05.05.05
Posted in politics, philosophy at 12:14 pm by
So, I’ve been thinking a bit more about the justice thing. Zalm asked some good questions about justice (the restorative sort) in a comment he left here. I’d like to address some of his thoughts; however, I’d like to save those comments for a later post.
On my drive from Grand Rapids to East Lansing today–the last drive of the academic year, I might add–I got to thinking about how the two types of justice–restorative and retributive–might relate to an understanding of gender differences in society. Now, anytime someone starts talking about gender differences I start getting a bit antsy. So, if you’re feeling antsy now, I wholeheartedly endorse those emotions.
I think antsyness often arises from the fact that often, when folks start chatting about gender, they also start making broad generalizations which are invariably obtuse. In my discussion of gender (which should not be confused with the related variable ’sex’) I hope not to encapsulate the entirity of males in my discussion of masculinity, nor the entirity of females in my discussion of femininity; rather, I’d just like to discuss femninity, masculinity, androgyny, and the undifferentiated with preference to the masculine and feminine as they are: identities of individuals (regardless of sex).
If you followed that last paragraph, you’re ahead of me. The point is this: I’m going to try not to overgeneralize.
Here’s the crux of my argument. In our society we’ve created a place where those things that are ‘masculine’–the strong, powerful, assertive–are things that we raise to a pedestal. The feminine characteristics–mercy, grace, peace, etc.–are things that are more easily derogated. Quite often, they’re seen as not as important because they’re ‘minus male’.
I would posit that retributive justice is uniquely male marked. That is, retributive justice’s focus lies in strong, quick, powerful moves. There’s little room for mercy and grace in retributive justice. Mercy and grace are, after all, minus-male characteristics. Restorative justice, on the other hand, seems a bit more in-line with feminine characteristics. Mercy, peace, and grace are ideals. Toward these ideals does restorative justice roll on.
Unfortunately, I would argue that due to its masculine traits retributive justice has hopped into the driver’s seat in many circles. Those retributive justice folk run around and try to powerfully–and they would argue–with human Godly vengance (is that an oxymoron?) obliterate all forms of anything that stands in the way of some nebulous picture of ‘what is right.’ Those folks bent on grace and mercy and peace, they argue, “Well they’re cute and all, but let’s get serious.” After all, anything that’s not masculine is ‘less than perfect.’
Perhaps, we should take another look at restorative justice. Perhaps it’s not as bad, or weak, or ineffective as misogynists have made it out to be.
I should definitely have filed this one under ‘raw thoughts’ as I know I have a lot more thinking to do on this…but it’s interesting none-the-less. I’d love to hear all of your thoughts on the matter.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/05/justice_part_deux/trackback/
Posted in politics, philosophy at 12:14 pm by
So, I’ve been thinking a bit more about the justice thing. Zalm asked some good questions about justice (the restorative sort) in a comment he left here. I’d like to address some of his thoughts; however, I’d like to save those comments for a later post.
On my drive from Grand Rapids to East Lansing today–the last drive of the academic year, I might add–I got to thinking about how the two types of justice–restorative and retributive–might relate to an understanding of gender differences in society. Now, anytime someone starts talking about gender differences I start getting a bit antsy. So, if you’re feeling antsy now, I wholeheartedly endorse those emotions.
I think antsyness often arises from the fact that often, when folks start chatting about gender, they also start making broad generalizations which are invariably obtuse. In my discussion of gender (which should not be confused with the related variable ’sex’) I hope not to encapsulate the entirity of males in my discussion of masculinity, nor the entirity of females in my discussion of femininity; rather, I’d just like to discuss femninity, masculinity, androgyny, and the undifferentiated with preference to the masculine and feminine as they are: identities of individuals (regardless of sex).
If you followed that last paragraph, you’re ahead of me. The point is this: I’m going to try not to overgeneralize.
Here’s the crux of my argument. In our society we’ve created a place where those things that are ‘masculine’–the strong, powerful, assertive–are things that we raise to a pedestal. The feminine characteristics–mercy, grace, peace, etc.–are things that are more easily derogated. Quite often, they’re seen as not as important because they’re ‘minus male’.
I would posit that retributive justice is uniquely male marked. That is, retributive justice’s focus lies in strong, quick, powerful moves. There’s little room for mercy and grace in retributive justice. Mercy and grace are, after all, minus-male characteristics. Restorative justice, on the other hand, seems a bit more in-line with feminine characteristics. Mercy, peace, and grace are ideals. Toward these ideals does restorative justice roll on.
Unfortunately, I would argue that due to its masculine traits retributive justice has hopped into the driver’s seat in many circles. Those retributive justice folk run around and try to powerfully–and they would argue–with human Godly vengance (is that an oxymoron?) obliterate all forms of anything that stands in the way of some nebulous picture of ‘what is right.’ Those folks bent on grace and mercy and peace, they argue, “Well they’re cute and all, but let’s get serious.” After all, anything that’s not masculine is ‘less than perfect.’
Perhaps, we should take another look at restorative justice. Perhaps it’s not as bad, or weak, or ineffective as misogynists have made it out to be.
I should definitely have filed this one under ‘raw thoughts’ as I know I have a lot more thinking to do on this…but it’s interesting none-the-less. I’d love to hear all of your thoughts on the matter.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/05/05/justice_part_deux/trackback/
meg said,
May 5, 2005 at 2:06 pm
I’m enjoying this conversation. It’s helping me make connections about justice, gender and psychology.
As a simple analogy, I think about the training I’ve observed with Christian foster parents who generally thought it was acceptable - no, spiritual - to smack their kids around in a James-Dobson-sort-of-way (retributive justice.) Unfortunately for them the pesky state of Indiana didn’t seem to think this going to be an effective method of interaction with theraputic foster children. So we had to untrain all that righteous, punishment, break-the-will, behavior influence jargon and replace it with a model of child discipline that focused on what the child can learn, what choices the child can make, etc. Perhaps this is what you have termed “restorative justice” because it put the child’s growth at the forefront of consideration (rather than the parents’ frustration and feeling of, frankly, “getting even.”)
And as for gender, the valuation of the “masculine” and the patronization of the “feminine” is especially accute in these fundamentalist, Focus on the Family, gender roles, headship type homes so it is no wonder that we struggled to convince people that you don’t need to punish children in order to change their behavior. That maybe time is better spent modelling and teaching children how to think and, most of all, by developing a relationship with them wherein trust is gained and all of life is moved through together - good decisions, bad decisions, do your homework, color on the walls, whatever. We were often accused of “going soft” aka being too “feminine” when “masculinity” aka the strap was what was required. I have to say, I enjoyed immensely watching them dubiously try a new approach almost in order to show us that it wouldn’t work and then watching them stand dumbfounded when it did. The paradigm that broke down in that moment was more than about disciplining children, it was about valuing restoration over retribution, accepting the “feminine” as a powerful agent and force of change.
Brandon said,
May 5, 2005 at 2:11 pm
I think I fumbled through that post, and Meg, you’ve hit what I was trying to say with a simple phrase:
‘accepting the “feminine” as a powerful agent and force of change.’
I think this hits the nail on its head.
jpe said,
May 5, 2005 at 4:06 pm
I think that’s about right on. Witness the political divide: Republicans’ retributive inclinations are cast as the sine qua non of masculinity, whereas democrats, stereotypically more concerned about rehabilitation (whether they are or not is an open question) are cast as the lady-like wilting flowers.
zalm said,
May 6, 2005 at 3:59 am
I think we have a tendency to talk about retributive and restorative justice as if they are mutually exclusive. If they are, I think it’s probably damaging to assign them gender analogs.
I guess one of the things that makes me antsy about discussing ideas like justice in terms of masculine/feminine or liberal/conservative is the temptation to make a binary relationship out of something that may very well be more of a spectrum. I don’t think anyone has done that here yet, but I think it’s important to keep in mind.
When I look at a concept like justice through the lens of gender, I generally wonder not whether we should prefer one over the other but whether these gender-specific characterizations are really dim reflections of something that is unified and made perfect in God?
And the more I think about this post and the one that came before, the more I think that’s true in this discussion of justice.
Perhaps part of the issue here is yet another manifestation of the problems caused by attributing a single gender to God. There’s certainly more at work here than that. But if we believe as Christians that male and female were created in the image of God, then maybe what we’re looking for most of the time is not which model we should elevate above the other but rather how to find a balance that most clearly reflects God’s character.
Mercy, that was more than I intended to write. Shoulda probably just made that a post of my own, but then I would’ve wanted to edit it and I’d rather publish and go to sleep. Anyhow, in the spirit of Brandon’s post, I’m just shooting from the hip. I’d be interested to hear what people think.
LAmom said,
May 7, 2005 at 3:30 pm
due to its masculine traits retributive justice has hopped into the driver’s seat
Clearly what needs to happen is that retributive justice needs to stop and ask for directions more often.
Brandon said,
May 7, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Love it, LAMom.