|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 16 - 02 Aug 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. While the rhetoric may appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congress held hearings on Muslims in America, why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation, or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. | |
<
< | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, a cooperative approach. The second is organized protest and litigation, and adversarial approach. | >
> | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam; a cooperative approach. The second is organized protest and litigation; an adversarial approach. | | | | |
<
< | Education is one form of coalition building; the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentleman holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on one's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | >
> | Education is one form of coalition building. The use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentleman holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on one's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | | | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter-protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject. | |
<
< | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short-term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | >
> | And the law? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short-term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | | | For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, Islam is an abstract ideology, to be discussed in generality. It is not specific, never a person. For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | |
<
< | This is not to say that our existing approaches are not important (litigation can be necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | >
> | This is not to say that our existing approaches are not important (litigation can be necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Professor Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | | | | |
<
< | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--"he's my friend," or "he's my coworker," or "he's my neighbor." The more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | >
> | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--"he's my friend," or "he's my coworker," or "he's my neighbor." The more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | | | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. While this is true, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Muhammed Ali, Fareed Zakaria, and Lupe Fiasco have certainly humanized Islam for many. An attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 15 - 09 Jul 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, a cooperative approach. The second is organized protest and litigation, and adversarial approach. | |
<
< | When my father, a doctor, recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?" When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building; the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentleman holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on one's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | >
> | Education is one form of coalition building; the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentleman holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on one's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | | | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter-protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject.
And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short-term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | |
<
< | Let's look at what hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. For them, Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. What it is not, is never specific, never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | >
> | For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, Islam is an abstract ideology, to be discussed in generality. It is not specific, never a person. For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | | | This is not to say that our existing approaches are not important (litigation can be necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | | | you're doing can interfere with getting it done.
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | Eben,
I tried cutting what I thought I could. Could maybe chuck the last paragraph, but it seems important to have as a preemptive defense to an obvious criticism. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 14 - 09 Jul 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | When the Park51 project, commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | >
> | When the Park51 project, commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." | | | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. While the rhetoric may appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congress held hearings on Muslims in America, why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation, or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. | |
<
< | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, . The second approach is organized protest and litigation. | >
> | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, a cooperative approach. The second is organized protest and litigation, and adversarial approach. | | | | |
<
< | When my father, a doctor, recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?" When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. | >
> | When my father, a doctor, recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?" When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building; the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentleman holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on one's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | | | | |
<
< | So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building, the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentlemen holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on each participant's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | >
> | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter-protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject. | | | | |
<
< | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject. | >
> | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short-term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | | | | |
<
< | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one.
What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. For them, Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific, never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | >
> | Let's look at what hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. For them, Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. What it is not, is never specific, never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | | | This is not to say that our existing approaches are not important (litigation can be necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | |
<
< | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. The more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | >
> | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--"he's my friend," or "he's my coworker," or "he's my neighbor." The more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | | | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. While this is true, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Muhammed Ali, Fareed Zakaria, and Lupe Fiasco have certainly humanized Islam for many. An attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 13 - 17 Jun 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | When the Park51 project, commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | |
<
< | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. While the rhetoric may appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congress held hearings on Muslims in America, why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation, why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. | >
> | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. While the rhetoric may appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congress held hearings on Muslims in America, why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation, or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. | | | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, . The second approach is organized protest and litigation. | | | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject. | |
<
< | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | >
> | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to enjoin a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | | | What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. For them, Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific, never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 12 - 16 Jun 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. While this is true, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Muhammed Ali, Fareed Zakaria, and Lupe Fiasco have certainly humanized Islam for many. An attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. | |
>
> | | | | | |
<
< | end of revised paper, comments and notes below
*then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control*
**the title should be changed, you need a central idea
--now i think i have that, this is how a combination of law (government social control) and other social control can improve the image of Islam in America
**use this section to explain how other forms of social control are more powerful than law.
**general comment: what's my point? the combination of law (government social control, according to D.Black) AND other forms of social control (like social interaction, friendship, etc.) would benefit American Muslims. So this is about combining short term benefits that the law may be able to provide (lawsuits for immediate relief, community organizing, etc.), and long-term effects that can be derived from basic social interaction in communities, is a way to maximize the level of social control for one particular group in America (American Muslims). Expand on D.Black's proposition that law and other social control are inversely related. Perhaps this not simply a temporal argument (short term and long term), maybe it's that if we (American Muslims) ratchet up other forms of social control, we would have less litigation!
I don't know how you
come to the historical conclusion that you come to. You don't show
us: you merely tell the story leaving out the parts that might have
resulted in a different conclusion. A summary of the history of the
civil rights struggle that leaves out the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments, the 1876 election, the Civil Rights Cases,
Plessy, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, the Second
World War, Brown, Rosa Parks, Martin King, the Voting Rights Act,
the Watts riots, Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," and so on and
so on is probably not going to be complete enough to judge from.
White supremacy in America from about 1650 about 1968 was supported
by de jure racial segregation. That makes the role of the law in
maintaining and then weakening its grip a different question than the
general one of whether law is a weak form of social control or (more
pertinently) whether legal remedies are generally useful in abating
social tensions across ethnic, class or religious divisions.
First Amendment Protections and Behavior
**use this section to outline the overarching challenges Muslims face (irrational suspicion, anti-Sharia legislation, Spencer/Geller/Gaffney type group, mosque protests)
I don't think the
measurement of "severity," is the most useful one. Social situations
have historical and psychological contexts, as well as sociological
and legal ones. What is happening to Muslims in the US is tied more
deeply to what has happened, is happening and internally tends to
happen within Christian and Islamic societies and people than to what
has happened or is happening or internally tends to happen between
black and white people in the Unites State.
He was accused of both.
The opposing candidate publicly rejected efforts by voters to
describe Obama as a Muslim in his hearing. But he made no effort to
stop his running mate from repeatedly saying that Obama "palled
around with terrorists." I'm not sure why this matters, but if it
does we should be accurate about it.
We could find many more
examples of this form of criminal violence directed against Muslims,
qua Muslims. But burnings and other criminal desecrations of
churches and synagogues also occur in the US, every year. And,
unfortunately, there are very few ways, in a large, highly-armed and
rather violent society to determine the social meaning of isolated
acts of murder. So interpreting these facts as presented is not a
particularly promising line of persuasion for any
proposition.
**change this section to explain how this is a short term strategy, it is to be "that" AND "this." Law can be a good form of attaining short term goals (if one has the resources and ability to use the judicial process).
This would make sense as
a strategy in the event of the passage of state laws that impeded
Muslim freedom of worship or religious practice for non-secular
reasons. But it isn't the legal response appropriate to mosque
burnings or hate crimes. I think you're probably imprecisely
characterizing the precise legal positions taken and actions brought
in the specific situations described. That will confuse a reader
with some legal knowledge but no specific knowledge about these
matters.
**this needs to be an "American exceptionalism" argument. An American Muslim is not the same as a Syrian Muslim, Saudi Muslim, or Eyptian one. There is something about the way American society works that makes what I am saying better suited for American Muslims, than any other type of Muslim. Think about what those unique qualities are. Then write them down here.
Is this actually the
historical and social lesson concerning the treatment of Muslims
living in non-Islamic society? Is it how Indian society works? How
Yugoslavia worked? How Russians and Caucasian Muslims or Turks and
Greeks have interacted over centuries? Or is this a point about
American society that draws an exception from the usual condition of
Muslims in the Dar al-Harb?
Which is all of us.
Because our rational processes are the secondary rather than primary
forces in our minds. Secular people who have absorbed the ideas we
call "Freud" know this. But the very idea of submission to the law
of an external all-powerful God is another recognition of the same
proposition, whether the God so described exists or not. No accurate
psychology, religious or secular, would lead us to expect secondary
processes to be all we need to concern ourselves with on such an
inquiry, or to affect such a change in society as your description
implies.
Social control succeeds by appealing to the non-rational, unconscious
motives of the human animal. Law is weak because it does so weakly.
The creation of fear of Muslims in American society was deliberate,
careful, rational and purposive, intended to manipulate people to
create irresistible power. It is slowly and intentionally turning
the US from a free society into a technologically-enabled despotism.
But it was also an unconscious process, spreading outward from hidden
roots in an increasingly ill-educated Christian society losing its
faith.
Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control
If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control?
Not if the weakness of
the form of control is part of its utility and
importance.
Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction.
So it would make sense
to ask the same question without limiting yourself to a view of human
psychology that ignores everything below the
surface.
While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. If one has the resources, short term relief can be granted. An injunction or a court order will meet an objective in the short term. But it must be met with other forms of social control. With a Muslim woman who wears a hijab (headscarf), for example, winning an employment discrimination lawsuit will help the individual who was discriminated against. But does it actually change the perceptions the employer has of Muslims? Social pressures (a friend who is Muslim, a neighbor who is Muslim) are likely to result in more lasting change.
This last point, I
recognize, is for you—in the world of present
politics—the reason all the rest of the analysis has been
written. Because politics is about appealing to non-rational
elements in the human mind, this is—as we have discussed
before—an approach that it makes sense for you to take. But
considered as a form of rational argument, as you present it here,
it's completely unestablished. Events in Toulouse over the past
several weeks, and their effects on French society at large, would
give a different turn to the analysis. And the much more serious and
complex laboratory constructed in India over the last
quarter-millennium would yield different, more uncertain, more
appalling and more fascinating propositions. Once again, it makes a
good deal of difference whether this is an argument based on another
form of "American exceptionalism," or a general social claim. | >
> | This is a successful rewrite. It required substantial effort, but
you now have a clear, coherent, balanced, useful statement of your
position in 992 words. You could make it tighter, bringing it down
to 750 words by careful editing, which would be something useful as a
newspaper Op-Ed. But you have made your point, and it's a valuable
exercise whatever you do with it.
Substantively, I think you've crafted your pitch much more
effectively than at the outset. I think you've explained why this
isn't hostile to existing approaches, I think you've explained why it
isn't some sort of objectionable "assimilationism," and I think
therefore you have made your approach both a real instrument in
coalition building, and a shield against certain forms of extremist
rhetoric. You show a few too many figure lines, with your comments
on how social control works. Those are meant to prove you know what
you're doing, but in this form of lawyering, showing you know what
you're doing can interfere with getting it done. | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 11 - 14 May 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | >
> | When the Park51 project, commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | | | | |
<
< | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. There are organizations, like Jihad Watch and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | >
> | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. While the rhetoric may appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congress held hearings on Muslims in America, why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation, why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. | | | | |
<
< | While the rhetoric can appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congressman Peter King held hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America. Or why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation. Or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. Or why Lowe's Home Improvement pulled ads from the TV show "All American Muslim" (after complaints that the show was not an accurate representation of Muslims, given that no radicals were on the show). | >
> | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam, . The second approach is organized protest and litigation. | | | | |
<
< | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam. The argument goes, if people truly understood Islam, they would see that terrorism is incompatible with Islam. The second approach is organized protest and litigation.
My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts? When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. | >
> | When my father, a doctor, recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?" When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. | | | So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building, the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentlemen holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on each participant's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process. | | | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | |
<
< | What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. Islam to them is what they saw on 9/11, what they see on TV, what they hear from "experts." Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific. It is never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. Our existing approaches do not do that.
That is not to say they are not important or useful (for example, litigation is often necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | >
> | What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. For them, Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific, never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. | | | | |
<
< | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. | >
> | This is not to say that our existing approaches are not important (litigation can be necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | | | | |
<
< | So, in addition to using the law when necessary, American Muslims should develop ties and roots to their communities to build these personal connections. Again, it is plausible that the more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | >
> | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. The more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | | | | |
<
< | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. This is true. However, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Fareed Zakaria, Muhammed Ali, and Lupe Fiasco, all have the potential to "normalize" and humanize Islam, with their fame. While every American Muslim can't be a famous news commentator or musician, an attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. | >
> | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. While this is true, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Muhammed Ali, Fareed Zakaria, and Lupe Fiasco have certainly humanized Islam for many. An attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. | | | | |
<
< | *****you need to cut about 180 words******** | | | end of revised paper, comments and notes below | |
>
> | | | |
*then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control*
**the title should be changed, you need a central idea |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 10 - 24 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | ***need new title that fits (narrow in on central idea first]] | | | When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11.
For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. There are organizations, like Jihad Watch and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | | | What about the second approach? A protest or a counter protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject. | |
<
< | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is right. | >
> | And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is the right one. | | | What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. Islam to them is what they saw on 9/11, what they see on TV, what they hear from "experts." Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific. It is never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. Our existing approaches do not do that. | |
<
< | That is not to say they are not important or useful (for example, litigation is often necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example. | >
> | That is not to say they are not important or useful (for example, litigation is often necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example). | | | This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. | |
>
> | So, in addition to using the law when necessary, American Muslims should develop ties and roots to their communities to build these personal connections. Again, it is plausible that the more known and engaged American Muslims are in a particular community, the less likely it is that there will be issues of discrimination or protest regarding Muslims. Subsequently, the need for litigation in this context would go down. | | | | |
>
> | Of course, there is the point to be made that Muslims make up only a small portion of the United States population, and therefore, this approach is limited in its scope. This is true. However, we aren't limited to merely using personal connections as a form of social control. We can also use popular culture. The likes of Fareed Zakaria, Muhammed Ali, and Lupe Fiasco, all have the potential to "normalize" and humanize Islam, with their fame. While every American Muslim can't be a famous news commentator or musician, an attitude that embraces, rather than blindly rejects, American culture will increase the likelihood that more American Muslims grow up to become highly successful in a number of fields. | | | | |
>
> | *****you need to cut about 180 words******** | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | end of revised paper, comments and notes below
| | | *then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control* | |
>
> | **the title should be changed, you need a central idea
--now i think i have that, this is how a combination of law (government social control) and other social control can improve the image of Islam in America | | | |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 9 - 23 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Law and Social Control | >
> | Using Law and Social Control to Improve Islam's Image in America | | | -- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | | | ***need new title that fits (narrow in on central idea first]]
When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | |
<
< | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. So we have organizations, like JihadWatch? and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | >
> | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. There are organizations, like Jihad Watch and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society. | | | While the rhetoric can appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congressman Peter King held hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America. Or why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation. Or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. Or why Lowe's Home Improvement pulled ads from the TV show "All American Muslim" (after complaints that the show was not an accurate representation of Muslims, given that no radicals were on the show). | |
<
< | add line about how we want to change this? | >
> | American Muslims have employed two primary ways of combating this anti-Muslim sentiment. One is cooperative, the other adversarial. First, we want to educate other Americans about Islam. The argument goes, if people truly understood Islam, they would see that terrorism is incompatible with Islam. The second approach is organized protest and litigation.
My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts? When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts.
So we have a problem. Education is one form of coalition building, the use of inter-faith panels, for example, can bring your allies together so that an organized support structure is in place. But what about the gentlemen holding the sign in the streets? Education will not touch him. It's effectiveness hinges, in part, on each participant's willingness to learn. The protestor with the sign is not going to the local community center for the next inter-faith meeting. In fact, he told us where he learned--it was what he saw on 9/11. And what about the average American? If they have no real interest in Islam or religion generally, it will probably be a tough sell to get them to join in the educational process.
What about the second approach? A protest or a counter protest can be a sign of strength. But again, there is a targeting issue. Typically, you aren't protesting with the expectation of persuading the opposition; your target is the independent and uncommitted. So here you lose the man with sign again. Similarly, it's unclear how we would convince an average American to be interested in the subject.
And litigation? We are entitled to practice our faith freely in the United States. A lawsuit to prevent a local government from preventing the building of a place of worship could work at achieving the short term objective: building a mosque. But a court order, for example, is unlikely to persuade naysayers that the result is right.
What hurts? For those who have negative perceptions of Muslims, what hurts is Islam. Islam to them is what they saw on 9/11, what they see on TV, what they hear from "experts." Islam is abstract in some cases, and general in others. It is never specific. It is never a person. It's always an "ideology." For social control to succeed, it must be able to appeal to the non-rational, unconscious motives of humans. Our existing approaches do not do that.
That is not to say they are not important or useful (for example, litigation is often necessary, especially in the scope of hate crimes or discrimination). The approach needs to be one that combines, not replaces existing approaches with other forms of social control. In fact, our need for the legal system may actually be indicative of the sparse use of other forms of social control by American Muslims. Donald Black proposes that there is an inverse relationship between law (government social control) and other forms of social control. With this model, if we increase our use of other forms of social control, it follows that we should have less of a need for litigation, as an example.
This is plausible. Consider human relationships, whether they are personal or professional. They build a level of comfort and connection between people. Having a Muslim coworker or a Muslim neighbor, can make Islam more than some "ideology," or some abstract thing. It can make it a person. It can make it specific. A Jewish or Christian American's perception of Islam, can be shaped by his relationship with an individual Muslim. This is because the relationship can serve as an educational tool. Spending time and getting to know an individual results in experiential learning. A person who is friends with a Muslim won't come to understand Islam by reading a book or taking a class about it. And if someone is attacking or discriminating their friend because of his faith, their defense won't be rooted in a technical understanding of Islam and won't include a rhetorical assault on the discriminating parties misguided or poorly constructed argument for why Islam is evil. The defense won't be rational, it will be emotional--he's my friend, or he's my coworker, or he's my neighbor. | | | | |
<
< | My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?"
When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. | | | | |
<
< | explain two ways we try to remedy, education and legal remedies, you have to look at what it is that bothers people about Islam, and put pressure on those points? | | | | |
<
< | add: this needs to be A + B, not just A, not just B? | | | *then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control* | | | particularly promising line of persuasion for any
proposition. | |
<
< | The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. | >
> | | | | **change this section to explain how this is a short term strategy, it is to be "that" AND "this." Law can be a good form of attaining short term goals (if one has the resources and ability to use the judicial process). | | | with some legal knowledge but no specific knowledge about these
matters. | |
<
< | As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place. | >
> | | | | **this needs to be an "American exceptionalism" argument. An American Muslim is not the same as a Syrian Muslim, Saudi Muslim, or Eyptian one. There is something about the way American society works that makes what I am saying better suited for American Muslims, than any other type of Muslim. Think about what those unique qualities are. Then write them down here. | | | American society that draws an exception from the usual condition of
Muslims in the Dar al-Harb? | |
<
< | Much like Arnold highlights the irrationality of politics, there's a certain irrationality in some of the fear that exists about Muslims in America. For example, fact that most would fear bearded men, wearing traditional Islamic garb with a Qur'an in hand at the airport, when in reality every single one of the hijackers on 9/11 was clean-shaven or with minimal facial hair, wearing jeans or khakis and button down shirts. Educating people about the flaws and inaccuracies of negative stereotypes would be the rational response, but of course, you can't reason with someone who can't reason himself. | | | | |
<
< | **ask Eben what his comments mean. | | | Which is all of us.
Because our rational processes are the secondary rather than primary |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 8 - 23 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | Social Control
When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." | >
> | ***need new title that fits (narrow in on central idea first]]
When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11." All he "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | | | | |
<
< | All this "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11. | >
> | For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. So we have organizations, like JihadWatch? and Stop the Islamization of America who perpetuate nonsense about American Muslims: they want to impose Shariah on all, convert America into an Islamic state, and destroy Western society.
While the rhetoric can appear extreme to some, the combination of organization and money, in conjunction with the fact that there are terrorists carrying out heinous acts supposedly in the name of Islam, can have an actual impact on our politics. It could explain why Congressman Peter King held hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America. Or why 22 state legislatures considered passing anti-Sharia legislation. Or why the NYPD has been surveilling college students across the country. Or why Lowe's Home Improvement pulled ads from the TV show "All American Muslim" (after complaints that the show was not an accurate representation of Muslims, given that no radicals were on the show).
add line about how we want to change this?
My father is a doctor. When he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?"
When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts.
explain two ways we try to remedy, education and legal remedies, you have to look at what it is that bothers people about Islam, and put pressure on those points?
add: this needs to be A + B, not just A, not just B?
*then go with D.Black comparison, inverse law, social control* | | | | |
<
< | My father is a doctor. To this day, when he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?" | | | | |
<
< | When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. 9/11 hurts. It hurts us all really bad. For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. | | |
**use this section to explain how other forms of social control are more powerful than law. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 7 - 23 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control | | |
Social Control | |
>
> | When the Park51 project, formerly known as the Cordoba House, and commonly referred to as the "Ground Zero Mosque" was being protested just a couple of years ago, there was a sign that I saw a protestor holding. Initially, it had caught my eye because of how many words had been scrunched onto this little piece of cardboard. The sign said "All I Need to Know About Islam I Learned on 9/11."
All this "needed" to know about Islam, he had learned on 9/11.
My father is a doctor. To this day, when he recaps his day at work, nearly all of his stories begin with some variant of "so I asked the patient, what hurts?"
When you want to fix something, it helps to know what hurts. 9/11 hurts. It hurts us all really bad. For that man holding the sign, and for the many others who admire the likes of Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, and Frank Gaffney, 9/11 was a natural consequence of Muslims carrying out Islam. For them, Islam is inherently promotes violence. | | | **use this section to explain how other forms of social control are more powerful than law.
**general comment: what's my point? the combination of law (government social control, according to D.Black) AND other forms of social control (like social interaction, friendship, etc.) would benefit American Muslims. So this is about combining short term benefits that the law may be able to provide (lawsuits for immediate relief, community organizing, etc.), and long-term effects that can be derived from basic social interaction in communities, is a way to maximize the level of social control for one particular group in America (American Muslims). Expand on D.Black's proposition that law and other social control are inversely related. Perhaps this not simply a temporal argument (short term and long term), maybe it's that if we (American Muslims) ratchet up other forms of social control, we would have less litigation! |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 6 - 22 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control | | | Social Control
**use this section to explain how other forms of social control are more powerful than law. | |
<
< | | >
> | **general comment: what's my point? the combination of law (government social control, according to D.Black) AND other forms of social control (like social interaction, friendship, etc.) would benefit American Muslims. So this is about combining short term benefits that the law may be able to provide (lawsuits for immediate relief, community organizing, etc.), and long-term effects that can be derived from basic social interaction in communities, is a way to maximize the level of social control for one particular group in America (American Muslims). Expand on D.Black's proposition that law and other social control are inversely related. Perhaps this not simply a temporal argument (short term and long term), maybe it's that if we (American Muslims) ratchet up other forms of social control, we would have less litigation! | | | I don't know how you
come to the historical conclusion that you come to. You don't show |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 5 - 20 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | |
<
< | Civil Rights and Behavior
One theme we’ve discussed in our class thus far has been the view of the law as a form of social control. Eben has said that law is a weak form of social control. I want to discuss two examples in which law does not seem to have a strong affect on behavior, and discuss what functionality the law has. | >
> | Social Control
**use this section to explain how other forms of social control are more powerful than law. | | | | |
<
< | Consider the civil rights movement, particularly for blacks in America. What role has the law played? There have been a total of eight federal civil rights laws that were passed dating as far back as 1866 and as recently as 1991. State governments have passed their own versions of these civil rights acts. And there have been several Supreme Court cases that upheld these laws and struck down other laws that sought to racially discriminate.
The second federal civil rights act in 1871, known as the Ku Klux Klan act, prohibited ethnic violence towards blacks. Since the acts passage there were over 3,000 blacks lynched. So several other civil rights acts were passed subsequent to 1871. And after those acts were passed, we saw voter disenfranchisement based on race, along with segregation in schools and other public places. So more laws were passed and more court cases decided. Despite this, in 1991 Rodney King was beat nearly to death at the hands of the Los Angeles police.
It seems that what protects racial violence and discrimination is not our laws, it’s our collective mindset, a societal belief that we should not treat people differently because of their race. The American youth started to interact, study, and socialize with one another. They didn’t need a law or class to tell them that black people were no less deserving of rights than white people. They had lived with them, experienced life with them, and knew that in many respects, they shared a lot in common. | | | I don't know how you
come to the historical conclusion that you come to. You don't show | | | First Amendment Protections and Behavior | |
<
< | In the ten years since 9/11 I’ve watched organization after organization in the American Muslim community look to laws and the legal system to control social attitudes about Muslims in America. Thanks to the change our societal mindset that took place during the civil rights movement, the harassment and bigotry faced by American Muslims is not even remotely as severe as what other groups throughout American history have faced. | >
> | **use this section to outline the overarching challenges Muslims face (irrational suspicion, anti-Sharia legislation, Spencer/Geller/Gaffney type group, mosque protests) | | | I don't think the
measurement of "severity," is the most useful one. Social situations | | | has happened or is happening or internally tends to happen between
black and white people in the Unites State. | |
<
< | This softer bigotry has taken various forms. For example, when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he was accused of being Muslim. He wasn’t accused of being linked to a radical or terrorist group, he accused simply of being Muslim, as if there were something inherently wrong with being a member of the Islamic faith. | >
> | | | | He was accused of both.
The opposing candidate publicly rejected efforts by voters to | | | around with terrorists." I'm not sure why this matters, but if it
does we should be accurate about it. | |
<
< | A mosque construction site in Tennessee was set ablaze last year. In August a Manhattan taxi driver was stabbed, allegedly because he was Muslim. | >
> | | | | We could find many more
examples of this form of criminal violence directed against Muslims, | | | The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. | |
>
> | **change this section to explain how this is a short term strategy, it is to be "that" AND "this." Law can be a good form of attaining short term goals (if one has the resources and ability to use the judicial process). | | | This would make sense as
a strategy in the event of the passage of state laws that impeded
Muslim freedom of worship or religious practice for non-secular | | | As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place. | |
>
> | **this needs to be an "American exceptionalism" argument. An American Muslim is not the same as a Syrian Muslim, Saudi Muslim, or Eyptian one. There is something about the way American society works that makes what I am saying better suited for American Muslims, than any other type of Muslim. Think about what those unique qualities are. Then write them down here. | | | Is this actually the
historical and social lesson concerning the treatment of Muslims
living in non-Islamic society? Is it how Indian society works? How | | | Much like Arnold highlights the irrationality of politics, there's a certain irrationality in some of the fear that exists about Muslims in America. For example, fact that most would fear bearded men, wearing traditional Islamic garb with a Qur'an in hand at the airport, when in reality every single one of the hijackers on 9/11 was clean-shaven or with minimal facial hair, wearing jeans or khakis and button down shirts. Educating people about the flaws and inaccuracies of negative stereotypes would be the rational response, but of course, you can't reason with someone who can't reason himself. | |
>
> | **ask Eben what his comments mean. | | | Which is all of us.
Because our rational processes are the secondary rather than primary
forces in our minds. Secular people who have absorbed the ideas we |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 4 - 15 Apr 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control | | | It seems that what protects racial violence and discrimination is not our laws, it’s our collective mindset, a societal belief that we should not treat people differently because of their race. The American youth started to interact, study, and socialize with one another. They didn’t need a law or class to tell them that black people were no less deserving of rights than white people. They had lived with them, experienced life with them, and knew that in many respects, they shared a lot in common. | |
>
> | I don't know how you
come to the historical conclusion that you come to. You don't show
us: you merely tell the story leaving out the parts that might have
resulted in a different conclusion. A summary of the history of the
civil rights struggle that leaves out the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments, the 1876 election, the Civil Rights Cases,
Plessy, Charles Hamilton Houston, Thurgood Marshall, the Second
World War, Brown, Rosa Parks, Martin King, the Voting Rights Act,
the Watts riots, Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," and so on and
so on is probably not going to be complete enough to judge from.
White supremacy in America from about 1650 about 1968 was supported
by de jure racial segregation. That makes the role of the law in
maintaining and then weakening its grip a different question than the
general one of whether law is a weak form of social control or (more
pertinently) whether legal remedies are generally useful in abating
social tensions across ethnic, class or religious divisions.
| | | First Amendment Protections and Behavior | |
<
< | In the ten years since 9/11 I’ve watched organization after organization in the American Muslim community look to laws and the legal system to control social attitudes about Muslims in America. Thanks to the change our societal mindset that took place during the civil rights movement, the harassment and bigotry faced by American Muslims is not even remotely as severe as what other groups throughout American history have faced. This softer bigotry has taken various forms. For example, when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he was accused of being Muslim. He wasn’t accused of being linked to a radical or terrorist group, he accused simply of being Muslim, as if there were something inherently wrong with being a member of the Islamic faith. A mosque construction site in Tennessee was set ablaze last year. In August a Manhattan taxi driver was stabbed, allegedly because he was Muslim. | | | | |
<
< | The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place. | >
> | In the ten years since 9/11 I’ve watched organization after organization in the American Muslim community look to laws and the legal system to control social attitudes about Muslims in America. Thanks to the change our societal mindset that took place during the civil rights movement, the harassment and bigotry faced by American Muslims is not even remotely as severe as what other groups throughout American history have faced.
I don't think the
measurement of "severity," is the most useful one. Social situations
have historical and psychological contexts, as well as sociological
and legal ones. What is happening to Muslims in the US is tied more
deeply to what has happened, is happening and internally tends to
happen within Christian and Islamic societies and people than to what
has happened or is happening or internally tends to happen between
black and white people in the Unites State.
This softer bigotry has taken various forms. For example, when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he was accused of being Muslim. He wasn’t accused of being linked to a radical or terrorist group, he accused simply of being Muslim, as if there were something inherently wrong with being a member of the Islamic faith.
He was accused of both.
The opposing candidate publicly rejected efforts by voters to
describe Obama as a Muslim in his hearing. But he made no effort to
stop his running mate from repeatedly saying that Obama "palled
around with terrorists." I'm not sure why this matters, but if it
does we should be accurate about it.
A mosque construction site in Tennessee was set ablaze last year. In August a Manhattan taxi driver was stabbed, allegedly because he was Muslim.
We could find many more
examples of this form of criminal violence directed against Muslims,
qua Muslims. But burnings and other criminal desecrations of
churches and synagogues also occur in the US, every year. And,
unfortunately, there are very few ways, in a large, highly-armed and
rather violent society to determine the social meaning of isolated
acts of murder. So interpreting these facts as presented is not a
particularly promising line of persuasion for any
proposition.
The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion.
This would make sense as
a strategy in the event of the passage of state laws that impeded
Muslim freedom of worship or religious practice for non-secular
reasons. But it isn't the legal response appropriate to mosque
burnings or hate crimes. I think you're probably imprecisely
characterizing the precise legal positions taken and actions brought
in the specific situations described. That will confuse a reader
with some legal knowledge but no specific knowledge about these
matters.
As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place.
Is this actually the
historical and social lesson concerning the treatment of Muslims
living in non-Islamic society? Is it how Indian society works? How
Yugoslavia worked? How Russians and Caucasian Muslims or Turks and
Greeks have interacted over centuries? Or is this a point about
American society that draws an exception from the usual condition of
Muslims in the Dar al-Harb? | | | Much like Arnold highlights the irrationality of politics, there's a certain irrationality in some of the fear that exists about Muslims in America. For example, fact that most would fear bearded men, wearing traditional Islamic garb with a Qur'an in hand at the airport, when in reality every single one of the hijackers on 9/11 was clean-shaven or with minimal facial hair, wearing jeans or khakis and button down shirts. Educating people about the flaws and inaccuracies of negative stereotypes would be the rational response, but of course, you can't reason with someone who can't reason himself. | |
>
> | Which is all of us.
Because our rational processes are the secondary rather than primary
forces in our minds. Secular people who have absorbed the ideas we
call "Freud" know this. But the very idea of submission to the law
of an external all-powerful God is another recognition of the same
proposition, whether the God so described exists or not. No accurate
psychology, religious or secular, would lead us to expect secondary
processes to be all we need to concern ourselves with on such an
inquiry, or to affect such a change in society as your description
implies.
Social control succeeds by appealing to the non-rational, unconscious
motives of the human animal. Law is weak because it does so weakly.
The creation of fear of Muslims in American society was deliberate,
careful, rational and purposive, intended to manipulate people to
create irresistible power. It is slowly and intentionally turning
the US from a free society into a technologically-enabled despotism.
But it was also an unconscious process, spreading outward from hidden
roots in an increasingly ill-educated Christian society losing its
faith. | | | | |
<
< | Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control
If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction. | >
> | | | | | |
<
< | While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. If one has the resources, short term relief can be granted. An injunction or a court order will meet an objective in the short term. But it must be met with other forms of social control. With a Muslim woman who wears a hijab (headscarf), for example, winning an employment discrimination lawsuit will help the individual who was discriminated against. But does it actually change the perceptions the employer has of Muslims? Social pressures (a friend who is Muslim, a neighbor who is Muslim) are likely to result in more lasting change. | >
> | Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control | | | | |
>
> | If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? | | | | |
>
> | Not if the weakness of
the form of control is part of its utility and
importance.
Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction.
So it would make sense
to ask the same question without limiting yourself to a view of human
psychology that ignores everything below the
surface. | | | | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | >
> | While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. If one has the resources, short term relief can be granted. An injunction or a court order will meet an objective in the short term. But it must be met with other forms of social control. With a Muslim woman who wears a hijab (headscarf), for example, winning an employment discrimination lawsuit will help the individual who was discriminated against. But does it actually change the perceptions the employer has of Muslims? Social pressures (a friend who is Muslim, a neighbor who is Muslim) are likely to result in more lasting change. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | This last point, I
recognize, is for you—in the world of present
politics—the reason all the rest of the analysis has been
written. Because politics is about appealing to non-rational
elements in the human mind, this is—as we have discussed
before—an approach that it makes sense for you to take. But
considered as a form of rational argument, as you present it here,
it's completely unestablished. Events in Toulouse over the past
several weeks, and their effects on French society at large, would
give a different turn to the analysis. And the much more serious and
complex laboratory constructed in India over the last
quarter-millennium would yield different, more uncertain, more
appalling and more fascinating propositions. Once again, it makes a
good deal of difference whether this is an argument based on another
form of "American exceptionalism," or a general social claim. | | | | |
<
< | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | | | \ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 3 - 12 Apr 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control | | | Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control
If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction. | |
<
< | While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. At least these individuals are locked away and prevented from committing crimes during the time they are imprisoned. Until a more clear form of social control that can be applied in place of the law, or as a supplement to the law presents itself, maybe this is as good as we can do. | >
> | While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. If one has the resources, short term relief can be granted. An injunction or a court order will meet an objective in the short term. But it must be met with other forms of social control. With a Muslim woman who wears a hijab (headscarf), for example, winning an employment discrimination lawsuit will help the individual who was discriminated against. But does it actually change the perceptions the employer has of Muslims? Social pressures (a friend who is Muslim, a neighbor who is Muslim) are likely to result in more lasting change. | | | |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 2 - 27 Feb 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | Law and Social Control
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012 | | | The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place. | |
>
> | Much like Arnold highlights the irrationality of politics, there's a certain irrationality in some of the fear that exists about Muslims in America. For example, fact that most would fear bearded men, wearing traditional Islamic garb with a Qur'an in hand at the airport, when in reality every single one of the hijackers on 9/11 was clean-shaven or with minimal facial hair, wearing jeans or khakis and button down shirts. Educating people about the flaws and inaccuracies of negative stereotypes would be the rational response, but of course, you can't reason with someone who can't reason himself. | | | Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control
If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction. |
|
|
KhurramDaraFirstPaper 1 - 15 Feb 2012 - Main.KhurramDara
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Law and Social Control
-- By KhurramDara - 15 Feb 2012
Civil Rights and Behavior
One theme we’ve discussed in our class thus far has been the view of the law as a form of social control. Eben has said that law is a weak form of social control. I want to discuss two examples in which law does not seem to have a strong affect on behavior, and discuss what functionality the law has.
Consider the civil rights movement, particularly for blacks in America. What role has the law played? There have been a total of eight federal civil rights laws that were passed dating as far back as 1866 and as recently as 1991. State governments have passed their own versions of these civil rights acts. And there have been several Supreme Court cases that upheld these laws and struck down other laws that sought to racially discriminate.
The second federal civil rights act in 1871, known as the Ku Klux Klan act, prohibited ethnic violence towards blacks. Since the acts passage there were over 3,000 blacks lynched. So several other civil rights acts were passed subsequent to 1871. And after those acts were passed, we saw voter disenfranchisement based on race, along with segregation in schools and other public places. So more laws were passed and more court cases decided. Despite this, in 1991 Rodney King was beat nearly to death at the hands of the Los Angeles police.
It seems that what protects racial violence and discrimination is not our laws, it’s our collective mindset, a societal belief that we should not treat people differently because of their race. The American youth started to interact, study, and socialize with one another. They didn’t need a law or class to tell them that black people were no less deserving of rights than white people. They had lived with them, experienced life with them, and knew that in many respects, they shared a lot in common.
First Amendment Protections and Behavior
In the ten years since 9/11 I’ve watched organization after organization in the American Muslim community look to laws and the legal system to control social attitudes about Muslims in America. Thanks to the change our societal mindset that took place during the civil rights movement, the harassment and bigotry faced by American Muslims is not even remotely as severe as what other groups throughout American history have faced. This softer bigotry has taken various forms. For example, when Barack Obama was running for president in 2008, he was accused of being Muslim. He wasn’t accused of being linked to a radical or terrorist group, he accused simply of being Muslim, as if there were something inherently wrong with being a member of the Islamic faith. A mosque construction site in Tennessee was set ablaze last year. In August a Manhattan taxi driver was stabbed, allegedly because he was Muslim.
The premier Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has filed lawsuit upon lawsuit for every incidence of harassment or violence. They point to the law, not a statute or common law principle, but a fundamental right in the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion. As an American Muslim, I can see how law is not the most preferable form of social control. A far better approach for the Muslim community would be to mirror some of the factors that led to successful integration and reduced discrimination towards blacks in America. Building personal connections and social bonds with other Americans would probably be a stronger antidote to negative stereotypes. How likely is it for a man who has a positive working relationship with a Muslim, or even a friendship with one, to protest a Muslim’s ability to practice their faith freely? A societal change in mindset is need for actual change to take place.
Utility of the Law as a Form of Social Control
If law is not a powerful form of social control, than why do we spend so much time and energy drafting penal codes, writing legislation, and interpreting the Constitution? Wouldn’t we be better off using some other form social control? Is the reason we don’t murder children or use crystal meth because of laws the tell us not to? If not, then why have laws at all? Some would probably say that the reason we have laws is for the few people that do engage in activities like murder and drug use. Deterrence is often argued, yet many felons, for example, are repeat offenders. A report from the Bureau of Justice statistics found that 61% of felony defendants had at least one prior conviction.
While laws don’t appear to be a strong form of social control (in that it is unclear whether laws actually prevent crimes from being committed) it may have some utility. At least these individuals are locked away and prevented from committing crimes during the time they are imprisoned. Until a more clear form of social control that can be applied in place of the law, or as a supplement to the law presents itself, maybe this is as good as we can do.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|