of the imagery she invokes and its fit with the classic stereotype of the hypersexualized, dangerous black man.
Hello All,
Thanks for the amazing post Simmonne. The blog is always on fire. I believe that certain things from the article stand out to me. On page 154, author Gilian Straker states, “But should our sense of morality be so context bound?” When any individual chooses to think about morality there is always a context. Professor Waterston always wants us as a class to think about ideas and concepts in their context. The purpose of dissecting an idea and taking context into account leads to different perspective about a topic. In the work of social justice, I feel there is a difference between sympathy and empathy. Some professionals do not understand this idea and feel sorry for the clients, which is the act of sympathy. The professional should have a sense of empathy that gives the client an idea that they understand where they are coming from. I believe this is what Straker learns at the end of her journey with Stanley. Throughout the article, Straker is in a certain state of dichotomy that makes her conflicted with the ideas of her morality and the telling of Stanley’s story as raw and uncut as it may be. Straker was able to learn that, “very few clean hands in a war, although both sides will claim that some hands are cleaner than others.” (p.162) I feel that this is the moment where Straker is able to separate her profession and do the job more effectively. The ideas that she had about war were transformed. She took the situation for the context it was in and could not judge Stanley negatively because of the establish empathy.
I love it Jaraed: BLOG ON FIRE. You ARE the poet laureate of the Fellows.
First of all, I want to thank Anthony for giving us an example of splitting par excellence. The most important thing about his example, I believe, was that the interviewer’s recognition of splitting, triggered by agency demands, social expectations, her own training or burn-out and, ultimately, ameliorated by her identification with the defendant (“she reminded me of my daughter") leads her to a recognition of humanity in the client. It is also evidence of humanity in herself. This is the most important reason, I believe, to fight our dissociation. The opposite of dissociation is recognizing the other’s subjectivity and our own instead of hiding behind masks or relying on labels.
Next, I am moved by Apollonia’s post. She alludes to the ways in which privilege can be invisible and put people in “savior” gear. This merely reiterates the problem (“oh, the doctor will save you now”) rather than offering a partnership where two people can explore together workable solutions to the problems in living that the client/participant/defendant/ patient faces. I remember being so taken aback when a long time patient of mine, a Latina, revealed in dreams and shared in narrative her feelings about how marginalized she felt. Because her skin was the same color as mine, it simply had never occurred to me to ask how she experienced her ethnicity. I was blind in an absurd Steven Colbert “I don’t see race” way. Despite how savvy I consider myself in these areas, I was dissociated. Ultimately, we needed to talk about, not just her feelings about ethnicity in her world but in our work together as a White doctor and Hispanic patient conducting an analysis in English instead of Spanish. Our dialogue is so much richer now, especially around language and her need to express herself sometimes in Spanish and my need to try to understand her with my limited Spanish comprehension. It changed us.
Finally, Prof. Waterston raises an issue about whether Straker has fulfilled the promise of her title. I am struck each year by the different perspectives Prof. Waterston and I have on this article. One thing that always occurs to me is how much more, as academicians, we are daily challenged to explore how our practice occurs at the intersection of race, class, gender, etc. and how little of this, unfortunately, has filtered down to clinical work (perhaps because “doctors” are more married to their privilege than most). I can only say that when Straker raised these issues in my world, they were a tremendous breakthrough and advancement over what had come before. The other thing is that her emphasis is only on Stanley in the sense that the material about him highlights the way that Stanley and she mutually influence one another’s moral posture. Her item of analysis is the two of them (in my field this is called a “two person psychology” rather than a Freudian “one person psychology” where patient and doctor are viewed as separate entities in the treatment). Finally, I would bet all my bitcoin that Straker’s impression of Stanley’s sexualized violence was run by Stanley many times to see if it felt valid. He wanted the article published after reading it, as well, so I am guessing that the description resonated with him.
Post a Comment