03.07.06
Posted in politics, philosophy at 1:18 pm by Brandon
So, it would seem that not everyone agrees with my last post. Jacke, it seems, takes issue with my treatment of free speech, patriotism, and moving to China. Here’s an excerpt:
I don’t know, is it just me or does it seem like Brandon, in his attempt to accept freedom of speech and revel in the free exchange of opinion, is also attempting to demonize someone for exercizing his or her own freedom of speech by suggesting that he move to China!? Brandon wants to be able to say whatever he wants (again) but doesn’t seem to appreciate others saying what they want in return. Brandon doesn’t want it to be suggested he is less than patriotic because he doesn’t approve of every single thing that goes on in America (as if that would ever happen) but when someone suggests he move, he, in turn, accuses the person of trying to create a totalitarian regime!? Oh, my!
Honestly, I’m really only posting this here so that someone with “Jacke-translating-ability” can help me out with what the hell she’s trying to argue.
As far as I can ascertain the argument goes like this:
Brandon’s a hypocrite because…
- On the one hand he wants free speech.
- On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.
- He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.
- He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about.
I think I was pretty clear about my thoughts regarding my reasoning about the moving out of the country thing. It seems that most people here got it, but I could be wrong.
I defend, under the first amendment, your right to tell me to move to China (or take a jump of the empire state building, or whatever else). However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the second I take you to task about your comments that I only want first amendment protection for me. It just means I think you’re fucking wrong, and that you’re an ungrateful, ignorant prick.
I defend anyone’s (including my own) right to be an ungrateful, ignorant asshole, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like you. And, it certainly doesn’t mean that I can’t call you out, especially when I think that you’re doing a gigantic disservice to our women and men in uniform.
I wonder what it is about some conservatives that makes them think they’ve got a corner on patriotism. It’s like pointing out their hypocrisy is going for the jugular, but when the tables are turned and it’s a liberal who you’re telling that they’re not quite what the US has in mind when it thinks of the term “citizen”, well, that’s just par for the course.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism, Liberalism
Permalink
03.06.06
Posted in politics, philosophy at 12:52 pm by Brandon
It’s been recently suggested that I should move to China. I suppose that’s because I’m critical of the US from time to time. I do find it a little ironic that the reasons that are suggested for my move to a communist nation are that I don’t much like the fact that the US government has, of late, made a number of choices that I find to be foolish. Those choices, and my feelings about those choices, aside, I do feel that the US is a pretty darn great place to live.
I love the idea of freedom. In this country, I’m free to believe whatever I want to believe. If I decide that I should worship a bouncing superball, nobody is going to have a problem with that. In fact, if I market the whole superball worshipping religion nicely, it’s likely that I can find myself a whole host of followers who’ll worship superballs with me. I am free to worship, and to believe whatever I so choose to believe.
I love the idea of a national defense. Now, I’m not trying to pick a fight with any pacifists. In fact, in the past year or two I’ve taken some significant steps toward pacifism myself, but I really like the idea that this country can, when it deems it necessary, choose to exert military force. Yes, I’d argue that we exert military force WAY too much, spend WAY too much on that defense, and there aren’t enough checks and balances on that force; however, I love the fact that there are women and men who love this country enough to pick up and defend the likes of my freedom.
I love the idea of the free media. Any of you with a weak heart might not want to read the next sentence. I love Bill O’Reilly. I hate his show, I hate his ideas, I hate the fact that he calls what he does “journalism”, and I hate his big mouth, but I love the fact that he can say whatever the hell it is he wants to say. He’s allowed his opinion, and I love that.
I love the idea of the free press. I think it’s fan-friggin-tastic that the press can, (mostly) free from governmental pressure report on things that it sees fit. Women and men, boys and girls have given their lives in order that the press could, free from outside pressures report the facts. They don’t do it perfectly, sometimes they spin those facts conservatively, sometimes liberally, but they’re trying. For that I’m grateful.
I love that I am free to tell you what I think. Not only am I free to worship superballs, hate Bill O’Reilly, love the free press, and oppose the war; but I’m also free to tell you about it. I’m free to tell you about it just like Brannon Howse is free to tell you about it, just like Ingrid Schleuter is free to tell you about it, just like Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren, and Kirk Cameron, and the Real Live Preacher, and Greg Horton, and and even good ole’ Jerry Falwell. They’re all free to tell you whatever they like.
You can bet your bottom dollar every last one of these folks (and there’s a pile more that I could’ve listed) are free to tell you whatever they like about the way the world works. I agree with some of them, and with others I disagree.
So, while I’m revelling in the free exchange of opinion, let me offer you one for free. Suggesting that because I don’t believe in your ideals, I should pick up and leave, well, that seems, to me at least, to be a little hypocritical. It feels a little like you’re suggesting that freedom isn’t really all that it’s cracked up to be. It feels a little like you’re trying to create the totalitarian regime the likes of which you profess to despise.
And, yes, as Benjamin suggests, it feels a little like you’re trying to take a big shit on the constitution. (Which, if it weren’t for the whole ‘destruction of public property’, and indecent exposure thing, I’d defend your right to do under the freedom of speech.) And, probably even worse, you’re choosing to shit on the lives that our daughters and sons and mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers laid down for the very rights you have to say what you want to say.
I don’t particularly care if you agree with every word I say here, or if you agree with none of them. I’d simply suggest that the next time someone suggests I move to China, you may just be suggesting that we make everything you hate about China happen right here in the United States.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism
Permalink
01.03.06
Posted in faith, philosophy at 9:46 am by Brandon
Probably, you don’t recognize the dude on the right. But, if you do, I’m pretty proud of you. I’ll give you a few hints:
- Former prime minister of the Netherlands.
- Founded the Free University.
- Delivered, in 1898, the Stone Lectures at Princeton Theological Seminary.
- Edited various publications.
The guy’s name is Abraham Kuyper. I’m not really sure why I posted his picture other than that I wanted to try out this new photograph functionality that I’ve got through wordpress. Snazzy, eh?
Anyhow, to recap, I’ve been writing a tad about reformed Christianity–as I see it, and as it appeals to me–and have covered what appeals to me about total depravity, and the value of community. (Not that total depravity is appealing to me…more that I like the theology surrounding it.) While I’m on the total depravity note, I only think it’s fair to respond to a comment. One commenter felt that total depravity was the bane of reformed theology. That commenter called it ‘lock, stock, and barrel total depravity,’ I think. Well, I do believe in lock, stock, and barrel total depravity. Although, as I’m sure I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean that all of creation has been TOTALLY warped by sin and is not worth being a part of. It means, rather, that the scope sin’s warping of creation was total–though it’s depth of tainting was not.
Anyway, I talked a bit about total depravity and truth, and I blabbered on about community for some time. The next logical step it seems would be to talk a bit about the characteristics of the community itself. Of particular importance, I think, is the way that communities handle the minority voices in them in accordance with the understanding that those minority voices, as bearers of truth, must be heard.
I must, again, offer a bit of disclaimer at this point. I haven’t read many folks in the reformed Christian tradition that really espoused this particular view of the characteristics of community. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any people who do, I’m just saying that if you go looking for an official doctrine of minority voices in community, you’re not likely to find one. These are just some ideas that seem pretty logical to me, so I thought I’d share. Anyway, on to the point.
My contention is that minority voices in community should be treated somewhat differently than majority voices. I think that there are a different set of rules that govern interaction. Probably the first question I should answer is, “Why?” Why, within a community, should minority voices have to abide by a different set of rules is an important question, I think. The answer lies in the way that majority voices tend to group together. If one thinks about the way majority voices tend to behave in groups, it becomes more obvious what the problem is.
When a majority believes something that is questioned by the minority, it’s pretty easy for the majority to poo-poo what the minority is saying. The power of many voices makes it relatively easy to come up with counterpoints. Some of those counterpoints will even be valid counterpoints. Majority voices, however, have the luxury of a lot of support. If you’re a member of the majority, you don’t need to be able to defend your ideas as well as a minority member–because, if you don’t have “the right” answer to question someone else will.
So, what are these rules that should govern minority interactiona and how are they different from those that govern majority interaction in communities. Well, I think that, first of all, there should be a bit more latitude for the minority voice in a community that doesn’t have every angle worked out just yet. I think they shouldn’t have to be as precise when it comes to having each and every view all worked out. Enforcing the same standard of perfection on minority voices discourages people from sharing valid opinions, and eventually risks losing those voices altogether.
So, am I saying that a minority viewholder in a community can say whatever the hell she wants? Of course not. That person still must be have according to a certain ethic. An ethic that I and others have worked to explicate a tad. And, there are still questions left unanswered. I don’t know for sure how this all would apply to this community, in particular. Most of us are minority viewholders–so does that make the majority here minority viewholders? Perhaps that’s why we (read: I) react so strongly when our sub-majority is treated like we’re used to being treated by the regular largely conservative Christian majority.
I do know this: every voice is necessary and valid. Every voice deserves to be heard. And, I think that a Christian community has a responsibility to itself to be marked by a culture of listening, a culture that accepts minority viewpoints and listens to different perspectives. Because, in those perspectives, there is truth.
Permalink
12.19.05
Posted in faith, philosophy at 10:27 am by brandon
Lately, some questions have been raised about my committment to the concept of “truth”. It’s been assumed that since I’m progressive, and since I swear from time to time–I guess the logic goes that I don’t believe in truth. Well, I thought it only fair that I should be able to respond to these allegations, and, because I was planning on doing a bit of writing on reformed Christianity anyway, I thought I’d start by talking about one of the first tenents of this breed of Christianity: Total depravity.
I’d like to issue a disclaimer, however. I’m no theologian, nor am I a philosopher. I’m merely doing what people do on blogs. Waxing about the things that interest me. You probably shouldn’t read this post or other posts in my upcoming series about reformed Christianity as any sort of definitive statement about the belief system; I’m just telling y’all about what I beleive about total depravity and the concept of truth.
What does total depravity have to do with truth, you ask? Good question. I hope to get there by the end of this post. Sit tight.
First, though, what ISN’T total depravity. Total depravity doesn’t mean that everything in all of creation is totally and utterly overcome by sin. That’s probably the most common misconception about total depravity, that it’s saying that everything, everybody is dross, meaningless, worthless. That’s not really the idea at all.
Rather, total depravity argues that there’s nothing in all of creation, in all of humanity that hasn’t been touched by sin. This is a pretty straightforward concept for Christians. Pretty much everybody believes that we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it’s not hard to make that argument.
So, what’s this all have to do with truth? Well, if everybody has been touched by sin, and I think that that’s a pretty fair estimation of the way things are, then the idea of anybody really knowing the truth–completely, that is–is a little arrogant. I think it’s arrogant because by claiming that you ‘have’ the truth, you’ve got to also believe that you’re above sin.
Now, the obvious counterargument to this is that you’ve gotten your truth straight from scripture. The problem with this counterargument is not that scripture is untrue. The problem is that people, sinful people, have to interpret scripture. Thus, we end up with a bunch of people running around claiming that from the same place they’ve found opposite truths.
My understanding of reformed Christianity leads me to a place where I believe that there IS absolute truth. (This, of course, is contrary to popular–or at least loud–opinion.) But, while I do believe in absolute truth, I don’t believe that humans have the capability to know that truth completely, because they’re fallen, sinful little creatures.
Of course, just because I don’t believe that we can ever completely know the truth, doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in truth, or that I don’t think we can know some truth, or even that I don’t think we should try to pursue truth. In fact, I do think we need to pursue truth, even if grasping that truth in its entirity is unaccomplishable.
So, the moral of the story is that anybody who infers that I don’t believe in absolute truth is blowing smoke out of their ass, and they don’t have a fucking idea what they’re talking about.
Part two of this series will examine the modes and settings by which and in which we pursue truth.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Total Depravity, Truth.
Permalink
09.15.05
Posted in philosophy, life at 7:04 pm by
I suppose I’ve neglected my blog for, oh, say, 48 hours now (which, for me, is some kind of record,) it’s time for an update. I’m afraid that the things on my mind of late haven’t been particularly related to my general content. My thoughts have been more distinctly ‘grad-school-ish’. That is, I’ve been pondering the wonders of Analyses of Variance, Multiple Regressive techniques, and the philosophy of science.
I would, eventually, like to make some sort of response to a comment Kristen from McCarty Musings made about the role of emotion in the discourse process. I’m fascinated by the role of emotion in communication. (And, if you’re interested, you may want to check out some of the work Robin Nabi has done on the subject.) Yet, this is a topic for another day. (Mostly, I just put the idea here because I hope to use this paragraph as a reminder that I want to write a bit about this.)
Today, though, I want to talk (and hear your thoughts on) the concept of the truth equation. Now, you won’t find the term ‘truth equation’ in any philosophy of science textbook (or probably any other textbook for that matter.) I stumbled across one such equation while I was doing a reading for my ‘Contemporary Research on the Family’ class that I’m taking. Essentially, the authors argued that truth could be boiled down to this:
Truth = Fact + Perspective
This, of course, is the most popular definition of a post-modern definition of truth. Truth should only be approached, so the equation goes, as a manifestation of both fact and perspective.
I have some problems with this definition. It might be okay, but I think it depends on the relative weight of fact vs. perspective. For example, let’s apply some values to those variables:
Fact = 42 (the answer to the question of life the universe and everything…of course)
Perspective = 2
Well, then, Truth = 44. Now 42 (the value of fact) and 44 (the value of truth) are relatively similar in comparison to the value of Perspective. Probably, using truth as an approximation for fact is not going to be a big problem. On the other hand, if the value for perspective is much higher, say, 44 itself. I have a problem with calling ‘truth’ true. In fact, truth, in this case, is as much perspective as it is fact.
By utilizing this equation, it’s also possible to see why some post-modern (or non-moderns, but I’ll use the post-modern term as it is more colloquially recognized) folk have such a frustration with modern religious types. You see, in their little equation, they’ve got direct word from on high about fact. That is, the value they are claiming for perspective is zero.
This, of course, pisses people off because if you don’t agree with these modern types–you’re the one whose perspective is getting between fact and truth. Post-moderns find this to be fantastically arrogant.
If it were up to me, I think the equation should go something a bit more like this:
Percieved Truth = Fact + Perspective
There are a few minor caveats/hypotheses to/about this phenomena.
- I believe that the set of people whose Perspective = 0 in this equation is null. That is, everyone has a perspective.
- Most folks perspective scores are similar. That’s not to say that they’re the same, it’s just that their perspectives are approxomately equally errant from fact–albiet some are errant in entirely opposite directions.
- As the number of equal participants in a community increases, the truth equation of the community (that is, the average of all members’ Perceived Truth scores approaches fact).
- In communities where there is not equal participation (i.e. the relative weight of individual participant’s truth scores are not equally represented in the cumulative Percieved Truth score of the group) will find that their Percieved Truth scores will, rather than regressing toward the mean, toward actual fact, gravitate toward the more extreme individual’s scores.
- This gravitation toward extreme scores happens in part because of the alienation and osteracism of some members (whose perspective the community would’ve otherwise needed in order to approach facts.)
If I’m right about this, it’s the very act of strict adherence to ABSOLUTE truth that may drive communities farther from actual fact.
Of course, little if any of this is empirically verifiable.
So, let’s hear it. What are your truth equations?
Permalink
06.29.05
Posted in faith, philosophy at 8:33 am by
Upon further review, I’ve been able to isolate what it was about that comment I cited yesterday that pisses me off so much. First of all, in the comment section in question, the comment I picked on was in no way an isolated event. Comments displaying the same logical fallacy were all over the place. Here’s the example from yesterday:
Ingrid..
It appears your article is jangling all the right nerves.
Truth always offends.
I love it.
Never apologize for Truth.
So, let’s break down the crux of that argument. First it’s based on the somewhat untenable position that the truth ‘always’ offends. And, while I concede the well made point to Zalm, the truth can offend, I highly doubt that it is a characteristic of truth that it must ALWAYS offend. However, for the sake of argument, let’s–for the time being–concede the point.
Here’s the second implied understanding: Satan is the one offended by the truth (i.e. he shoots his evil darts or whatever the hell at truth tellers.) Again, while I’ve got my questions about the nature of ‘Satan’ and evil altogether, I’ll concede this point for the sake of argument.
Therefore, anytime anyone is offended and speaks out against your message–you must be telling the truth.
Here’s the short version:
1. Truth always offends.
Therefore:
2. Anything offensive must be truth.
Gold stars to the first commenter to name that fallacy.
Permalink
05.20.05
Posted in faith, politics, philosophy at 11:47 am by
Mr. Brannon Howse, founder of Worldview Weekend, makes a great point. Tolerance is a bit of a myth. The article I’ve linked to is an expose about the myth of tolerance, from Mr. Howse’s perspective, of course.
Mr. Howse lays it out like this, and his minions of right-wing nut jobs follow mindlessly: Basically, the tolerant are hypocritcal cites Howse, and others like him, because they fail to be tolerant of people like Howse. And, as much as it stings to admit it, Mr. Howse is right. The tolerant praise their tolerance–just as long as they themselves are met with tolerance. That is, the tolerant are intolerant of intolerance. This, of course, puts them into a catch-22.
Stanley Fish, in a lecture he gave once upon a time at Michigan State University, cited just this quagmire in response to multi-culturalism. He argued, persuasively, that a person couldn’t unilaterally value multi-culturalism. The reason, he said, was that some cultures have mutually exclusive values. For example, in order to truly value multi-culturalism, it’s necessary to value and support Nazi culture (or at least it would’ve been when the German culture largely espoused this set of mores.) Unfortunately, a critical element of this culture was the murder and suppression of all but the ‘Arayan race.’ In order to truly value multi-culturalism, one must value Nazi culture (or any plethora of modern day examples), which means that you can’t truly value multi-culturalism because the Nazi culture is fundamentally opposed to other cultures. The same problem exists with other cultures such as the Tutsi and the Hutu in Rwanda.
The same logic should be applied to tolerance. Stanley Fish argues that because true multi-culturalism is unattainable, the answer lies in choosing the valuable parts of culture and learning about those. I think that if Mr. Howse would apply this logic to his bone about tolerance, he’d be coming to different conclusions about how persecuted he was. I fear, though, the farthest thing from the mind of a Worldview Weekender is trying to critically examine the value of gay culture, or the wisdom a Buddhist monk brings to the table, or the reasons terrorists may have done the things they did.
Mr. Howse is out to make little Satans out of anyone who doesn’t agree with him. By demonizing anyone who moderately disagrees with him, Mr. Howse belies his true values. He, and others like him, values INtolerance. It’s almost as if he’s made a god out of intolerance. According to their religious system, being INtolerant of the things they don’t understand, fundagelicals (thanks Ol’ Cranky) puts them just a little bit closer to the ’salvation’ they so desire to earn.
Unfortunately for the fundagelicals, there’s a pretty easy way to avoid hypocrisy. It’s simple: I’m not a tolerant person. I don’t claim to be universally tolerant, because it’s not possible (or at least VERY difficult.) I’m not tolerant of intolerance, I’m not tolerant of hate, and furthermore–I’m trying really hard not to be tolerant of sin.
Finally, I have a thought for Mr. Howse and his fundagelical following: Because it’s INtolerance that you’re shooting for, I’ve got some constructive criticism…some areas of tolerance that you’ll probably want to stamp out.
1. You’re quite tolerant of poverty.
2. You’re tolerant of racism.
3. You’re tolerant of sexism.
4. You’re tolerant of hate.
5. You’re tolerant of war-mongering.
But, probably worst of all…
6. You’re tolerant of ignorance.
Permalink
05.11.05
Posted in faith, philosophy at 6:38 pm by
I’ll file this one under ‘What the Fuck?’
Berrien Springs - A teacher at a private Christian school in Berrien Springs has been placed on administrative leave for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
Christine John is a 1st-year teacher at the Village
Seventh-day Adventist Elementary School. She says school officials
asked her why she was 4 months along in her pregnancy when she
had been married just 2 months.
John says school officials told her that premarital sex is an
act strictly forbidden by the school system and the religion. She
was told her services were no longer needed and that she will be on
paid leave until her contract expires.
So, let me get this straight. A girl has sex 2 months prior to her wedding. I’d bet my ass that she was taking her fiance for a quick test drive. Regardless of where you stand on the permissability of pre-marital sex, it happens. If it didn’t happen to you, if you made it, you more than likely did quite a bit of screwing around. So, this couple didn’t ‘make it.’ First off, I think they should be congratulated for making it as long as they did.
Second, and more concerning, when in the name of all that is good and right, did it suddenly become okay to fire someone that you believe committed a sin? Paints you into a pretty tiny little corner, doesn’t it? Fortunately, all those in charge are conspicuously free of all sin. That’s right kids. They’re sinless. It’s a good thing, too. It’d be awful for them to have to let a principal go because he (and I’m guessing they’re ‘he’s’ at this school rather than he or she’s) accidentally was prideful.
Wow. Just wow.
Permalink
05.08.05
Posted in faith, politics, philosophy at 10:11 pm by
After a sermon this morning–and a great sermon at that–about diversity and racial reconciliation in the kingdom of God, I’m spurred on to add a few final thoughts about justice–restorative and retributive. Also, hence forth and forevermore I’ll just be referring to these types of justice in the sense that they are two different things: restoration and retribution.
If you’re interested in my distinction between retribution and restoration as manifestations of justice, read the last two posts. The director for race-relations of the Christian Reformed Church in North America just so happens to go to our Church and dammit all if he didn’t preach one hummdinger of a sermon this morning.
I tell you what, it was enough to get this South Dakota, small town, midwestern, whiteboy saying, “Amen, that’s right”, and “C’mon brother, preach it.” from the pew. In and of itself, that’s an act of God. Pastor Esteban preached about the kingdom moral value of diversity (oh, if that counted as a moral value in the past election…bygones.)
Pastor Esteban challenged our congregation that diversity wasn’t just an end goal for SOME congregations charged with being diverse…it was a value that EVERY congregation needed to be serious about. That’s a pretty heavy charge. I think he’s dead right.
But, Pastor Esteban got me thinking, too. I wonder if the common viewpoint of justice as retribution has had some hurtful effects on race reconciliation. It all seems to make sense in terms of looking at many folks (particularly white folks) angst about affirmative action. Not all, but many white folk, view affirmative action (AA) as a form of punishment against them for their being white. When these angst ridden folk are told that we’re just trying to level the playing field that’s been tilted due to various sorts of racism, they’re angry because they feel that they’re being punished for something they haven’t done.
It seems like some white folk–and I run in circles with several of them–are confusing retribution with restoration. Nobody wants white people to have to go through the same things they’ve put other ethnicities through. That’s probably an overgeneralization, but most of the people of color I’ve ever interacted with are not interested in doing to caucasions what we’ve historically, systematically, and individually done to them. If some of my readers of color could give insight here…I’d be thrilled to hear your voices on this matter…but for the most part I think it’s pretty safe to say that no one’s looking for payback.
People, regardless of their ethnicity, ARE looking for an equal playing field. Restoration is the justice of the day. However, I speculate that the confusion of retribution and restoration has caused a deep rift amongst folk trying to solve the racism problem. Now, I don’t even dream to propose that AA is the perfect solution to all sorts of racism in this country; however, it’d be a great first step.
As I think about it, the differentiation between retribution and restoration have lots of pertinent examples that float around in politics and culture. Zalm alluded to an interesting question, though. Is retribution necessary?
I tend to think not. It seems to me that the battle against evil has been made complete by the death of Christ. In Christ’s death and resurrection, the debt was paid. Thus, retribution as a concept has, to me, gone out of style. We’ve no need for it any longer, it doesn’t seem to have much utility for one who believes the battle against evil has been won. (A concept that I would contrast against substitutionary atonement…thus, Christ’s death and resurrection was a triumph against evil broadly construed…although, I’m not a theologian, and I’m only speculating, here.)
However, we certainly live in a screwed up world. There’s much work to be done. Bridges to be built, people to be helped, and hungry to be fed. That is, to me, the work of restoration. The stamping out of individual evils…of restoring things in bite-sized chunks to the way they ought to be.
I don’t have all the answers, and I really am just shooting from the hip here. I just can’t imagine that God’s agenda for Brandon is to have him stroll around and chastise: gay folk, liberals, alcoholics, the poor, or any other marginalized group. Rather, I feel like God’s agenda for me is to help people in marginalized groups experience those things God wants for them–like community, unconditional love, patience, peace, fulfillment, etc.
Thoughts?
Permalink
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
« Previous entries ·
