Gender Sexuality and Law - Essay Example

?Gender Sexuality and Law Seminar 5 Significant Quotes – Analysis Quote last vestiges of centered European identity with its economic and political predicates” (Wilson, Pg. 52): Wilson, in his chapter entitled ‘Wounded Attachments’ has initiated his treatise on identity of populations’ of varied and diverse ethnic and socio cultural backgrounds in the post colonial era. The impact that years of English rule had exerted on the psyche of the ruling and the ruled populations’ is reflected in the way people identified themselves on the basis of their ethnic background. Years of suppression and oppression and the emergence of the democracy as a phenomenon spread far and wide in the former British colonies. Non-British people who happened to be in Britain assumed a rebellious attitude and harboured notions of giving it back to the English what they had learnt in terms of equal rights, prerogatives and position in society. This is reflected to this day in modern British society as remnants of the populations who had migrated to Britain in the post colonial era continue to maintain their distinct identities and regional preferences. Although hobnobbing with on equal terms with native English, their resentment and defiance shows its colours from time to time. The author has specifically implied that historical events have a definite impact on the emergence of collective identities in human populations. According to him, the late modern democracy as an entity has emerged out of ‘selected contradictory operations of politicized identity’ (Wilson, pg. 54). Forces of global capitalism and the disciplinary-bureaucratic regimes typical of the colonial period have shaped the political identities of people living in the modern world. Quote 2: “The tension between particularistic ‘I’ and a universal ‘we’ in liberalism is sustainable as long as the constituent terms of the ‘I’ remain unpoliticised....” (Wilson, Pg. 56): Wilson contends that as long as the what is construed as ‘I’ remains unpoliticised in liberalism, along with the coexistence of a similar apolitical state within a community, it maintains its individualism by separating itself from the generalized version of what is construed as ‘we’. ‘We’ here represents the universal community of the state as it exists at a particular moment or juncture. The perception of ‘I’ imparts s degree of individualism despite remaining part of the mainstream society. This prevents the formation of a politicized identity. The author has specifically illustrated this by giving examples of homosexuals and Jews, as they exist in modern society. While remaining part of the society, both these identities continue to be characterized into a specialist category due to the peculiarities of their identified characteristics. The possibility of existence of democracy has been facilitated in liberalism only due to the fact that what is considered as universal does not have either a body or content i.e. it is an abstract entity. The author believes that social identities are established in modern liberalist democratic societies through the action of liberalism’s companion powers which he names as ‘capitalism and disciplinarity’, originally identified by Marx and Focault (pg. 57). Capitalism’s endeavours in the modern society produce desires in individuals which emerge as identities and disciplinary forces regulate subjects into behaviour-based identities which are recognizable in society. The exemplary examples of such identities provided by the author are those of ‘alcoholic professionals’ and ‘crack mother’ and many more categories can be visualised under this lens. Quote 3: “Within lesbian and gay rights movements, few, if any, people believe that winning human rights will achieve equality, much less liberation (Herman, pg. 33)”: The author, in his argument entitled ‘Beyond the Rights Debate’ contends that legal academicians’ have diagrammatically opposing inferences on what are considered as ‘rights’ in liberal democracies. He describes the two categories as those of ‘rights defenders’ and ‘rights critics’. In this chapter he has studied the correlation of rights with special focus on what he considers as a parallel development, that of emergence of ‘the new social developments’ (pg. 29). He expresses contentious viewpoints in his critique of an analysis of one such movement, that of the Canadian lesbians and gay rights as presented by Fudge and Glasbeek in their published study on the subject (pg. 26). He believes that once the identity of gays and lesbians had been established in society, the issue of their self identification as an oppressed class in prevalent liberal society emerged out of comparing with what was present within the precincts of existing law structures, which defined what were actually ‘rights’ in the modern capitalist society. Law, as an entity was resorted to in demanding equal rights for gays and lesbians because it had clearly defined confines which could be exploited for the establishment of their identities in society. Herman believes that activists of this faction, whom he interacted with in society, were discovered by him to be less familiar with what actually rights were. He claims that they were more focused on attaining public attention and acclaim rather than actual equal rights. He cites many examples in Canada, where such activists were successful in claiming special favours for what they considered as ‘couples’ through public litigation. However, what they succeeded in getting what they considered were their ‘rights’ were actually mere conveniences in life such as ‘family benefits’ and ‘dental coverage’ which ordinarily are meant by law for traditional or ‘normal’ families. Quote 4: “Our challenge is to understand these paradoxes in the early 21st century, at a time when US-led forces of empire, imprisonment, and inequality have even seized the word ‘freedom’......” (Gilmore, pg. 41) The authoress, in her incisive treatise, ‘in the shadow of the shadow state’ points out the mistakes in the last century which are at risk of being repeated in the 21st century under a new garb, in shaping human values in the US as well as international society. She contends that US in particular dominated the world in the previous century by falling in tune with the ‘military industrial complex’ that thrived for so long ever after its conception under the aegis of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a diehard capitalist. According to her, the country’s economic development and political environment were shaped around a nexus between the military and the warfare industry which gained momentum after the Second World War and allowed US to maintain its superiority in the world during the Cold War. All industrial activity was oriented around production of weapons of mass destruction for export and establishment of military bases on foreign shores in an endeavour to dominate the international economic scene. Education, research and physical developments in the country were all oriented towards the maintenance of this status which shaped the social and political context of its citizens. Political parties, both democrats and the conservatives thrived and brought forth leaders who continued with the machinations of this established complex. Gilmore fears that in the 21st century, a new concept- the ‘prison industrial complex’ has emerged, which aims at dictating and scrutinizing the country’s social fabric by imposing new strategies aimed at rooting out crime and addressing security issues under the garb of providing a safe and conducive environment for sustaining the industrial and economic advantages garnered over the previous century. She fears that such a policy puts at risk the very existence of society as a community. People’s lives, beliefs and pursuits are subtly shaped into acquiring the characteristics of what is thrust upon them, as against what is actually required. She feels there is rather room for ‘the non-profit industrial complex’ as has been proven by the success of many such organizations within the country. Quote 5: “Nonprofits Are a Way That Wealthy People and Corporations Avoid Tax Liability, and Most of That Redirected Money Does Not Go to Social Justice” (Mananzala & Spade, 2008): The article primarily studies the emergence of the role of Trans politics within United States and how trans political institutionalization is being shaped. The authors have discussed the ideal model for operation of such organizations. The abovementioned quote expresses fears about the adoption of the emerging and much prevalent trend of nonprofits’ organization model for such political activists’. They fear that such organizations will tend to lose their primary objective of social justice by doing so. Such models have been used primarily by feminist activists and lesbian-gay organizations in the past in many parts of the country. The authors fear that such nonprofits’ organizations when funded by wealthy individuals and organizations’ are in fact surreptitious ways of diverting excess money in order to avoid tax liability. Much of the money contributed by the nations’ wealthiest people ends up in white elephant institutions such as galleries, museums, operas and elite institutions instead of actually funding the welfare organization (Mananzala & Spade, 2008). Alternative models, citing some examples have been suggested by the authors for the successful materialization and actual implementation of the social reforms aimed at by such organizations’ as regards the objectives of their very inception. The authors have suggested that careful conceptualization of the presumed objectives, organizational efficiency and practical implementation are essential for attainment of the objectives for which trans political groups in society strive for. References Gilmore, R W, In the shadow of the shadow state, pp. 41-52 Herman, D (1993). Beyond The Rights Debate, Social & Legal Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 25-43 Mananzala, R & Spade D (2008).The Nonprofit Industrial Complex and Trans Resistance, Sexuality Research & Policy, Vol.5 (1), pp. 53-71. Wilson, Wounded Attachments, Chapter 3, pp.52-76 Read More