The Justice Myth: How Our Criminal Justice System and its Representation in the Media Fosters a False Sense of Progress

-- By CeciliaPlaza - 24 Feb 2018

Arnold describes a theory of social change in which changing material conditions give rise to new necessities to which the current sociopolitical regime cannot or does not respond. A new structure will emerge to replace the old and thereby adapt to the new conditions. These are “contemporary revolutions.” However, because we as individuals never see our participation in social institutions as primarily unconscious and tacit compliance with the status quo, we are never able to see society’s impressive ability to extinguish social progress. The power and endurance of this stubborn inertia is evidenced by the astounding lack of change in women’s historical social positioning. This essay will analyze the social stagnation of women’s rights through the lens of the cultural meaning of “justice,” which I think is a prime example of Arnold’s mythology of government.

We have a two-prong system of oppression: the legal-political represents moral and cultural values while capitalism represents the “American way” and imposes economic roles on stratified demographic groups. The justice myth, promoting the illusion that all our rights are equally protected, is the nexus through which law, morality, and economics converge to keep subordinated groups from climbing up through the social hierarchy. In American society, capitalism distributes power and the legal-political sphere reifies that distribution by deciding what is legally and morally correct and what is punishable. The resulting system disadvantages women—specifically certain subgroups thereof—and is largely enforced by a pervasive culture of violence.

The Capitalist Setting

Women’s bodies are a site of capitalist expansion; for women to control their own bodies would be to topple the system as we know it. Women generate a continuous labor supply by birthing the American workforce. They are a powerful consumer base and the center of the nuclear family. And yet their economic potential is stifled by lack of access to the “American businessman” ideal. Femininity and womanhood are antithetical to the American hero figure. This devalues women and their bodies as anything other than consumers and recipients, which collective violence against women reinforces.

The Crime

As a society we punish violence, but only the right kinds of violence against certain people. Sexual violence, which disproportionately affects women, is not the “right” kind of violence. According to the FBI, a rape happens every six minutes, but only 0.006% of rapists ever see the inside of a prison. Victims, on the other hand, are systematically punished for protecting themselves. (Think of Marissa Alexander, who was imprisoned for almost six years for protecting herself from her abusive husband, who she did not attempt to nor actually injure.) Victims are derided, insulted, and subjected to additional violence when they come forward with experiences of harassment and sexual violence.

To be sure, white upper-class women experience these atrocities, but at lower rates; they are also more likely to be considered “worthy” victims than their minoritized counterparts. The “contemporary revolutions” we’ve called progress are theirs and theirs alone.

Failed "Contemporary Revolutions"

The “waves” of feminism are each presumably fighting for some new set of rights and privileges. In reality, each wave is a reincarnation of its predecessor with a new rhetoric. In the midst of our fourth wave, many of the same first wave issues are still present. White, middle-class women are still excluding—whether ignorantly or purposefully—the interests of women of color, immigrant women, non-English speaking women, trans* women, non-heterosexual women, low-income women…the list goes on. They seem to believe that if white women ask for too much, if they deviate too far from the status quo, they’ll be laughed out the door. And who better to convince the white, well-to-do, heterosexual men to sign onto a “progressive” agenda than their female counterparts?

The true failure is that this “revolution” feels like progress. Women go to college. Women can vote. Women can climb the business ladder and become high-powered executives. Women can be senators and congresswomen (but not president). But these are just the handful of women necessary to maintain the illusion—and the majority are white and upper-class. College women are still told their primary purpose is to get their “MRS” degree to become more suitable companions for their male counterparts. They’re still pressured to join (white) sororities that tout the same values of Christian purity they’ve espoused since the 1800s. They’re steered away from STEM and high-paying fields. They’re harassed and assaulted in the workplace and faulted for bearing children with unpaid leave and less opportunities for advancement. And while these are real and important issues, they’ve become the only issues of the fourth wave—completely discarding the needs of minoritized groups, which ironically excludes and oppresses most women. By making white, upper-class women the “right” victims and othering everyone else, the movement extracts “progress” at the expense of minoritized groups.

Justice: The Cover-Up

The week of the Central Park Jogger there were 28 other rape cases we didn’t hear about. These cases didn’t involve a young, white, female investment banker. The criminal “justice” system—widely perceived as the guardian of safety, rightness, remedy, and morality—primarily protects white femininity. The media then uses example cases with perfect victims to make such a system seem palatable to anyone whose emotions inevitably interfere with the rational capitalist model. Consider the Nassar case: the victims are mostly white children, athletic, talented, and sometimes famous. They’re innocent. Nobody asked them what they were wearing or what they may have done to provoke their abuser. They’re perfect victims. Media coverage proceeded to grossly appropriate and sensationalize their statements and a dramatic 125-year sentence to pretend that “justice” was achieved here. This does little to help these girls heal; it does everything for the American public to keep believing in the justice myth.

And just like that, we’re content to keep living through a series of fake contemporary revolutions and believing things will get better.

Until we take off the blinders, it won’t.

I think the use of "we" in this conclusion is valuable in helping to answer one basic question about any essay: to whom is it written? Here the audience throughout is clearly this "we." At one level, we could be everybody, but we are most likely to be the people who agree with you already. This, then, is writing meaning to be addressed primarily to those who are already bucking the received wisdom, for whom your analysis of the social situation is already largely agreed to.

I am one of those people to whom the essay is therefore intended. In general I agree with its analysis. Equality is undoubtedly a radical concept. We claim to be committed to it, but its radicalism—its disturbing recognition that we are neither raising those who are in subjection nor bringing down those who have inherited immense ill-gotten gains—implies that existing structures of power will never fully accept it. Making men and women and everyone in between completely equal: politically, socially, legally is among the forms of equality that we are therefore never actually honoring, though in order to stop wishing we were we would have to abandon mythologies of justice and societal commitment that we need in order to remain socially functional.

So the result is dissociative activity, repression of cognitive dissonance, mental process at the individual and social levels. Your basic argument is to force that dissociation into consciousness. By making no longer automatic our mental divisions, this sorting of the real and the allowable real into different buckets, we can no longer keep believing—personally and collectively—that we are for equality while not having to notice that we aren't. We have to think about what we believe and why we don't actually do what we think we want to do.

That forcing into consciousness could be called, for want of a better term, "law school." But the "we" of law school are not only the "we" you are addressing here. You aren't forcing into consciousness the condition of those who are not already conscious. The problem presented in politics, Arnold would say, is that the people who are already conscious of the chasm between real and allowable real are not the only people who need to be brought along.

This is why a draft that addresses not the "we" of the present draft but the "we" of law school—people not necessarily willing to be "forced" even by therapy into consciousness, but also our absolute equals in the civil struggles that must for the reasons you give be always going on—might be valuable for you. As political advocacy directed to the energizing and focusing of your own "party," the present draft could hardly be bettered. Is there a way to make it as effective in addressing the slightly broader range of readers law school, or at least this fragment of it, contains?

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, CeciliaPlaza
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest