Empathy and Outrage

I’ll start by saying that, at one point, I found myself so frustrated by Stolorow’s jargon that I fantasized choking the professor who assigned it. Until I realized that professor was me. Seeking to erase my grievous error, I called my co-professors suggesting that perhaps we could drop the article (not because I didn’t think it was important; just because, well, other important thing deserved our time and attention more, didn’t they?) I have Prof. Reitz to thank for her forbearance: she suggested that this might be a teachable moment if we could be patient enough to unpack it. And then I remembered why I had chosen the article in the first place.

Robert Stolorow has been a very influential writer in the psychoanalytic world, writing largely about serious mental illness, the meaning of symptoms, and the static, even rigid, philosophical beliefs that often underlie the clinical actions one takes in vivo, actions which we think (pretend?) are spontaneous responses to real time stimuli but which are more likely grounded in unexamined doctrinal (look it up) systems. In this piece, Stolorow ricochets from the easily accessible idea that some of us are Dr. Empathy and others are Dr. Outrage (comically extreme perhaps but often the shorthand with which we approach our clients/ patients/ defendants/ students/ to say nothing of the institutional world), to the obscure, even obfuscatory, language of the pseudo philosopher Incompatiblism? REALLY?? As Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers would say.

Stolorow is really just asking: can Dr. Empathy and Dr. Outrage be integrated into a consistent philosophical view, or are these positions irreconcilable to a degree we are rarely willing to admit? For example, we were all very facile about saying in our previous discussions that sure, we can empathize with the set of circumstances that “caused” someone to act grievously, while at the same time condemning the consequence of their actions. Stolorow suggests that to offer this bromide without weighing its implications, puts us in a state of philosophical inconsistency that threatens the legitimacy of either argument.

I think that the basic questions Stolorow sets forth, and that I pose for you, are these:

1) If we believe in determinism i.e. our actions are caused by either distal (for example, a bad childhood), or proximate (for example, poverty) events, how can there be any idea of moral responsibility? Moral responsibility implies that people have a choice about what they do; if we believe in free will than each of us is the architect of our actions and must assume responsibility for their outcomes. If you want to have it both ways, one question is: at what point is someone responsible/not responsible for their actions? How could you ever decide where what is determined ends, and what is chosen begins?

2) If we believe in moral responsibility, which implies that we have free will, and so we believe it correct to hold people morally responsible for their actions, than this (philosophically speaking) must be applied across the board. In other words, if you hold those in power responsible for their actions you must hold those not in power responsible for their actions or, conversely, if you excuse oppressed people from moral culpability because their circumstances dictated their actions, in order to be consistent, you would also have to understand the circumstances surrounding the crimes of those in power at any given moment. So another question is: how can you excuse one set of people but not another? Who determines who gets a deterministic pass and who doesn’t?


Finally, I will just say-to avoid our falling back on the same old answers-that I am asking you now to wear the philosopher’s hat and think about logical consistency. Each one of us can make a political argument about the way to proceed in the world; a political argument takes into account expediencies, stakeholders; and the felicity calculus: what brings the biggest bang for the buck in any particular circumstance, what is actually doable. The philosopher has no such care; s/he asks, as did Stolorow (p. 259) Can we transcend the traditional compatibilist-incompatibilist dichotomy? In simpler words, is it possible for Dr. Outrage and Dr. Empathy to share a lab coat? What would that look like?

Hope in sorting out confusion

Hope….
How much of it can one hold onto when one is constantly falling in and out of bureaucracies that condemn us to failure. Even those that truly do attempt to help the individual, agencies like Vera and all it’s spin offs that try to assist those who always get forgotten, can only but compartmentalize the issues and hone in on it that way. I would like to begin this discussion by suggesting a more holistic approach. I know this was mentioned in class by Jennifer Bryan, and she mentioned a few of the problems that said approach faced, but I think Vera itself should be more holistic and interconnected, just like the FBI, DEA, Bomb squad, the local police and other departments of security have some degree of an open communication in order to facilitate things, so should Vera to improve the level of helpfulness it can offer. Maybe a separate agency can manage that and the idea of a networking- mentoring system for CEO participants.
Although the concept of offering the participants of CEO with the opportunity to network with fellow CEO’s, employers, students and other people that otherwise might not be traditionally present in their immediate circle of assets sounds rather exciting, it does face a lot of obstacles. Time being a major problem as many of these people will not be able to find the time, the transportation or the mends necessary to attend. Others will simply not be inspired to go and might be well satisfied by just having a job.
On that note, I would like to introduce a point Professor Waterston brought up after the seminar when I told her I was not sure what to write about. She said that what moved her most, was that the people coming out of prisons and enrolled in programs like that of CEO are almost expected to be grateful for dead end jobs that are strenuous and monotonous not only physically but emotionally and mentally as well. “Is that really all I can look forward to?” asked Professor Waterston as she imagined and felt what many in that situation must feel. These feelings and thoughts were inspired in part by a five minute video clip on “cooperative community development in Cleveland based on Mondragon principles” that she had seen before. http://www.blip.tv/file/2749165
Professor Waterston said she felt strongly supportive for an option such PEP (prisoner entrepreneurship program) where many ex offenders that have now been released can work on realizing and creating their own business where they are or share ownership. In all reality however, how many people can be given such an opportunity? How many can we expect to save or help? I personally am still stuck on a moral dilemma. A friend told me Thursday after class (although rather extreme) as we were discussing this that why should someone who has committed a crime against society, such a rape be allowed to serve time, get out, and attempt to continue their life as if nothing happened? The victim will never be the same and that person he or she was before the rape is forever gone. Why should the rapist receive a second chance? Now I know that CEO participants are not rapists or high risk offenders, but they still committed a crime and are now forgiven, and given a job, which means it’s taking a job from a law abiding person. At the same time, why be so punitive and illogical and not give someone with a teenage mistake that got caught a second chance as he or she might very well not be that same person either? What I’m trying to get at is the risk of reforming the system from a punitive one, that might be quite extreme and cruel and even corrupt to a treatment system where the idea of repentance is completely gone and treats the inmates as medical patients that can be cured and rehabilitated. What does that say, if anything, about the natural goodness of people as opposed to just a medicated, taught goodness? Some people are just bad! And who benefits from either system at the end of the day!?
All that aside, CEO, Vera and the other agencies all have great potential to pragmatically improve society; after all, it’s all about the money and efficiency when dealing with the issues of a system that is so overpopulated. Yet we cannot forget our empathy and passion to genuinely and truly help others, which always brings me back to Herb Sturz, who found the balance between pragmatism, efficiency and a priority to help others in a way that only a “kind of genius” could do. It is very inspiring to follow his footsteps while I mesh out my own conflicting feelings of morality.

On Empathy in Our Judicial System

I think for the most part we all wish our judicial system took the human element more into consideration. However, I do not think that empathy in our court proceedings would necessarily be the best practice. Even with this apparent absence of empathy we see great disparities in how minorities are treated and how a cases' outcome can be influenced by what judge it is assigned to. Speaking with various people at my internship (Esperanza), visiting Brooklyn's family court (where juvenile cases are handled), and listening to Mr. Thomas Giovanni, I have learned of the huge amount of influence that judges wield in respects to sentencing and even as to how a trial is run. I have seen judges uphold every single objection raised by the prosecuting attorney, while the defense is rushed through their case and barely allowed to do their job. I have also seen thinly veiled racism and various off-color comments from judges that truly left a bad taste in my mouth.

Thomas Giovanni's anecdote regarding the young Irish man really stuck with me since our court tour. To sum it all up, a young white, Irish man takes a cab on St. Patrick's Day and for some reason snaps at the cab-driver who he winds up assaulting while hurling racial slurs his way. This is plainly assault and most likely a hate crime. In court, the judge sees that he comes from a pedigree of NYPD officers, tells him that from his upbringing he can see that he has great potential for good and wont sentence him to the prison term that he should get. I believe Thomas Giovanni said the young man wound up with one year of probation. Had he been "black,brown, or poor" the judge would've thrown the proverbial book at him. In this case, the judge saw past the crime and liked what he saw (white, family in law enforcement), made an assumption as to his upbringing, and cut him a break. To me this is an example of how a judge would misuse empathy if empathy was expected in our judicial system. Would a "minority" individual have gotten this break? I doubt it. Judges already exert a large degree of control over the fate of every single person that steps into his or her courtroom. Whether they choose to be empathic or not is their choice as we can see in Thomas Giovanni's anecdote.

Empathy can be, and i guarantee would be, distributed in a biased manner. We call for empathy from the very same judges we view as racist, time-constrained, and despotic. This just doesn't make any sense to me.

I think, as I mentioned in class, that empathy should come after sentencing. I do not plan to delineate exactly how our justice system should be run as i am neither well-versed in law (yet) nor delusional but maybe some policy changes or prison reform could make up for our judges' poor and biased judgments. Maybe a judge's job should be to interpret law as absolutely black and white. If you commit a particular crime, you should serve a certain prison or probation term. However, a committee of sorts, such as a jury of one's peers, could decide what happens to the individual as he or she enters the prison system or probation.

For example: Person A and Person B are both convicted for armed robbery which, lets say for now, carries a two year prison term. Person A is robbing to support a drug habit meanwhile Person B cannot find steady, meaningful employment due to not having any semblance of an education and crime is the only way he or she knows how to make some money. Person A should be sent into a rehabilitation program and then made to complete a drug education course while spending his or her sentence in a controlled, yet healthy environment. Person B meanwhile could be placed in various job training courses (not unlike CEO or WILDCAT) and made to obtain a GED or some vocational training also in a controlled environment (not necessarily a prison as we think of it today) as part of their sentence. Both individuals would, potentially and ideally, leave "prison" having gained something and can begin to piece their lives together. By addressing the circumstances and the motivations for the crime and giving the "criminal" the tools and knowledge to rise above those circumstances, their reasons for committing that particular crime would be eliminated. Their fates did not hang on the words, decisions, biases, or empathy of a single person. This is simply too much power to grant an individual. Also, it doesn't make sense to send both Person A and Person B to the same prison environment, specially under the prison system we currently have.

Simplifying a judge's job this way would leave little to no room for any bias, simplify his or her job, and possibly move the process along quicker. All by eliminating empathy, as it exists today, from court proceedings.

I am fully aware that the system I employed in my example is overly simple but I was just attempting to formulate a clear thought experiment to make my case that empathy does currently exist in the judicial system, is misused (bias), and that to demand it from judges is folly and will only lead to even further inequality and lack of consistency in the law. The key to bettering our judicial system, I think, is to interpret the law as black and white while humanizing how we deal with those we do convict. This is where, in my opinion, empathy would make all the difference.

But then again, what do I know? After reading this post over, i sound a little naive.

Where Do We Stand?

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!!

I must admit that I was a little anxious about the mentor's coffee all week. I was sitting in my room trying to think of what I was going to say, and thinking of ways not to embarrass myself. I felt it was important to let everyone how this internship had change my outlook on life. I feel I am more able to spot injustices in my community through the testimonies of my clients, and I feel more entwine with their suffering and share their need for justice. I feel I have become more human. I can no longer say this is wrong and walk away from an issue. I now understand how all people are interconnected and it is almost impossible to stop thinking about how to make things better. I have experience this compelling need for action after reading Kant or Marx, but it is different when you have a person in front of you telling you their whole lives and still not noticing how they are victims of their societal structure. I simply feel awful when the people blame themselves for being the victims, and not understand how outside forces shape their unhappy circumstances. After listening to all the student's testimonies I got the sense that everyone was in the same boat. I felt Neethu's discontent with our educational system after dealing with teenagers in her agency. I agree that it is not entirely the students fault to be in High School and not be able to read. Why are this students able to move up the grade ladder without mastering this basic skill? Why is it okay to leave this population ignorant?

I also got the feeling that a whole new door of career options has opened up for us this year. I used to feel upset when people asked me, "So what are you going to do with a Justice Studies degree?" I was mainly upset because besides law school, I had no clear idea what else I could do. I must say that now law school is not my only option, but it is still my first choice. I gotta to thank Vera for opening my eyes to life. Overall I though the mentor's coffee was a success because the students demonstrated how much they had grown due to their experiences in their agencies and through our great discussions in the classroom. I must say I agree with Danielle when she said, "I will be so jealous of me next year." I want to know how everyone felt about the mentor's coffee, and would also like to know how the Vera Fellowship has altered everyones outlook on life?

Our Visit to Vera

I must say that our visit to Vera was very inspirational! Being able to visit the main site (where everything happens) and having Michael Jacobson speak to us about Vera’s mission and its spin-off process for its agencies was mind-blowing. It reminded me of what our ultimate mission is at our agency – which is social justice and/or delivery of services to a population that is in dire need of it. He brought our attention to the quote of Herb Sturz’ that was inscribed on the wall: “Wonderful way of building knowledge is doing something” which really stood out in his discussion about the spin-off process. Although some projects (i.e. Project Greenlight) did not produce the results that they needed in order to keep it running, they at least tried to create an agency for that population.

What also caught my attention was how each of them ended up at Vera. In each case, they were at some point interns for Vera! I feel that we are very lucky to be a part of this fellowship and to be a part of this process where we can learn how social justice can be accomplished with organizations like Vera. As Michael said, “Vera is very different from other organizations as other organizations spin off their problems and Vera spins off successes.”

Professor Stein brought up an interesting question which was, “Why isn’t Vera dealing with the sex offender population?” The sex offender population is a growing problem, especially with child pornography. Although Karen Goldstein said that there isn’t a need in that population, I believe that it may also be due to the high recidivism rate with that population. I personally believe that sex offenders often times get a slap on the wrist and do not get sentenced to enough time for their crimes. What are everyone else’s thoughts on that?

It was also very interesting to hear from Michael about Vera’s involvement all over the globe, especially in China. I’ve visited China a handful of times and know that, because they’re a communist country, they don’t like outside help. China is also full of corruption within their system. In August of 2009, an outspoken politician, Xu Zhiyong was arrested for advocating for legal rights. An excerpt from the New York Times, “Xu Zhiyong, 36, a soft-spoken and politically shrewd legal scholar who has made a name representing migrant workers, death row inmates and the parents of babies poisoned by tainted milk, is accused of tax evasion. The accusation is almost universally seen here as a cover for his true offense: angering the Communist Party leadership through his advocacy of the rule of law.” China operates in a mysterious way… If one were to speak out about the country, they would either disappear or be imprisoned. This was why I was very surprised to hear that China actually reached out to Vera for help on interrogation research. Will it ever be possible to work together in unison with all other countries (even communist countries) with the mission of social justice for all?

The Simple Truth

"So there is knowing and there is knowing and there is knowing." I found "Speaking Truth to Power with Books" by Howard Zinn to be such an insightful piece. As someone who appreciates the power of words and books, Zinn's words were very meaningful to me. I have read it about five or six times now and each time I find some new insight into his words. Zinn writes that sometimes people think they know something but truly what they believe to be the truth is really false and books have the power to make people question what they know. He gives an example, which I'm sure all of us have experienced to an extent, about how students, teachers, and parents were stunned to find that Columbus was not the great hero he was presented to us to be. I remember learning something new every year in middle school and high school that contradicted what I had learned the previous year. When we face something like this it makes us wonder what else has been hidden from us and what lies we have been told. We begin to stop taking everything for granted and ask questions about the things that are presented to us. I think this is such an important function of books and writing--to make people analyze what they hear and read. It wasn't until I came to John Jay that I realized the importance of questioning surveys and studies. I learned to ask where was that study conducted? Who conducted it? What methods and subjects were used? Was it reviewed?...Zinn goes on to say that when you tell someone something they didn't know or reveal a truth to them, it can move them to do something about what they've heard. I loved the example he gave about Rachel Carlson because I remember reading a book by her when I was in middle school, and it moved me to become an enviornmental brat of sorts who went around to everyone saying things like "How long has that AC been on? Do you know you're releasing CFC's into the atmosphere?"
I think realizing the power of words is especially important for us as future social scientists and social justice workers. We often forget how important our writing can be as students who do and write/help write research. The research we write can affect policies and laws, change the criminal justice system, and impact the lives of people. How we word something, how accurate our information is, and how well written is, can all have an affect on the impact of the writing on peoples lives.
In class we discussed how writing has become dry, ambigous, and at many times unreadable or incomprehandable. We all know the difference between reading Professor Waterston's description of Nora and the Woodhouse women and a research article. One captures our attention and is fascinating and the other can often times be a boring or even torturous read even though the subject matter is usually interesting. However, in a field where quantitative studies are often considered superior to or more "scientific" than qualitative studies, how do we get people to take us seriously if we don't write dryly and plainly. If we insert more narrative into our writing, take out unnecessary words, and make our writing simple, will we lose the respect or interest of professors and other scholars? How do we find a balance between dry facts and pure emotional narrative?