|
Rage and State PrisonHow do we reach agreement on controversial issues? Can we do it by attacking those whose ideas are uncool, or do we have to develop some kind of criterion for coolness? In other words, we are going to have to distinguish rage expressed as hypocrisy from rage based on real social conditions. There is a difference between living for comfort and glory versus honestly facing the primary issues such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, and discrimination against mental health clients.
We must have a rational way of dealing with the direct face of racism, or our rage will be secondary in importance to peoples rage at society. With racism, one place to start is to put a state prison support component into our self-help organizing. Our target is that people need to know how to live within the understanding that they are being judged by the consequences of their actions. We need to provide the support process for people to learn how to be responsible this way and earn their own respect. If we can connect based on this kind of accountable sense of self-worth,
then maybe we can all get along.
If we are working on finding the correct interpretations that enable us to be accountable, then we will be able to have reasonable
discussions about what is controversial. Then we will be able to
develop the capacity to work
out collectively meaningful boundaries for productive and visionary behavior.
Until then, we are going to make mistakes and
attack those who are actually intending to make contributions.
:-(
Andrew PhelpsJose Rangel |
|