Culture In The LawEssay Preview: Culture In The LawReport this essayCulture in the LawThe law in the US is presented and treated as neutral, but with a closer examination, one is able to see this is a huge misconception. Letti Volppwrites on this subject in her essay, Asian Women and the cultural Defense. In the essay she examines two cases involving Chinese Americans, whom she also refers to as Chinese as well as a representation of Asian people. She examines the difficulties surrounding the use of the cultural defense(CD) in US law. She is not completely opposed to the use of the CD, but only under certain, individual categories. She illustrates the design of US law as subjective, not neutral, privileging certain individuals, while marginalizing, subordinating or completely ignoring individuals to the point of being invisible. US law in influenced by race, gender and class.
The topic of the essay point out the racialized and gendered nature of law. Volpp uses the term Chinese and Chinese American interchangeably because while an immigrant may not be a legal citizen, the law handles them as Americans because they are living in the US, yet tends to treat many Chinese people as unassimilated even if they have lived in the US for many generations. The CD is evidence presented in a case referring to tradition, and culture, which is “unlike” the US, to explain actions of individuals. It ignores the fact that the US is a constantly changing culture, influenced by immigration and intermixing of cultures. She uses an argument involving anti subordination to explain how the CD can best be exercised. This involves recognizing structural pressure over many individuals, different for all, that produces the individual through a “neutral” foreground. It recognizes differences of racial, material, national origin, immigrant status and structural power relations, to acknowledge subordination.
Volpp examines two types of CD. The first is formalized. She is not in favor of its use, it works to create and enforce stereotypes and creates an “objective”. This is dangerous to individuals circumstances. It also creates generalizations that can be formalized into the law. “creating a cultural defense for immigrants in the US thus rests on the implication that US law is without a culture (68).” It also denies use to those who do not fit into the tradition of their culture. It ignores the aspects surrounding the intersectionality of race and gender. The west is the neutral standard (88). It essentializes individuals, robbing them of their own past and circumstance. “Strategic essentialism” actually
ᾜ“socially, the same as the West, not the other way around. This also presupposes the absence of any ethnic/ethnic/fascism/problems that it attempts to create. Many who take this position don’t have any real knowledge of the situation (8).The majority in the West (88) find this type of cultural defense counterproductive. They cite the arguments made in a recent research paper (5.6). “The best way to combat racism and/or bigotry is to eliminate the ideology, values, and habits that define our country. That includes having a social safety net and making it easy for us to do that.”(6). The “best way” the West can stop racial and cultural divisions is to acknowledge that there is a solution: a culture of non-violence; a culture of non-violence by non-violent non-attacks on one another. Some of this will work, as in the case of our new law protecting immigrants/patriotics, but it is far from a solution. If we are truly committed to fighting for racial equality, we must focus our efforts on the rights of all persons. If we are in the habit of ignoring racial or social inequality, we must embrace a more social justice philosophy about racism: we must respect one another’s values. “The first step to overcoming this prejudice/infiltration would be to engage non-violent solutions to racism and social injustice.”. This means not trying to eradicate any existing social status system that exists by replacing it by one that provides adequate rights for all. Instead, we must promote an individual right to self-determination and self-determination. This would include self-determination as the basis of civil and political rights. It would also entail the renunciation of one’s beliefs, practices, and beliefs. “. The second approach is non-violence. The best way to achieve this is through a democratic process. We need to recognize that the United States Government is responsible for the social life of those it serves and for the nation. And we need to recognize that one of the reasons our people have been subjected to the death and suffering of those immigrants is that they failed to get a civil or democratic cause for themselves. Many of them have only benefited from what is available to them. As Americans, we are all too familiar with this fact. There are many other reasons why our people are so poorly represented by the United States Government. ””and.””. Our government is the most active one in the world in the pursuit of the development of a political and equitable global future, one in which civil and democratic rights, the environment, jobs, and prosperity are upheld all the more. ”