Professor H.,
I'm looking through our updated syllabus in hopes of figuring out where/how to cut Caruth (I think I might decide we shouldn't cut anything -- is this ok??). Reading back through her introduction, it is clear to me that we should have covered our little bits that we're including of Pleasure Principle before we come to Caruth, because she refers to it a lot. So I looked at the syllabus and I don't think we even have a spot in there for the Pleasure Principle terms!
We decided that the Pleasure Principle terms should be the Death Instinct and the Pleasure Principle, however I think adding the compulsion to repeat would be appropriate and helpful also. So with those three terms assigned, we have about 13 pages, copied into Word, from LaPlanche. This is really not very much to read. I was thinking maybe we could just put those couple of terms on the syllabus, or else hand it out as a packet the first day, and tell students that they should read it by week 3 in order to fully grasp Caruth. Alternatively we could just put it on MyCourses, although I think that it's likely that if we hand it out the first day, students will read it right after they shop the class and it will help them decide that our class is really interesting and that they should take it.
So on to Caruth. We have assigned in total 52 pages of Caruth. The pages are small, with not that much text on them. I really feel that we could assign all of it, although when I look at the week to which we have assigned it - 2 chapters of Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, assigned on the same day as one Primo Levi chapter, I feel less sure about that. So maybe we could cut chapter 5, "Traumatic Awakenings," because it works with Lacan and Dreams, two subjects that I think can (should?) be avoided in the context of our course. That cuts that page count down to 40.
And finally for this email, Levi. In my blog I suggested that we make everything after chapter 5 optional. That leaves us assigning around 109 pages (including the preface) of this book, if we consider that the students will have already read the chapter on Shame. So I think we should assign either chapters 1-5 excluding chapter 3 (Shame), or that, plus chapter 7 (Stereotypes) which deals with the questions of why concentration camp prisoners did not rebel or try to escape. I don't think this chapter is necessary, however, if you feel I have cut too much we can definitely add it. That would bump the page count up to 126.
I'm going to crosspost this email in my blog because it includes a lot of speculative thinking. I'm going to tackle cutting Savage tomorrow and this afternoon. La Capra still needs work (OBVIOUSLY!!) so I will bring my ideas and beg your input on Wednesday.
Excuse the long email. I bolded the subjects of the paragraphs for ease in browsing.
Hope you had a great weekend!!
-s
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact
Hayden White
This is a really interesting article about the connections between history and literature. It is also very dense, and does not deal directly with shame, trauma, or the events covered in the course. I will go through a couple of the article's main points, then speak to its place within Trauma and the Shame of the Unspeakable.
Beginning by exploring various philosophers' analyses of the historical narrative, including Northrop Frye, R.G. Collingwood, and Claude Levi-Strauss. Through a rather repetitive style, White stresses that while history is traditionally thought of as a representation of true facts, as opposed to fictional literature, it is in fact also a constructed narrative.
Historians, White writes, work to fit history into a number of pre-existing plot paradigms, highlighting some facts while suppressing others to create a narrative that is, for example, romantic, or tragic. There is, White writes, no event that is intrinsically tragic, in keeping with the similar claim about trauma that is a theme in Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity.
This process is called "emplotment," according to White. This name is easy to understand - it is a process of assigning a plot to a chronicle, or series of events on a time line.
At one point, White makes the very interesting comparison from this process of historical emplotment to the work of psychotherapy. In psychotherapy, the afflicted patient has "overemplotted" their life events, causing them to obsess over or repress them. It is the job of the therapist to guide the patient towards reemplotting these events, changing their meaning and significance to better support the patient's wellbeing.
Going into a more dense discussion of mimesis on historical narrative, White points out that the historical narrative is not just a reproduction of events, but it is also a set of symbols that allows us to consume the history and find the icon of those symbols in our literary tradition.
I would recommend "The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact" be assigned as reccommended reading, but also that we are sure to discuss the main points in class or in section (I could do that, I took EXTENSIVE notes) because White's points are not referred to or explained in any other reading for the course.
I think that especially as an American Civilization class, a discussion of the connections, indeed the bridge between history and literature is really important. Especially because of our focus on trauma, a place where history and literature converge and facts become confused and difficult to navigate, White's claim that "there is an element of the historical in all poetry, [and] there is an element of poetry in every historical account of the world" is especially important to keep in mind.
That said, the reading is repetitive and difficult to get through. I think that if it was assigned as a required reading, it would take a lot of a 50-minute class period to really work through all the questions that would arise from it.
This is a really interesting article about the connections between history and literature. It is also very dense, and does not deal directly with shame, trauma, or the events covered in the course. I will go through a couple of the article's main points, then speak to its place within Trauma and the Shame of the Unspeakable.
Beginning by exploring various philosophers' analyses of the historical narrative, including Northrop Frye, R.G. Collingwood, and Claude Levi-Strauss. Through a rather repetitive style, White stresses that while history is traditionally thought of as a representation of true facts, as opposed to fictional literature, it is in fact also a constructed narrative.
Historians, White writes, work to fit history into a number of pre-existing plot paradigms, highlighting some facts while suppressing others to create a narrative that is, for example, romantic, or tragic. There is, White writes, no event that is intrinsically tragic, in keeping with the similar claim about trauma that is a theme in Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity.
This process is called "emplotment," according to White. This name is easy to understand - it is a process of assigning a plot to a chronicle, or series of events on a time line.
At one point, White makes the very interesting comparison from this process of historical emplotment to the work of psychotherapy. In psychotherapy, the afflicted patient has "overemplotted" their life events, causing them to obsess over or repress them. It is the job of the therapist to guide the patient towards reemplotting these events, changing their meaning and significance to better support the patient's wellbeing.
Going into a more dense discussion of mimesis on historical narrative, White points out that the historical narrative is not just a reproduction of events, but it is also a set of symbols that allows us to consume the history and find the icon of those symbols in our literary tradition.
I would recommend "The Historical Text as a Literary Artifact" be assigned as reccommended reading, but also that we are sure to discuss the main points in class or in section (I could do that, I took EXTENSIVE notes) because White's points are not referred to or explained in any other reading for the course.
I think that especially as an American Civilization class, a discussion of the connections, indeed the bridge between history and literature is really important. Especially because of our focus on trauma, a place where history and literature converge and facts become confused and difficult to navigate, White's claim that "there is an element of the historical in all poetry, [and] there is an element of poetry in every historical account of the world" is especially important to keep in mind.
That said, the reading is repetitive and difficult to get through. I think that if it was assigned as a required reading, it would take a lot of a 50-minute class period to really work through all the questions that would arise from it.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Justice from the Victim's Perspective
Judith Herman
This piece is based on a set of interviews with 22 people, mostly victims but some witnesses, of sexual assault. In it, Herman explores the role of our legal system in sexual assault proceedings, pointing to the dissatisfaction that most victims interviewed expressed about their experience with the justice system.
Beyond her discussion of the legal system, Herman explores alternatives to the system, taking into account existing paradigms such as restorative justice, as well as the complicated priorities of victims themselves.
Herman focuses on the ways in which victims are shamed in any case of sexual assault. Pointing out the strength of power dynamics, she reminds readers that even in a court of law the tendency is for the victim to have to explain herself and prove the guilt of her assaulter, while in many cases that person is protected by her family and/or community. In other words, the victim is from the outset ostracized, despite her experience of trauma that necessitates support from her community.
Throughout her exploration of two justice paradigms, redemptive and restorative justice, Herman makes the interesting point that both systems are directed at the offenders - the first focuses on punishing them, while the second on reintegrating them. Because neither focuses on the wants of the victim, neither system truly functions to redeem the victim. Indeed, many victims in the study, instead of expressing a desire to see their offender locked up, simply want him to acknowledge his crime, and thus to experience the pervasive shame felt by victims of sexual assault. Further, they hope for the perpetrator's privileged place in the community to be taken from him, both as a symbolic punishment and as a preventative measure against further abuse.
This article was really interesting, especially when read in conversation with the documents I found at FHL, which are heavily influenced by a religious understanding of the goodness of forgiving. Herman argues that expecting a victim to forgive is not necessarily a useful or fair idea. Rather, she posits it as something to make society comfortable - once the victim has forgiven the perpetrator, society feels that it has closure, but who benefits from this closure, and the ultimate forgetting that it can lead to?
I unequivocally feel that this article should be added to the syllabus. It has really made me question the idea of restorative justice with which, if you look at my previous post, I was feeling rather enamored yesterday. I think it fits into the alternatives section, which, the more I think about, I think should be given some time for discussion and thought in this course. I think that after all of the really challenging sections of this course, both academically and emotionally, a time to really engage with debate over how to improve and change the system would be empowering and uplifting. I also feel that a series of shorter articles outlining firm positions (the Quaker piece on restorative justice, versus this article, for example) will allow for engagement that really includes students' own thinking and opinions.
This piece is based on a set of interviews with 22 people, mostly victims but some witnesses, of sexual assault. In it, Herman explores the role of our legal system in sexual assault proceedings, pointing to the dissatisfaction that most victims interviewed expressed about their experience with the justice system.
Beyond her discussion of the legal system, Herman explores alternatives to the system, taking into account existing paradigms such as restorative justice, as well as the complicated priorities of victims themselves.
Herman focuses on the ways in which victims are shamed in any case of sexual assault. Pointing out the strength of power dynamics, she reminds readers that even in a court of law the tendency is for the victim to have to explain herself and prove the guilt of her assaulter, while in many cases that person is protected by her family and/or community. In other words, the victim is from the outset ostracized, despite her experience of trauma that necessitates support from her community.
Throughout her exploration of two justice paradigms, redemptive and restorative justice, Herman makes the interesting point that both systems are directed at the offenders - the first focuses on punishing them, while the second on reintegrating them. Because neither focuses on the wants of the victim, neither system truly functions to redeem the victim. Indeed, many victims in the study, instead of expressing a desire to see their offender locked up, simply want him to acknowledge his crime, and thus to experience the pervasive shame felt by victims of sexual assault. Further, they hope for the perpetrator's privileged place in the community to be taken from him, both as a symbolic punishment and as a preventative measure against further abuse.
This article was really interesting, especially when read in conversation with the documents I found at FHL, which are heavily influenced by a religious understanding of the goodness of forgiving. Herman argues that expecting a victim to forgive is not necessarily a useful or fair idea. Rather, she posits it as something to make society comfortable - once the victim has forgiven the perpetrator, society feels that it has closure, but who benefits from this closure, and the ultimate forgetting that it can lead to?
I unequivocally feel that this article should be added to the syllabus. It has really made me question the idea of restorative justice with which, if you look at my previous post, I was feeling rather enamored yesterday. I think it fits into the alternatives section, which, the more I think about, I think should be given some time for discussion and thought in this course. I think that after all of the really challenging sections of this course, both academically and emotionally, a time to really engage with debate over how to improve and change the system would be empowering and uplifting. I also feel that a series of shorter articles outlining firm positions (the Quaker piece on restorative justice, versus this article, for example) will allow for engagement that really includes students' own thinking and opinions.
Monday, August 2, 2010
NYYM: Incest Survivors Resource Network International documents
We have three documents from the Incest Survivor's Resource Network: one introduction to the group that presumably preceded a talk given by one of the network's representatives, one such talk requesting meeting space from a community college, and, most interestingly, a letter from an inmate to the network, asking if it accepts incest perpetrators who were also victims themselves.
Founded in 1983, the focus of the network is to break the generational cycle of incest. Through a victim sponsorship program, the network, which is entirely staffed by incest survivors, hopes to spread awareness of incest as a pervasive phenomenon in communities.
Obviously these documents fit into the already existing section on childhood sexual assault.
Founded in 1983, the focus of the network is to break the generational cycle of incest. Through a victim sponsorship program, the network, which is entirely staffed by incest survivors, hopes to spread awareness of incest as a pervasive phenomenon in communities.
Obviously these documents fit into the already existing section on childhood sexual assault.
Other New York Yearly Meeting prison transition projects
We have a couple of documents from the New York Yearly Meeting detailing various inmate transition projects. The two I will discuss in this post are the Home Free Project, founded in 1979, and two assistance funds meant to loan or grant money to aid prisoners both incarcerated and recently released. These documents are from 1984. Obviously these two sets of sources fit into the previously discussed section on prison transitions that includes RECONSTRUCTION.
We have one mailing from the New York Yearly Meeting Prisons Committee detailing the Home Free Project, as well as an illustration detailing the goals of the project. It stemmed from a project of putting meetings for worship in prisons, and aims to then assist those prisoners active in the Quaker community during their incarceration.
Home Free is based in employment and education, as well as counseling inmates and their families. I think this program is particularly interesting because of its focus on Quakers or meeting participants. Other programs I have looked out do not have this specific focus, indeed, seem to be more open and willing to give support regardless of religion. However, I think with its Quaker focus Home Free was probably able to more sharply direct its aid, and perhaps to attract its previous charges to work within the organization.
The two assistance funds have a similarly Quaker slant, specifying that recipients of aid must at least have been in contact with a reputable Friend who will vouch for them. While this is certainly pragmatic, it does not seem in keeping with some of the blanket idealism expressed in other sources, such as the paper on Restorative Justice. I find this interesting.
What I think is most useful to take away from the two documents on assistance funds is the idea of solidarity over charity. In other words, the drafters of both documents are careful to point out that this aid is given in the hopes of a better community and a better world, and that that is the duty of those with privilege. They do not pass judgement in the documents for the crimes committed, and in doing work to reduce a hierarchy that obviously exists between a religious donor and an ex-inmate recipient.
We have one mailing from the New York Yearly Meeting Prisons Committee detailing the Home Free Project, as well as an illustration detailing the goals of the project. It stemmed from a project of putting meetings for worship in prisons, and aims to then assist those prisoners active in the Quaker community during their incarceration.
Home Free is based in employment and education, as well as counseling inmates and their families. I think this program is particularly interesting because of its focus on Quakers or meeting participants. Other programs I have looked out do not have this specific focus, indeed, seem to be more open and willing to give support regardless of religion. However, I think with its Quaker focus Home Free was probably able to more sharply direct its aid, and perhaps to attract its previous charges to work within the organization.
The two assistance funds have a similarly Quaker slant, specifying that recipients of aid must at least have been in contact with a reputable Friend who will vouch for them. While this is certainly pragmatic, it does not seem in keeping with some of the blanket idealism expressed in other sources, such as the paper on Restorative Justice. I find this interesting.
What I think is most useful to take away from the two documents on assistance funds is the idea of solidarity over charity. In other words, the drafters of both documents are careful to point out that this aid is given in the hopes of a better community and a better world, and that that is the duty of those with privilege. They do not pass judgement in the documents for the crimes committed, and in doing work to reduce a hierarchy that obviously exists between a religious donor and an ex-inmate recipient.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
PYM: Child Abuse at Taxpayers' Expense: V. Are There Other Ways?
This is a segment from a collaborative work by the Friends Suburban Project, the Pennsylvania Program for Woman and Girl Offenders, and Youth Advocates, Inc., supported by the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, published in 1974.
The entire piece, entitled "Child Abuse at Taxpayers' Expense: A Citizen's Report on Training Schools in Southeastern Pennsylvania," attacks the juvenile delinquency program in southeastern PA, focusing especially on the fact that the rate of incarceration of juveniles was at the time increasing in PA. It bases its information on what seems to be a hearing, or a series of hearings, including lengthy segments of transcribed testimony from people who had been in "training schools" or "institutions," in addition to various other critics.
The chapter self-consciously points out that while throughout the rest of the piece it is obvious that the institution system is flawed and needs to be changed, actual imagined alternatives are still limited in their scope and variety.
For example, many people take foe granted that juvenile rehabilitation needs to occur in a residential setting, a fact which the anonymous narrator states with subtle criticism. Group homes, or homes for delinquents in their own community, where they would live together under the eye of a guiding adult (in the example given, this person is a priest), are praised. However, they already exist and do not serve as the innovative the authors seek.
One significant roadblock to group homes is rejection from the community. In many cases a community objects to the placement of a house full of juvenile delinquents on their doorstep. The narrators, and people quoted in the chapter, advocate for a kind of political force in this regard, pointing out that while no community is going to be excited at this prospect, sending delinquents away and ignoring their existence is beneficial neither to the delinquents nor the community itself, which is framed in this argument as "taking the easy way out," to a degree.
I think this is a particularly interesting conundrum, especially given that at no point do the writers explicitly state where these homes would exist. How beneficial is reintroducing delinquent minors into a community that rejects them? How could this hurt an already suffering community?
Other suggestions in this chapter are reimbursement programs, directed either at counties who keep minors out of institutions, or at families who take delinquent minors back into their homes. I feel that this could easily lead to a fraudulent use of funds intended to help the minors, both at an individual and bureaucratic level.
While I think this paper carries a patronizing tone, I also think it serves as a thoughtful look into alternatives, to fit in the section discussed in the previous post.
The entire piece, entitled "Child Abuse at Taxpayers' Expense: A Citizen's Report on Training Schools in Southeastern Pennsylvania," attacks the juvenile delinquency program in southeastern PA, focusing especially on the fact that the rate of incarceration of juveniles was at the time increasing in PA. It bases its information on what seems to be a hearing, or a series of hearings, including lengthy segments of transcribed testimony from people who had been in "training schools" or "institutions," in addition to various other critics.
The chapter self-consciously points out that while throughout the rest of the piece it is obvious that the institution system is flawed and needs to be changed, actual imagined alternatives are still limited in their scope and variety.
For example, many people take foe granted that juvenile rehabilitation needs to occur in a residential setting, a fact which the anonymous narrator states with subtle criticism. Group homes, or homes for delinquents in their own community, where they would live together under the eye of a guiding adult (in the example given, this person is a priest), are praised. However, they already exist and do not serve as the innovative the authors seek.
One significant roadblock to group homes is rejection from the community. In many cases a community objects to the placement of a house full of juvenile delinquents on their doorstep. The narrators, and people quoted in the chapter, advocate for a kind of political force in this regard, pointing out that while no community is going to be excited at this prospect, sending delinquents away and ignoring their existence is beneficial neither to the delinquents nor the community itself, which is framed in this argument as "taking the easy way out," to a degree.
I think this is a particularly interesting conundrum, especially given that at no point do the writers explicitly state where these homes would exist. How beneficial is reintroducing delinquent minors into a community that rejects them? How could this hurt an already suffering community?
Other suggestions in this chapter are reimbursement programs, directed either at counties who keep minors out of institutions, or at families who take delinquent minors back into their homes. I feel that this could easily lead to a fraudulent use of funds intended to help the minors, both at an individual and bureaucratic level.
While I think this paper carries a patronizing tone, I also think it serves as a thoughtful look into alternatives, to fit in the section discussed in the previous post.
New York Yearly Meeting Committee for Criminal Justice: Testimony on Restorative Justice
This position paper is frames as a testimony - as such it states that the writers feel compelled by the Holy Spirit to testify to the strength of restorative justice, as opposed to the current system of retributive justice.
The writers accept that retributive justice, with its focus on punishment, is attractive. When a person has been wronged it is natural for them to feel rage and anger, and desire to punish the offender. Further, they accept that many times, punishment is seen as a last resort, a method to turn to when other negotiation has failed. However, they urge their audience to learn "to live without violence."
Restorative justice frames offenses as conflict that occurs between two individuals, however, the agents involved are the victim, the offender, and also society. The responsibility of the system, then, is to heal the wounds inflicted on each of these agents by the offense. The Committee for Criminal Justice thus goes through their paper exploring, one by one, the role each of these agents play in a the "lengthy process of healing" that is restorative justice.
The offender is responsible for acknowledging their own responsibility, making some form of restitution, expressing regret, removing the causes in her life for crime, and finally, giving evidence of improvement.
The victim must examine her feelings regarding the event, express these feelings through her support network, especially remembering that feelings are not actions, and thus cannot be evil or harmful, reject retributive action, cooperate in the restorative justice process, and finally, to "decide not to act on anger."
The writers acknowledge that some victims, as well as some offenders, may choose not to participate in the process. The system must make room for these people, offering them continued support for their healing.
As such, society too has a role to play in the process. Primarily, it must protect the victim and offender from further harm or acts of vengeance. Also, it must support the restorative justice process, which means footing the bill and otherwise creating an environment in which it can occur.
The paper closes with a strong claim: that "THERE IS NO BENEFIT OF OUR PRESENT SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT ALSO A BENIFIT OF A NON-PUNITIVE, RESTORATIVE SYSTEM" (caps from original). Emphasizing that our present system is expensive and does little to actually reduce crime, the writers accept that a change in system will be difficult, even costly, however, its ultimate benefits will serve as a vast improvement to society.
As we discussed, this would fit really nicely into a section on alternative justice methods, specifically the couple of Quaker ones I found at FHL. The more I read these documents, the more I think maybe they would fit in at the beginning of the course - an interesting framework from which to look at the case studies, which would come later.
We had also talked about putting one of the case studies at the beginning of the course. I don't know how those two would work together. I am going to be looking at the syllabus after I finish going through the FHL documents and the last dredges of the syllabus that I have been putting off. I'm not sure if that will happen before our Wednesday meeting (at noon! just a reminder for myself) but we'll see.
The writers accept that retributive justice, with its focus on punishment, is attractive. When a person has been wronged it is natural for them to feel rage and anger, and desire to punish the offender. Further, they accept that many times, punishment is seen as a last resort, a method to turn to when other negotiation has failed. However, they urge their audience to learn "to live without violence."
Restorative justice frames offenses as conflict that occurs between two individuals, however, the agents involved are the victim, the offender, and also society. The responsibility of the system, then, is to heal the wounds inflicted on each of these agents by the offense. The Committee for Criminal Justice thus goes through their paper exploring, one by one, the role each of these agents play in a the "lengthy process of healing" that is restorative justice.
The offender is responsible for acknowledging their own responsibility, making some form of restitution, expressing regret, removing the causes in her life for crime, and finally, giving evidence of improvement.
The victim must examine her feelings regarding the event, express these feelings through her support network, especially remembering that feelings are not actions, and thus cannot be evil or harmful, reject retributive action, cooperate in the restorative justice process, and finally, to "decide not to act on anger."
The writers acknowledge that some victims, as well as some offenders, may choose not to participate in the process. The system must make room for these people, offering them continued support for their healing.
As such, society too has a role to play in the process. Primarily, it must protect the victim and offender from further harm or acts of vengeance. Also, it must support the restorative justice process, which means footing the bill and otherwise creating an environment in which it can occur.
The paper closes with a strong claim: that "THERE IS NO BENEFIT OF OUR PRESENT SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT ALSO A BENIFIT OF A NON-PUNITIVE, RESTORATIVE SYSTEM" (caps from original). Emphasizing that our present system is expensive and does little to actually reduce crime, the writers accept that a change in system will be difficult, even costly, however, its ultimate benefits will serve as a vast improvement to society.
As we discussed, this would fit really nicely into a section on alternative justice methods, specifically the couple of Quaker ones I found at FHL. The more I read these documents, the more I think maybe they would fit in at the beginning of the course - an interesting framework from which to look at the case studies, which would come later.
We had also talked about putting one of the case studies at the beginning of the course. I don't know how those two would work together. I am going to be looking at the syllabus after I finish going through the FHL documents and the last dredges of the syllabus that I have been putting off. I'm not sure if that will happen before our Wednesday meeting (at noon! just a reminder for myself) but we'll see.
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting Committee on Criminal Justice: RECONSTRUCTION
This paper outlines the PYM Committee on Criminal Justice plan for a prisoner transition program called RECONSTRUCTION. Directed at black men in their twenties paroled after simple assault, aggravated assault, and homicide sentences, the program focuses on communication through listening, health, education, and employment.
Outlining method, goals, necessary staff, and a budget, the plan for RECONSTRUCTION most prominently emphasizes its Afrocentric focus, arguing that a heritage-based focus will provide participants with a sense of community and an educational goal. Again and again, the paper highlights that listening as a form of communication will be an overwhelming focus of the program. Through this paradigm, the Committee on Criminal Justice envisions channeling these communication skills into methods of rage control, etc.
RECONSTRUCTION, as envisioned in this paper, aims to reintegrate its participants into the program itself, pointing out that the most effective staff for the program would consist of ex-offenders, mentoring recently paroled individuals in ways to conquer a legacy of crime and punishment.
I found the focus on health to be particularly interesting. Incorporating healthy diet and exercise into a daily ritual that also includes reflection, education, and job training seems to me to be a really effective method of lasting improvement.
I think that, with its emphasis on communication and listening, RECONSTRUCTION has an unstated focus on the power of bearing witness. This is how I think we should frame it. As such, maybe it would fit in with the section on childhood sexual abuse, especially given that it, as well as most of the material I found at FHL, is relatively recent. However, it is not dated!!
Outlining method, goals, necessary staff, and a budget, the plan for RECONSTRUCTION most prominently emphasizes its Afrocentric focus, arguing that a heritage-based focus will provide participants with a sense of community and an educational goal. Again and again, the paper highlights that listening as a form of communication will be an overwhelming focus of the program. Through this paradigm, the Committee on Criminal Justice envisions channeling these communication skills into methods of rage control, etc.
RECONSTRUCTION, as envisioned in this paper, aims to reintegrate its participants into the program itself, pointing out that the most effective staff for the program would consist of ex-offenders, mentoring recently paroled individuals in ways to conquer a legacy of crime and punishment.
I found the focus on health to be particularly interesting. Incorporating healthy diet and exercise into a daily ritual that also includes reflection, education, and job training seems to me to be a really effective method of lasting improvement.
I think that, with its emphasis on communication and listening, RECONSTRUCTION has an unstated focus on the power of bearing witness. This is how I think we should frame it. As such, maybe it would fit in with the section on childhood sexual abuse, especially given that it, as well as most of the material I found at FHL, is relatively recent. However, it is not dated!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)