Stoddard 1997: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
#continuous enforcement of the change | #continuous enforcement of the change | ||
**"culture-shifting" requires all four | **"culture-shifting" requires all four | ||
==== The Breath of Change ==== |
Revision as of 03:51, 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:
- Protection from discrimination
- Freedom from intrusion and harassment
- 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:
- Society needs change, and there are people committed to that change
- 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
- To create new rights and remedies for victims
- To alter the conduct of the government
- To alter the conduct of citizens/private entities
- To express a new moral/standard
- 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
- "rule-shifting": the traditional role of the law in expressing the formal rulemaking/enforcement function for society
- 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"
- Factors that determine when "rule-shifting" becomes "culture-shifting":
- A change that is broad or profound
- Public awareness of that change
- A general sense of the legitimacy (or validity) of the change
- continuous enforcement of the change
- "culture-shifting" requires all four