Trust and...

these are more entries to Post Secret

you can find a link to the site on the left but be forewarned the images and ideas expressed are not tame. None the less I think this site provides an interesting commentary on the shape of our world.

Immigrants should be sterilized…

Today in my sociology class we watched a National Film Board documentary called, "The Sterilization of Leilani Muir". Here's the basics:

Leilani was born into a family where she was largely unwanted, and had a difficult childhood. Her mother was often inebriated and withheld food from Leilani. However, Leilani reportedly maintained an average performance in school. The only allegations made against her by the school were for stealing food. As Leilani aged, her mother tried to find ways to remove her from the family. When she was eight, Leilani's mother placed her in the Midnapore Convent for a month. Then, in 1953, Leilani's mother sent an application for Leilani to attend the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives (a.k.a the Michener Center) in Red Deer, Alberta. At that time Leilani was rejected due to a high volume of patients, but she was later accepted, on July 12, 1955, shortly before her 11th birthday. Leilani was accepted into the school solely on the basis of information provided by her mother, without any diagnostic testing. Before Leilani could be accepted into PTS, the program required a signature from a guardian permitting the legal enforcement of compulsory sterilization. Leilani's mother used her then boyfriend's (future husband's) name, Harley Scorah, to agree to the sterilization of her daughter. Leilani saw her mother only intermittently over the years until her departure from the school at the age of 20. (read more here)

So Leilani scores 64 on an IQ test and is confirmed for sterilization. The reason: that she should not pass along her deficiencies to her progeny. She's told that she is going to get an appendectomy and when she goes under the knife she also gets a tubal ligation. Later on in life she finds out that she cannot have kids. She also scores an even 101 on a subsequent IQ test. She successfully sues the Alberta Government and wins ¾ of a million dollars in compensation for it suffering.

What surprised me about the documentary is the connection that this legislation had to anti-immigration and racist ideologies. Here's a brief description of the bill's history and impetus:

Here's the line that stands out for me (it was an aspect of the documentary that was especially disturbing as well):

The United Farmers of Alberta (that's right it's the UFA we all know and love?), a grassroots movement, responded quickly to the Survey and called on the government to draft legislation for life segregation or sterilization of the feebleminded. The weight of the survey's results, combined with growing fear that new immigrants were inferior, had generated fears over the protection of land and jobs.

It is irrefutable that anti-immigration sentiments fueled what is ostensibly a not so distant cousin of the Arian race policies of Nazi Germany. Recently, I received some of those ubiquitous forwarded emails which expressed some very strong anti-immigration sentiments. While I understand that immigration policy is very complex and nuanced – it is still very disturbing to read these electronic propaganda pieces which essentially promote much of the same racist overtones.

deviance

In my class on Deviance and Social Control we talked about how difficult it is to really nail down a good definition of deviance.

There are a few basic takes on this…

There's the absolutist approach – this defines deviance as something that is somehow intrinsically or inherently wrong. That is, there is something about the action itself that makes it wrong. This definition would, as you can imagine, be pretty rigid and inflexible. You might say that me wearing a speedo is always wrong but you'd be hard pressed to keep that perspective with regards to my personal/romantic dress code in my own home.

There's the Statistical deviation approach – which suggest that behaviours that are statistically rare are deviant. Almost no one holds to this view. There are many things that are statistically rare but are hardly deviant. The fact that I can imitate Nacho Libre's famous love song might be rare but it is hardly deviant.

There's the Harmfulness approach – which suggests that if a certain action is harmful in some way it must be deviant. This seems like a decent approach but we know that there are plenty of things that aren't really harmful that are still considered deviant. The fact that I can regurgitate the meal I just ate and show it to you may be deviant but it isn't especially harmful to me or you. I can pick my nose and it hurts no one unless I have just cut my nails and make my nose bleed…you get the point…

The normative approach suggests that culture sets the guidelines for what is right and wrong. The question is here who controls culture.

This approach is similar to the constructionist approach that says that deviance is a social construction whose purpose is to control society in some significant way. Deviance is defined in a struggle between the powerful and those who comply. This is kind of like when I was a youth pastor on a weekend retreat. When I entered the cabin for night what I said was the law. If someone wanted to fart my recourse was to give them the Human Blanket (deviant in itself from some points of view). If I wanted to fart – I did. I got to say what was what.

The reactive approach is almost opposite of the absolutist approach and prides itself on being the most objective and unbiased. This one basically contends that something is deviant only because and when it elicits a reaction especially a negative one. There is nothing intrinsically deviant in and of itself – just as a result of a negative response to some action or condition. This view would say that there is nothing wrong with me leaving my socks on the floor around the house – it is only my wife's strong and negative reaction that makes it such. Try explaining that to Char…

So then the question comes – how do you define deviance?

Funny thing is that Christianity has been preoccupied with sin for millennia. We have made it a huge part of our theological enterprise. Of course we all are most comfortable with the way we define deviance for ourselves but the Christian perspective suggests that not only can our own ideas not be reliable in determining what is right and wrong but there is something that transcends all these approaches and claims the authority to create standards of deviance. I remember debating at length as a boy whether certain things were wrong in certain situations and not in others or whether there was this absolute standard that made things right or wrong.