*I was without power all night, and until about ten minutes ago after a crashing storm last evening; it fascinates me to be reminded (again) how dependent on power, and the internet, I am, we all are, and how lucky. Thank you, NYSEG crew…
This past weekend, listening to a political pod, which I do for fun (self-identified political nerd-gurl overthissaway), I actually learned something, a new term. When I learn something, anything, especially if it resonates as true, and profound or profoundly commonsensical, it makes me happy. I was making cilantro chutney, listening while rinsing and chopping and weeding out the bad bits, pausing occasionally to blend; the speakers were the pod’s host, Dahlia Lithwick, and her guest, Anatchenker Asorio, who is a communications expert. Their conversation was primarily concerned with the one-year anniversary of Dobbs, as well as the ways in which Democrats need to and can more successfully message about abortion, health care, and book bans, among other issues.
Anat’s use of the term system justification, which she went on to explain the meaning of, thrilled me; given definition, context, and examples, the term and its meaning felt both true and right. System justification. Here’s a short definition from 2012, published by the American Psychological Association, from a paper authored by J.T. Jost and J. van der Toom: ‘according to system justification theory, people are motivated (to varying degrees depending upon situational and dispositional factors) to defend, bolster, and justify prevailing social, economic, and political arrangements (i.e., the status quo). System justification motivation is theorized to manifest itself in a number of different ways (e.g., in terms of stereotyping, ideology, attribution), to occur implicitly (i.e., non-consciously) as well as explicitly, and to serve underlying epistemic, existential, and relational needs.’
Anat also explained in the interview that (surprise!), conservatives are much more likely to exhibit system justification as they are – understandably – attached to institutionalized, systemic, and historic norms that benefit their position, or their perceived position, in the hierarchy. Ahem, at the top of the hierarchy, that is. An example: the manner in which many Republicans minimize the riots on January 6th of 2020, but have maximized the protests by people of color and allies after the death of George Floyd while in police custody. One riot is seen as understandable, or at least excusable, not a big deal, blowing off steam, a few bad eggs; the other as dangerous civil unrest at its worst. People who practice system justification look away from injustices baked into the system and the effects thereof because a. it doesn’t impact their lives; they don’t know anyone in the criminal justice system; they live in bubbles of whiteness and/or privilege, b. it supports their existing biases and prejudices; they can’t understand why ‘these people’ don’t simply comply with the cops when pulled over; have never, ever been stopped regularly for ‘driving while white’, or in any way targeted by law enforcement including in their homes, c. everything will be fine, there is order to the universe, things’ll be okay; people just need to calm down, the man/woman/child the police just murdered was a well-known thief or was doing something provocative/stupid/why was he/she even there; no one I know personally has ever faced life threatening or any other kind of major impact as a result of our funny/just fooling around/kid stuff/typical/boys will be boys/ high-jinks/misdemeanors.
Why change the system when it’s working as it was designed, benefiting those occupying the space at the top, who are overwhelmingly free of the consequences of that system, and even when consequences hit the very privileged, they very are very often minimized by the system. A prime example, one that immediately sprang to my mind while listening to the podcast, was the sentencing of convicted rapist Brock Turner. Turner, as you may recall, was caught by two exchange students raping an unconscious woman next to a dumpster on the campus of Stanford University. The judge, a Stanford grad one could reasonably assume was a teensy bit sympathetic to a ranked collegiate swimmer at Stanford, was later recalled; this recall came about in reaction to his having adopted the minimum sentence in the case. In his pre-sentencing statement, the judge does mention the victim, Jane Doe but spends most of his time justifying his choice to be lenient (and I cannot recommend Jane Doe’s/Chanel Miller’s memoir, Know My Name, highly enough, a book that is so, sooo much more than a memoir). The judge found that in his personal opinion Brock Turner was a good guy, was credibly a decent chap, basically (I will link his entire ruling at the end of this blog post) a guy of good character who had a little too much to drink, but still was a smart, personable young man who had never been arrested for any crime previously, and whose elementary school chum, a girl, vouched for him so – let’s not get carried away, eh? This despite the fact that, unlike in so many rape cases, the vast majority of which never see the inside of a courtroom, there were witnesses, his victim went immediately to the police where the photographic evidence clearly depicted a violent assault, not boozy sex gone wrong, and so much more. Yes, Turner is a registered sex offender, a status he’ll keep for life, and he now goes as Allen Turner because – infamous, and, hey, it sucks to be you, dude. Try not raping, try not being so rapey. And try, Judge Persky, try not to practice systemic justification by giving an astonishingly light sentence to a young white male who attended your alma mater, and while there, as a freshman, violently assaulted a vulnerable young woman.
System justification asks rape victims why they were out in public after dark, or drinking, instead of asking why men rape, or why so many rapes are unreported and so few reported rapes lead to convictions. System justification tells us George Floyd was trying to pass off a counterfeit bill, that Sandra Bland was difficult and ‘non-compliant’ with her arresting officer, that Tamir Rice was carrying what looked like a gun and thus, bang bang you’re dead, you’re all dead. Tamir Rice would’ve been nineteen years old this week, July 25th; he was twelve when he was killed.
We must stop justifying the ways in which the system treats black and brown human beings, treats victims of sexual assault, instead asking how do we create and maintain police departments and investigative units wherein explicit and implicit biases are deeply understood and fought tooth and nail, where de-escalation, and reconciliation, are taught, required, and are the standard whatever the alleged crime, whoever is accused of committing it, in whatever neighborhood. Instead of perpetuating a system that denies the majority of rape victims the support and justice they need and deserve, a system that often blames them for their own sexual assaults, let’s work to identify and prosecute rapists, raise our boys and girls to understand consent, while raising boys who won’t rape. Let’s start by testing the hundreds of thousands of rape kits that languish in storage all over this country. Let’s talk about power, which is what this is all about, who has it, and who doesn’t, and who doesn’t want to give it up, no matter how many Americans – male and female – are sexually assaulted, no matter how many Americans of color die as a result of traffic stops – traffic stops, for playing in a park, with a toy gun, for having too much to drink on an empty stomach at a party also attended by a rapist.
Don’t justify the system, challenge it, change it.
