The concept of
identity is fluid, changing with contemporary politics. As language evolves to unite
people – through understandings of ideas like “nationality”, “race”, or “ethnicity” – the idea of
‘Self’ reflects these changes. Identity is not definitive, but is
interdependent and inter-relational.
The recent news
story about Romany child abduction feeds into this sense of identity:
the media constantly questions who belongs in our society and who does not. We
typify social categories so as to relate to each other more easily, and we
self-identify in opposition to the Other. This Other is, in turn, defined by the Law.
The Law outlines
who is worthy of protection. Nominally, modern laws in
Europe operate on the basis of a rights-based framework. The European media,
however, often portrays a supremacist outlook whereby the victims are largely white,
Christian, and ‘Us’. The adoption of the name “Blonde Angel”
for an abducted child is a clear manifestation of this perspective.
In Northern
Ireland (NI), there is a battle within the law to define where the lines of
protection should be drawn. The Appeal Court
has stretched the relevant language to include unmarried couples in the list of
legitimate adoptive parents in Northern Ireland (in line with English Law and Scots Law). NI Minister of Health, Edwin Poots, has challenged the Appeal Court’s
decision and will follow the issue to the UK Supreme Court in defiance of a
decision that accepts gay and unmarried parents as legitimate adoptive parents
in NI.
The idea of
mainstream norms is a product of dogma. The ideal that all humans should behave
in a particular way could be construed as moral authoritarianism. Yet, this is
how the law’s authority functions. Within this model of government, the Law
dictates what we can and cannot do, what we can and cannot say, who we can and
cannot be.
Dogma changes
through language. Where words evolve, the subtext and context of norms alter.
Theoretically, therefore, the person who can control language can control
society. The usual mode of control thus far in the 21st century is via the Rule
of Law. The law may criminalise attitudes so long as the restrictions are
within the accepted bounds of the time. (For example, restrictions on liberty
must be “necessary in a democratic society” or “in the public interest”, etc.
Of course, these phrases are subject to change according to which
judges/systems are interpreting.)
The law serves
to maintain a concept of identity – so as to uphold Order - and therefore necessarily propounds a
concept of the Other. Giorgio Agamben elaborated on this in the 1990s (Homo Sacer). His theory of
“bare life” suggested that the marginalisation of certain groups was inherent to
democracy in its present paradigm.
Without a
comparator, the projected benefits of maintaining particular norms are not apparent. This comparator is manifested as the Other, who is excluded in law. John Pilger has recently
released his latest film, called “Utopia”, which addresses the treatment of
aboriginal peoples by the Australian state. The aboriginals were excluded so as to prioritise Australian colonial values and alienate the culture of the native population. This is one of the many historical
examples of groups' legitimate exclusion in the law. Jewish citizens in
Germany were discriminated legitimately within the laws of 1930s Germany, and Palestinian
citizens of Israel have been treated differently under the law more recently, with horrifying
consequences.
In this manner, it is arguable that the lifestyle of the Romany people is
marginalised legitimately today.
No comments:
Post a Comment