Compilation of Social Justice Journals

EDAD 5200 Social Justice

Janet Nava Cardenas

Learning Journal #1:

            This week what stood out in the readings to me was the distinction between distributive and retributive principles of justices. I found the emphasized differentiation of the two interesting because prior to these readings they coexisted in my frame of learning. My Chican@ Studies undergraduate program went into depth into both but always together. Reading about them as separate concepts allows me to see how both can inform each other when aiming to institutional change. This is important because it informs institutionalized social justice.

 As I kept reading I also realized that one of the questions that I have not explored is how to evaluate the success of institutionalized change (p.2). The only form of evaluation that I have done has been through academic research which many times narrates issues but does not call for a change in narration in existing systems. I am curious to what evaluating success of institutionalized change looks like in a non-academic process. Through my years of community work, door to door knocking, evaluating surveys it seems inaccurate to evaluate success this way because it does not always reach a level or agenda that allows for a voice in natural law. Ultimately, while I find truth in Nietzsche’s understanding that justice is not rooted in natural law but instead “self- exploration, self-mastery, and self-overcoming” (28) I do however believe that because societal influence allows for impact in natural law it is important to pursue such influence. I guess my question is, how often do people that are not validated in scholarship or title have the opportunity to evaluate their efforts at an institutional level.

            One of the things that I found missing from the readings is the understanding of the influence of feminist in social justice and the feminist ethics of care through the perspective and history of women of color both in the US and in a global perspective. I was able to look up the women from the two analysis offered in the reading and both are white.  I look forward to see if this perspective changes as we keep reading. Aside from feminist ethics of care another thing that I would have liked to see presented differently is the contrast of social justice from an academic understanding like the ones that we are reading today vs. a non-academic perspective. Although both the Capeheart and Milovanovic and the McCormick readings offered a perspective that influence and inform today’s social justice understandings both are limited in a perspective of privileged identity groups.

The quote that has stayed with me the most from this week’s reading is, “On the other hand, we also see how people, subject to discriminatory forms of institutionalized conceptions of justice, may go to excesses for survival purposes…”(4) because it speaks to how I have been informed of my community’s existence in the US context. I have always associated social justice to a fight and have learned that, that is what it will be even when given an opportunity to move into space of privilege. For me this type of “harm” (4) is so interconnected with my learning of being or not being worthy of being served under the readings  presented understanding of social justice.

Learning Journal #2:

It is too often that harm has been so powerful as to only seek the question of

redistribution and not solidarity. I see people fighting for recognition and receiving little to no

recognition. I see an inequality in distribution and it usually is to same group of people. My

ability to look beyond this harm has limited my ability to always seek for solidarity from those

outside my immediate communities.

What I found really interesting from this reading was that solidarity was proposed to be a

“moral choice” (30).I sees how it may be less productive but not how it is a question of morality.

Maybe it is a moral question that the privilege have to answer when separating themselves from

who they other. However, for those who have been harmed under the same power dynamic it is a

model that marginalized have strategically used to survive and fight back. I believe solidarity is

productive because it gives everyone impacted directly and indirectly a context on which they

exist on a grander scale of a social issue. This allows clarity in the creating a unified respond

towards the need of the greater good. Still, I struggle with understanding the concept of solidarity

in this text being a moral choice.

Although, I understand how contracts bind this unification or exchange on paper, I

believe that what is on paper limits the inclusion of status and specifically a status that is not

validated on paper in natural law for example, non-citizens. In such case, my view of solidarity is

based on understanding of social groups and human relationships as Miller models (41). A

solidarity that values citizenship in relation to one’s collective responsibility.

After this week’s readings I stay intrigued by restorative justice (55). As scholar like

Angela Davis and Michelle Alexander advocate for a restoring of judgment I question if things

cannot be restored but only fixed if started from a blank slate. Can we ever lose our focus of the

male Black or Latino criminal in the US without starting over? Or has history printed our

perception and therefore reaction to sustain such a system that we cannot restore?

Learning Journal #3:

I appreciated learning about the difference between restorative and transformative justice

this week. “Restoration to the previous condition is far from adequate for justice.” (62), meaning

that to say restoration is enough is to imply that the rights of an individual are equal to their

needs. This distinction between needs and rights in the chapter are important in how we escape

responsibility to the problem. It is always easier to say that there are many communities with

needs rather than there are many communities that are being denied their rights. One makes

someone responsible and the other assumes a personal fault. What I liked about the

transformative model is that it pursues change at structural levels and discursive levels (67).

I watched the documentary Wastelands with a few other people from the course and as

we were watching it we were discussing if the overall impact of an artist coming into the

community for a chunk of their lives and then leaving was good or bad. I compared this to

research were scholars go into communities and take stories of other communities but the

community structure stays the same. I think what I was looking for when having this

conversation was that there was an intention to have a transformative impact for the communities

that became a part of the art project. I wanted to see that there was something that was more than

a one-time paycheck that came out of the project. I was glad to see that at the end of the

documentary they shared a lot of how that experience with the artist built something that seems

to be ongoing.

From the chapter on multiculturalism and globalism the sentence that stood out to me was

“Watson (2002) described global capitalism as the immiseration of the working class on a global

scale through profit seeking sped up by new technologies…” (82). This false assumption that in

order to create a just society we need to create more than what exists rather than change the

structures by which we distribute what is already there has been accepted. I wonder how long

will it be until one is able to see that this belief that globalism leads to progress is still not a true

statement for all people. The same folks at the top are the ones that receive the benefits from the

system. The question that I stay with this week is how globalism will continue to affect those at

the bottom as technology continues to grow and how the role of the US will continue to grow in

the affairs of other countries? Globalism is something that I would like to have a deeper

understanding about when thinking about issues of justice.

Learning Journal #4:

            The thing that stuck with me about the 5 faces of oppression was the comment the writer

made on many people in the US choosing not to use the word oppression. While the writer’s first

thoughts were to uncover the historical meaning of the word my thoughts were very different.

When thinking about the denial of being an individual who in relation to others are oppressive, I

have mostly found that avoiding a word like oppression is simply attached to a guilt. On this note

I believe many people avoid the term to avoid the responsibility that comes with being an agent

of power and oppression whether conscious or not. On the other hand this hand has really been a

fascinating journey in understanding the impact that a historical context has on my

interpretations. I usually look at the history of the oppressed in relation to the oppression but not

of the agent of power or even groups that we perceive marginalized in the US as privileged in

countries outside of the US. It reminds me how easy it is to be ethnocentric when you learn only

what you know to be true and that is what informs you.

In addition to that reading, another that stood out to me in the Social Justice book was,

“Brosius (1991) warns of neutrality to such practices. Neutrality in the face of ongoing injustice

is complicity. However, much care and consideration must be given when interpreting…” (117).

This part of the reading just reminds me of how much we don’t understand about those that we

interact with on a daily basis but we have our predetermined assumptions going into our

interactions. I think about myself and the way that I would even act towards my parents when I

was younger. To me they were unaware and for lack of better words, underdeveloped. I would

visit their hometown and I only understood misfortune when in reality the misfortune was that

they were losing a great part of themselves in the US.

Learning Journal #5:

“Expendable” this word stuck out to me in Opotow’s chapter. Expendable means

something with little significance and little importance. Something to be left unwanted and

deemed unnecessary. I have seen this word many times connected to a people. Groups of

indigenous, dark-skinned, immigrant people. This is what we use build and sustain a system that

produces downward oppression. We allow people to be dehumanized and rejoice in success that

is dependent of their failure to rise. We justify that we do it by taking away the value of that

people and it is then that they become expendable.

A great example of this is the video that we watched in class about birds. The video was

not about the people but truly about the birds. The people in the video did not matter. How

disgusting that one can see another as expendable but spend a life time of work on valuing birds.

The thing that saddens me the most is that the moral exclusion of another many times becomes

an internalized worth of oneself. This lack of worth that plays out in forms of internalized racism

sometimes even PTSD from physical and nonphysical violence acted upon an individual that is

seen with no worth.

The Gospel of Freedom, introduction reminded me of the dissatisfaction that I sit with

today. It introduces a letter that carried the weight of a nation’s suffering and it is a weight that

can still be felt today with all of the killings and displacement of black and brown lives. It makes

me wonder how many lives we have to lose before we are able to truly dismantle the systems

that continue to cross and walk over the bridges made on the backs of people of color. I am

afraid to know the answer.

Learning Journal #6:

A colleague approached me last year and asked how do we approach a situation about

race without fitting into the rage that is associated with our perceived identity in spaces where

these people have already made up their mind about me? They followed by adding something

along the lines of, how do I get someone to understand that what I am saying about race is true

and important? I looked at them and I said, you look at them and you say “Ah, I see where you

are coming from.” I told them that they validate the others ignorance and then feeds them room

to say the ignorant things that they are going to say because they will say them anyway.

However, instead of fighting back you gracefully offer your thoughts as a proposition and not as

an answer. I hated telling my colleague this but as a student this is how I learned to get through

college. This is how I was seen as sensible women and not an angry brown women in the spaces

that I needed to navigate. This does not make me a trader to my people only strategic in getting

to my end goal. You see you change their mind not because they agree with you but because you

agree with them. You are a diplomat that speaks their language, and a language they found you

incapable of speaking.

In this week’s reading I was reminded of how we constantly think of MLK and Malcolm

X as non-violent and violent approaches. In this criterion Malcolm X is not viewed as a diplomat

but instead as a man with “black rage” (Cornel West). Instead of thinking of the two as one or

the other I explored the difference between what it meant for Malcolm X to have “black rage”

(West) and for MLK to have the traits of “double-consciousness” as expressed by Dubois. One a

man who spoke to his people to lift them and free them and another that spoke to the system to

lift them and free them. Can not both exist as a diplomat in the same regard?

On page 81, MLK says that the followers of Islam are a people who have lost faith in

America, this struck out to me because I can’t imagine living under the same condition and

having any faith in the US. I am afraid that when some people have faith in the US it is not

because they have gotten anything better from it but instead have gotten used to and given into

its ways.

Learning Journal #7:

I found the concept of “unintended consequences” (62) a very interesting concept.

It is difficult for me to think about structural inequality and say that these are “not intended by

any of the participating agents.”(63) because to me this means there is no source to hold

accountable to make change. Still, I am aware that this type of “counter-finality” (63) exists and

that every individual has responsibility. What I wonder is if I was a car in that traffic, as

explained in the chapter, which car created the trickle-down effect that led to me being stuck? Is

this not the most effective course of whom I approach to fix my problem and become unstuck?

How do I hold this car accountable to stop that trickle-down effect even when I hold the car next

to me just as responsible?

As I go towards Student Affairs work people keep asking me if I am looking into being

a college president or chancellor. When I say no I have had reactions that suggest that there is no

point in me doing a master’s degree if I am not planning to end up in a position of structural

change. I continue looking into the positions that I want to work in like Trio, EOP, and SSS

programs and I have a hard time defining not how these positions are structurally significant but

how I in this role can continue pushing against structural injustice without getting into the

politics that become more apparent as you go higher in education. It is not that I am not willing

to put up with politics for students of color but my joy lies in the ability to have constant

interaction with these students. Does the fact that I am in a position of educated privilege and

can move up to a position like president make me an agent of intended consequence because I

prefer to work from this position? Am I choosing to stay stuck?

When you think about your position as an educator in whatever field you are in, what do

you see as things that are in your control vs circumstances that are beyond your control and at a

structural level within your field? What impact can you have in your role as an educator without

getting stuck?

Learning Journal #8

“There is a vast difference between people who might have done bad things, or who passively allow them, and the doers of the deeds. “(77)

This quote in relation to the rest of the text in chapter three of Responsibility for Justice

stood out to me because it directs its attention to a perpetual agent of harm versus an exterior

agent that has existed passively in their context. I will have to admit that many times I have

gotten caught up and thinking about a group of people as responsible for the guilt that they carry

and it distracts me from the bigger offenders. It is not to say that those who play a role in acting

upon or ignorantly carrying and enjoying privileges at the cost of another person are not

responsible or should not be guilty. However, I agree that getting caught up on something like

the idea of white guilt as white people become aware of their privileges is not effective if I am

not thinking about the collective aspects of oppression which included the people that I have less

direct interaction with but are intentional in harming others. In such case I must approach all

agents of the problem and not those that are easiest to blame.

Through your work/ career what is the agent group that you most work on educating

others about or that you most work on dismantling?

“Responsibility under the Social Connection model is essentially shared. It can therefore be discharged only through collective action.” 105

Chapter four of Responsibility for Justice makes me feel stuck and unable to move

forward because the truth is that a “collective” effort is not something that is very promising. I

am aware that moving forward needs the change from all sides but also aware that not everyone

is willing to bring in their part to the collectivity of the efforts.

As I write this journal I am trying to understand how in my work I can best move forward

without isolating incidents and continuously “looking-backward” (108). What are suggestions

that you all may have in moving away from a reflection oriented journal to a collective action-

based approach?

“We justify what we do, not by belief in efficacy but by an acceptance in its necessity.”(48)

The Small Wins read was interesting to read because the thought of small wins to me is

hard to come embrace knowing that there are bigger picture issues that need bigger wins. As

outlined in the readings it is true however, that we need simplification or we get distracted in

getting any win at all.

If you work with any kind of learner (Kids, students, patients) what are ways that you

encourage small wins?

References:

Bellah, R. N. (2004). Education for justice and the common good. Conversations on Jesuit

HigherEducation, 28-37.

Capehart, L., & Milovanovic, D. (2007). Social justice: Theories, issues and movements. New

Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Deutsch, M. (2006). A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Social Justice

Research, 19(1), 7-41

Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues,

26(1), 1-20.

Rieder, J. (2013). Gospel of freedom: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter from Birmingham jail and

the struggle that changed a nation. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American

Psychologist, 39(1),40-49.

Young, I. M. (2000). Five faces of oppression. In M. Adams, W, J. Blumenfeld, R. Castafieda,

H. W.

Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zungiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 35-

49).New York; Routledge.

Young, I.M. (2013). Responsibility for justice. New York: Oxford University Press.