Although I had no specific intention of commenting on the Trayvon Martin case, it just so happened that I was formulating my plan for a series on law around the same time that the story broke. Thus, it was hard for me not to think about the situation in terms of my theoretical analysis of law, and conversely, to outline my analysis of law without thinking about the implications of that case. In particular, some of the discourses surrounding the event of Trayvon’s murder highlight the nature of our sacred ideal of “justice.”
To start with this conception with justice. In a published conversation between Noam Chomsky and Michele Foucault, Foucault challenges our unquestioned embrace of “justice.” This is part of his larger critique of positively defined resistance – that is, in terms of particular ideas or ideals to work toward - which he eschews in favor of an oppositionally defined resistance, based on a full understanding and destruction of all that one is against. The problem, as Foucault sees it, is that our thought is so fundamentally shaped by the social structures in which we live that any ideas about what is possible and all the ideals that we uphold are pervaded by the very structures that we are trying to overthrow. Positively defined resistance always leads, ultimately, to the reproduction of that system.
Enter justice. It sounds nice. Who could have a problem with justice? Most movements for change are founded upon some idea of justice, after all. Yet, Foucault insists that even justice is a bourgeois concept (much in the same way that I have also critiqued concepts of democracy and liberty). The modern concept of justice is, of course, a product of the modern world. It depends on concepts of rights and individual culpability, and is entwined with modern institutions, such as law.
Take the case of Trayvon Martin. Now, it goes without saying that the events leading up to and following his murder demonstrate the fundamental inequalities pervading the American social system – in particular, the vulnerability of young, African-American males to forces of systemic violence. It also serves as a good contrast to the case of Troy Davis, in which the murder of a white police officer yielded consequences on the other extreme. Regarding Trayvon, though, it is important to remember that the very fact of racism inherent to the system makes specific acts of violence more desirable or easy to perpetrate - even if the driving intention in any particular case is not race-based per se -as one will not expect the same sort of consequences to follow from one’s actions. In other words, the fact that law enforcement (and other) officials are able to use undue force (assuming, of course, that any force is ever “due”) on African-American males on a regular basis without suffering any consequences makes it all the more likely that one will resort to force in an encounter with an African-American male in the future. And that is regardless of one’s race (to that end, George Zimmerman’s racial/ethnic background is completely irrelevant). The system makes it easy, so it will happen. I would never argue that this is not a problem. The criminal justice system, like all American institutions, is severely inequitable.
Now, then, would "equality" entail that George Zimmerman be punished just as severely as Troy Davis... or at the very least be prosecuted? Certainly this seems just, and such a scenario is exactly what some groups have called for. The New Black Panthers put a bounty on George Zimmerman, and cheers went up when he was finally arrested.
Prosecuting George Zimmerman may very well satisfy our sense of justice. But that is a problem, in fact another victory for the system. Institutions of law, the legitimacy of violence and coercion – these things are part of the fabric of our social system. They allow it to function. These things must be dismantled if we are to truly transform our society. Sure, we could attempt to more fairly mete out arrests and punishments, but that would not change the fact that the system in which criminal justice is embedded still functions to maintain classes of people who do not control their own destinies.
By pinning our hopes and sense of “victory” on legal outcomes (particularly those involving the criminal justice system), we are sanctioning the system that oppresses us. We are saying that, yes, we approve of the social order, and sure, certain forms of violence (wielded by the dominant classes to the detriment of vulnerable populations) are a-okay!
No comments:
Post a Comment