When you have been systematically oppressed, is it morally defensible to violently attack your attacker in order to deliver justice?
In "The Author in Conversation," as interviewed by Gayatri Spivak, Mahasweta Devi explains that Mary has dealed "out justice for a crime committed against the entire tribal society." The crime, in this case, is attempted rape, which, among the tribals, is the considered the greatest offense. Mary dealed out justice by murdering her offender, Tehslidar. In this society, the only feasible way to deliver justice for a crime so heinois is murder because the crime is not just personal, but one against the entire society. Raping one women, idealogically, is like saying you disrespect all women and are willing to rape all of them. Thus, the crime becomes one against all of society. Revenge is the equivalent of justice "when," as Devi puts it, "the system fails in--justice."
This same principle applies to Ushu's story from Half the Sky. Ushu organized the women in the village to kill the man who terrorized the village and raped so many women in the village. The violence is not only justified, but the equivalent of justice, partially because of the magnitude of Asho Bhagat's crimes, but mostly because the government, the system, failed to protect the women from Bhagat and so the women had no other choice to escape from the violence.
This is really complicated moral question. In ideal principle, I want to say that violence is never okay. But I think that's true because there are other, better, non-violent ways to solve problems. I think my conclusion is that violence is not, cannot, and will not be OKAY, but may be necessarry in a certain situation to solve a problem.
With the situation in Ushu's village, I can't celebrate the violence, but recognize that it was necessarry and the only feasible solution. in Mary's situation, where revenge really equates to justice, I don't think it had been needed. Even though accoring to cultural tradition, rape is the worst offense, Mary's actions don't seem necessarry, but a response according to culture, tradition, and pride.
There are a few different definitions of justified. One definition is having done something according to good and legitimate reason. One is to declare free from blame.
Both Mary and Ushu can be said to have good and legitimate reason, though I think Mary's is questionable. Neither are free from blame. Ushu is free from legal blame (like victims who use self-defense are free from legal blame), but not from what I would call moral blame. Her violence should not celebrated, because it is principally wrong. It should be seen for what it is or, I guess more accurately, should be: not bloody vengeance, but the only possible solution. When revenge is brought into the equation, then the violence is just as disgusting as the offenders and cannot be just. Justice means the equality of beign fair or reasonable, while delivering implies something that is wholly unjust: reciprical action, or revenge.
In "The Author in Conversation," as interviewed by Gayatri Spivak, Mahasweta Devi explains that Mary has dealed "out justice for a crime committed against the entire tribal society." The crime, in this case, is attempted rape, which, among the tribals, is the considered the greatest offense. Mary dealed out justice by murdering her offender, Tehslidar. In this society, the only feasible way to deliver justice for a crime so heinois is murder because the crime is not just personal, but one against the entire society. Raping one women, idealogically, is like saying you disrespect all women and are willing to rape all of them. Thus, the crime becomes one against all of society. Revenge is the equivalent of justice "when," as Devi puts it, "the system fails in--justice."
This same principle applies to Ushu's story from Half the Sky. Ushu organized the women in the village to kill the man who terrorized the village and raped so many women in the village. The violence is not only justified, but the equivalent of justice, partially because of the magnitude of Asho Bhagat's crimes, but mostly because the government, the system, failed to protect the women from Bhagat and so the women had no other choice to escape from the violence.
This is really complicated moral question. In ideal principle, I want to say that violence is never okay. But I think that's true because there are other, better, non-violent ways to solve problems. I think my conclusion is that violence is not, cannot, and will not be OKAY, but may be necessarry in a certain situation to solve a problem.
With the situation in Ushu's village, I can't celebrate the violence, but recognize that it was necessarry and the only feasible solution. in Mary's situation, where revenge really equates to justice, I don't think it had been needed. Even though accoring to cultural tradition, rape is the worst offense, Mary's actions don't seem necessarry, but a response according to culture, tradition, and pride.
There are a few different definitions of justified. One definition is having done something according to good and legitimate reason. One is to declare free from blame.
Both Mary and Ushu can be said to have good and legitimate reason, though I think Mary's is questionable. Neither are free from blame. Ushu is free from legal blame (like victims who use self-defense are free from legal blame), but not from what I would call moral blame. Her violence should not celebrated, because it is principally wrong. It should be seen for what it is or, I guess more accurately, should be: not bloody vengeance, but the only possible solution. When revenge is brought into the equation, then the violence is just as disgusting as the offenders and cannot be just. Justice means the equality of beign fair or reasonable, while delivering implies something that is wholly unjust: reciprical action, or revenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment