![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Justice
Ran into a fella online today who, like me, does social justice work. His is more akin to social work, whereas mine is about knowledge brokerage through the research process.
In other words, I'm trying to take a process that has too often exploited or mis-represented the interests and experience of marginalized or excluded peoples. Including queers, mental health consumers, addicts/alcoholics--all of which are communities in which I either claim membership, in varying degrees. So my justice work as of late has been about adapting the research process to bettter represent my peoples' interests. Or endeavour to, anyways.
But what is justice? I think there are deep tensions in the idea(s) of justice, many of which are playing themselves out on the world stage currently. And I think that some notions of justice will inevitably win over others--whether I like it or not.
Though, in all honestly, I like it. A lot. After much soul searching.
Shortly after 11-09-01, it was apparent to me that religious fundamentalism and Western liberal democracy were incompatible. For all our talk about multiculturalism and pluralism, the religious who see their systems as the only valid schema are making this a battle, rather than a process. Not the Iraq battle--that's some stoopid white guys's shit, not anyone else's--but in a broader, trans-cultural sense.
And I'm not singling out Islamic fundamentalism; Xtian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or any other "we're right and the rest of you better smarten up and join or we'll crush you" shite--it's all hegemonic. And facile. And inaccurate. No system of beliefs that makes claims about the mechanics of everyday life will translate unproblematically to any and all contexts. Not eating cheeseburgers makes sense if you live in a desert and don't have a fridge. So does--maybe--circumcision, in the absence of running water and proper sewage. And really, to place the onus on women to regulate male desire by covering their bodies entirely--or cutting their hair--wassup with that?
For a while, many of us believed that our commitments to just, secular, pluralist, heterogeneous societies allowed for a full range of beliefs and cultural practices. Every day we add more excepts to the list: except for female genital mutiliation, except for aborting female fetuses, except for child marriage, except for....
...but fundementalists see "except" as unacceptable. They want theocracies. And for this queer man, that's a complete threat to my existence.
Since there's no reasoning to be had with this freak-a-zoids, I think it best to work towards laying down the (rule of) law. That our societies are tolerant of difference and celebrate diversity, as long as no members of our society are excluded from opportunities, based on a theocratic notion of justice.
And the race is on....
In other words, I'm trying to take a process that has too often exploited or mis-represented the interests and experience of marginalized or excluded peoples. Including queers, mental health consumers, addicts/alcoholics--all of which are communities in which I either claim membership, in varying degrees. So my justice work as of late has been about adapting the research process to bettter represent my peoples' interests. Or endeavour to, anyways.
But what is justice? I think there are deep tensions in the idea(s) of justice, many of which are playing themselves out on the world stage currently. And I think that some notions of justice will inevitably win over others--whether I like it or not.
Though, in all honestly, I like it. A lot. After much soul searching.
Shortly after 11-09-01, it was apparent to me that religious fundamentalism and Western liberal democracy were incompatible. For all our talk about multiculturalism and pluralism, the religious who see their systems as the only valid schema are making this a battle, rather than a process. Not the Iraq battle--that's some stoopid white guys's shit, not anyone else's--but in a broader, trans-cultural sense.
And I'm not singling out Islamic fundamentalism; Xtian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu or any other "we're right and the rest of you better smarten up and join or we'll crush you" shite--it's all hegemonic. And facile. And inaccurate. No system of beliefs that makes claims about the mechanics of everyday life will translate unproblematically to any and all contexts. Not eating cheeseburgers makes sense if you live in a desert and don't have a fridge. So does--maybe--circumcision, in the absence of running water and proper sewage. And really, to place the onus on women to regulate male desire by covering their bodies entirely--or cutting their hair--wassup with that?
For a while, many of us believed that our commitments to just, secular, pluralist, heterogeneous societies allowed for a full range of beliefs and cultural practices. Every day we add more excepts to the list: except for female genital mutiliation, except for aborting female fetuses, except for child marriage, except for....
...but fundementalists see "except" as unacceptable. They want theocracies. And for this queer man, that's a complete threat to my existence.
Since there's no reasoning to be had with this freak-a-zoids, I think it best to work towards laying down the (rule of) law. That our societies are tolerant of difference and celebrate diversity, as long as no members of our society are excluded from opportunities, based on a theocratic notion of justice.
And the race is on....