How do we effectively address social justice issues?

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. 

Context! Context! Context! (And a little bit of screaming about sexism!)

Hi all!

Yesterday's class was certainly an interesting one! I wanted to raise an issue that unfortunately wasn't really touched on in class or in the readings as much as I would have liked (with the exception of Battistoni!) but that holds an important place in our discussion about social justice and culture. The issue being that of context and how that affects our understanding of both Oscar Lewis' "The Culture of Poverty" and Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action", and in effect, our world. 

When reading Lewis' article, I found myself questioning the traits that he associated with this "culture of poverty" and analyzing how he phrased these traits. Initially, it proved to be painful to read this article, because so many of the traits of the culture were found in my own life coming from a poor, second-generation immigrant family. But then I found myself becoming defensive and questioning the way he describes these traits (intentionally or unintentionally) as being a negative result of this culture which then, perpetuates the negative perception of those who are impoverished. Why isn't it a positive (and thus, normal) thing that women don't marry men so that they can have a stronger claim on their children and housing? I think this speaks volumes of what is expected within the dominant community; is this to say that women who marry are stripped of their rights and claims on their own children and home? How did this become a trait of poverty? This little piece of information, without the right context to give it meaning and life, stands alone unquestioned and accepted as one of the "negative" consequences of being "poor". 

Likewise, when reading Moynihan, I was enraged at the information that was supposed to allude to some "pathology" of the "Negro American Family". He states: "the Negro community has been forced into a matriarchal structure which....seriously retards the progress of the group as a whole." Of course, we should remember that this was published in 1965, but let's keep in mind that this was the information being provided and taken as fact by the dominant culture.

The regular layperson reading these articles depend heavily on the writers to provide factual information and assume that the context (if any at all) is being given to the reader in order for them to process and determine if the information is important to them. This brings me to my overall question: how, when reading about a culture that we are not affiliated with, do we determine what that culture really is? I mean, let's ignore for right now that we've got two White scholars writing about poverty and people of color, but how do we determine the context of the supposed facts that are being given to us by them? If we are given these articles, and only these, how do we go about questioning their word (and in effect, their authority) if we're ignorant to its context?

In our internships, how do we determine if the information we're getting is being relayed correctly and in the "correct" context? (And if we feel like it isn't, how do we go about asking the right questions to challenge it?)


Best,
Apollonia

P.S. I really wanted to write something on how sexist these papers were (I wanted to pull my hair out!), but I'll leave those discussions for class!

On Our Use of Language

This week's class was certainly interesting!

There are some points that I would like us to revisit. From the readings, we learned that the use of euphemistic language for the sake political correctness risks a widening of the gap between word and reality. I ask us all: is it permissible for us to accept such widening? In social justice work, are there some truths that we must or should somewhat ignore (e.g. a client's criminal history or the fact that in our present economic model poverty is a constant)? Perhaps, one of the underlying visions of social justice work is a deliberate alteration of reality.

We also reached a consensus on the point that language is a tool that can be used for political manipulation. Since, at this point in our careers, we do not use language for any manipulative schemes (I hope), I would like us to continue the discussion on how language affects us as students and teachers.

I leave you with a brief talk by Alan Siegel, a proponent of simplicity in writing. 

P.S. Inspired by Orwell, I wrote this post with extra caution, with hopes of achieving clarity. Now, I am excited to read all your responses, the final and least tortuous phase in the translation process.  

- James Williams