Stoddard 1997: Difference between revisions

From Projecting Power
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
#Employing the law to make change is appropriate
#Employing the law to make change is appropriate


=== The New Zealand Conundrum ===
=== i. The New Zealand Conundrum ===
*The 'conundrum': New Zealand is legally progressive with respect to queer protections, but is culturally conservative in this respect  
*The 'conundrum': New Zealand is legally progressive with respect to queer protections, but is culturally conservative in this respect  
*social change and legal change do not always walk hand-in-hand
*social change and legal change do not always walk hand-in-hand
**"one does not stimulate the other"
**"one does not stimulate the other"


=== A Paradigm of Reform ===
=== ii. A Paradigm of Reform ===
*Goals of lawmaking
*Goals of lawmaking
#To create new rights and remedies for victims
#To create new rights and remedies for victims
Line 31: Line 31:
**the Act was the result of "passionate and informal national debate" among Americans that lasted a decade, and this debate is what gave the Act its "culture-shifting" power
**the Act was the result of "passionate and informal national debate" among Americans that lasted a decade, and this debate is what gave the Act its "culture-shifting" power
**because the Act was passed by Congress it was received as more legitimate, giving it "rule-shifting" power
**because the Act was passed by Congress it was received as more legitimate, giving it "rule-shifting" power
=== iii. When "Rule-Shifting" Becomes "Culture-Shifting" ===

Revision as of 03:44, 19 April 2024

"Bleeding Heart: Reflections On Using the Law to Make Social Change"

Thesis: understanding the interrelationship between law and culture, and the use of law for social change

  • Goals of legal advocates for gay rights:
  1. Protection from discrimination
  2. Freedom from intrusion and harassment
  3. Some degree of recognition of queer relationships
  • New York is culturally more tolerant of queerness, but legally offers no protections/recognition
  • New Zealand is culturally intolerant of queerness, but legally offers protections/recognition
  • Assumptions:
  1. Society needs change, and there are people committed to that change
  2. Employing the law to make change is appropriate

i. The New Zealand Conundrum

  • The 'conundrum': New Zealand is legally progressive with respect to queer protections, but is culturally conservative in this respect
  • social change and legal change do not always walk hand-in-hand
    • "one does not stimulate the other"

ii. A Paradigm of Reform

  • Goals of lawmaking
  1. To create new rights and remedies for victims
  2. To alter the conduct of the government
  3. To alter the conduct of citizens/private entities
  4. To express a new moral/standard
  5. To change cultural attitudes/patterns
    • "rule-shifting": the traditional role of the law in expressing the formal rulemaking/enforcement function for society
      • the first three goals comprise this role
    • "culture-shifting": advancing the rights and interests of people who have been treated poorly by the law and by the culture, promoting values that should be rights
      • the fourth and fifth goals comprise this role
  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("The Act")
    • it had both "rule" and "cultural-shifting" power and met all five goals of lawmaking
    • the Act was the result of "passionate and informal national debate" among Americans that lasted a decade, and this debate is what gave the Act its "culture-shifting" power
    • because the Act was passed by Congress it was received as more legitimate, giving it "rule-shifting" power

iii. When "Rule-Shifting" Becomes "Culture-Shifting"