Last night's event with David Batstone et al. was really compelling. I'm anxious to read his book Not For Sale, see the films Trade and Amazing Grace, look into the organizations represented (Polaris Project, Free the Slaves, and Int'l Justice Mission, which I'm still fairly unfamiliar with), etc. A couple things that got me thinking:
-The woman from IJM (whose name now escapes me) brought up the fact that this is not just a poverty-related issue. My initial internal response was "yes, it is - how can you deny that almost all, if not all, people that are victims of human trafficking are impoverished? This is definitely an issue tied up with issues of poverty." However, as I listened to her explanation, it made complete sense. I don't think she was denying that poverty is definitely tied up in this discussion (decisions to take part in such a business is often because it is a solution to putting food on the table, shelter over a family's head, etc.) - but I'd say it's more about a type of spiritual poverty - brokenness, if you will.
She said something to the effect that human trafficking is not caused by poverty; it's caused by evil. And as many problems as I have with using words like evil and sin, I think this is a perfect situation in which to explore how evil and sin (and/ore brokenness/spiritual poverty) are at work in the world. One thing that's been said over and over around the issue of human trafficking/global slave trade is that what's so hopeful about the situation is that it's such a bi-partisan issue - no one could possibly be "for" human trafficking, once made aware of it. The only ones "for" it are those directly profitting from the business.
So, then there's the question - so what do those that are profitting say when confronted with the wrongness of what they're doing? (And that's really kind of what this whole movement is about - putting laws into place and enforcing them, so that people that attempt to do this are kept in check and prevented from doing the wrong thing.) And what compels them to get into human trafficking instead of some other profitable business (whether legal or illegal)? Do they not realize that it's wrong? Do they think, oh, I'm not really responsible, because I'm only the middle man? Or, do they not feel they have a choice (whether from personal coercion, or because of the need for money)? Is there a psychological disconnect? Difference of cultural/family values/morals (i.e. maybe a moral code including that all humans are equal wasn't implicitly or explicitly taught in some homes, and/or maybe some folks aren't born with such an inborn notion)? Evil? Brokenness? Kind of big theological questions to consider.
-My other big question to explore, which is related to the above, and really more about researching what the reality of history has been, and not so much just working out heady/lofty theology/opinions - is why exactly this is being called "modern-day" slavery. It seems that human enslavement (and trafficking, I would suppose) is about as old as humans. Is it that in more ancient history, the enslavement wasn't on the same global scale as say, the slave trade that's more familiar to us between Africa/the Americas and Europe/the States? And then, once that was abolished, new forms of global human trafficking developed under the radar, and we're just now really getting a grasp for what that slave trade looks like? I guess one question I have is, how long before the big movement to end slave trade (a la Wilburforce and his cronies) was global slave trade actually going on? Was their "ending of slave trade" just an ending of one kind of slave trade, and the rest just kept on going until they've taken their current forms? Or was it really abolished then, and it's just re-developed since then? If so, when did it make its "comeback"? Um, yeah - so, I really don't know a lot about the history of human trafficking and slave trade, and I'm just curious, because I think it has implications for how we need to deal with it, since it'd help to know just how deeply imbedded it is in our lives, and what those threads look like.
-Ooh, new question/idea - given my above two thoughts, it occurred to me that some of what I'm saying could actually somehow lead toward a cultural relativism which would say that human trafficking is actually kind of ok - because, how can we say from outside of a culture (whether that be in another country, or maybe even the "culture" of human trafficking that exists in the States) in which human trafficking is the norm, that it's something we can claim that needs to be abolished. In answer to this:
1) that is only anywhere near a valid argument if in the context of slave trade in and amongst one or a few foreign countries, and not in the context of what's happening in the States and globally.
2) I think one aspect of globalization and all the inter-cultural interaction at play in the world is a possible social evolution. And maybe even with a certain notion of a telos towards which we're moving, or a sense of "progress" over time - or maybe just the sense that we're always in a process of trying to heal the brokenness that we've inherited over history. I'm thinking of my Conquest of America class my senior year of college, and how my professor talked about how in the era of Incan culture in Peru, tribes in the area would kind of take turns "being in charge," enslaving those of the other tribes - which is part of what led to their downfall when the Europeans came - they thought this would be yet another empire that would rise and fall - it was just their turn. Little did they know, this new people wouldn't be interested in a short reign. Another difference between that culture and, say our modern-day Western culture, is that a game existed then in which the winner was killed by the other players - this makes completely and utterly no sense in any framework in which we work. When we look at certain cultural norms from the past, we can say, you know, maybe they had something we've lost in terms of communitarianism - but I'm really kind of glad that we didn't all take turns enslaving each other and don't get killed when we win a game. For better or for worse, we evolve - we've evolved, we're evolving, things are changing all the time. And not singular cultures evolving over time, but multiples cultures interacting and transforming each other over time. So, human trafficking is then something we can say we genuinely don't approve of - it's not something that we want right now (because that's all we have "control" over), and it's not something that we think should exist anywhere in the world (because we're all interconnected and a part of this Body, whether you tag on "on Christ" or not, and so we should be able to work for the good of our brothers and sisters without it being considered "meddling" as an outsider).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
the thoughts about IJM lady were helpful, as i too was concerned about her comment about poverty not being a factor. if we believe in some concept of human depravity, then it makes sense that all laws and govt. and social structures are simply - in crude terms - depravity management tools. if we all had pure hearts and good intentions toward others, then theoretically, we wouldn't need laws. it makes me think more generally about poverty and why - at the same time - laws will never end it (b/c laws cannot make people morally better) but we still need good laws to try - in an imperfect way - to protect us from our own (and others') evilness. so with trafficking... as long as people are evil at heart (which is always), we need laws and enforcement to stem that tide.
as for the arguments against cultural relativism, i am not sure they were compelling. as much as i am a postmodern baby when it comes to my epistemology, i also balk at any standard for behavior or morality that is not "fixed" in some substantial way. simply getting a community (whether a local one or the world one) to agree on some arbitrary standard of "goodness" isn't compelling to me. i abhor the colonialist legacy, but i question the anthropology and history that cast other precolonial cultures as any qualitatively "better" or more peace-loving (see Marshall Sahlins, the anthropologist for more on this stuff). democracy (or communitarianism) is no way to figure out morality.
In response to Bob:
1) I don't know that people are evil at heart. I'm still figuring out whether I believe in original sin (duh - my deal with sin vs. brokenness) or not. I tend to say that we've all got evil and goodness at heart - so they both come from the same source (which I'd call God), and it's interesting to see how that all plays out.
2) I'm not arguing that we're "getting people to agree" on an arbitrary standard of "goodness," like we've got something we want people to "catch onto," because we've figured it out and others haven't. I'm saying that standards are in place, almost everyone around can recognize them (I'd say partially because of something inborn, and partially because they've been socialized to recognize them), but they shift (like plates shifting in the earth maybe?) over time. That doesn't make those standards any less salient - they're there, and you can put your foot down on them and not worry about falling through, but I wouldn't guarantee that in 500 years, you'd even recognize that same terrain (whether because of shifting of plates, or because of things like climate change, where land gets covered by water, or mountains get eroded). The spirit (in the plates metaphor, the earth) that they come from or are made of is still the same, but its form looks different.
3) I also abhor the colonialist legacy and question the casting of other pre-colonial cultures as qualitatively "better" or more peace-loving. Neither democracy nor communitarianism are the way to "figure out morality" - though I'm not really sure what "figuring out morality" means, and though it's important, I'm not sure it's the most important thing to figure/work out in life.
Whoa! I love this stuff...especially because I have some issues with all of the talk on human trafficking. Okay, here goes:
1. Initial reactions: I wasn't very impressed with the event. I thought that it was fairly compelling and interesting, but not as informative as I wanted. Most of this comes from the expectations I had going into the event. I assumed that it would be more specific information (rather than anecdotal, emotional stories, though I completely understand that this is very difficult to separate, and should not be separated, from the issue) and more action-oriented (which is why I really appreciated JW's question/charge to the presenters in regards to concrete actions they will take that we can get involved in).
2. I'm not into evil. So I was a little put off when the IJM lady said that. I think I've mentioned that I don't really believe people are evil but rather ideas or institutions, etc. (which, I know are clearly tied up in people...this is a little convoluted, so I apologize). Anyhow, maybe that is what she meant...maybe she didn't mean evil people but "evil" as some sort of essence or other grossly spiritually sounding sort of thing (gross because I can't think of a better word, not gross as a concept) that can influence people or whatever. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say right there. I think traffickers to some degree just have their priorities screwed up. All kinds of people do not see human life as anything special, or at least the lives of some humans. Often they don't see the objects of their victimization as human at all...which is a great psychological tool. My guess is somewhere they know that it is not quite right to do what they are doing but through their own choices, callousness, experiences, influences, motivations, rewards, etc. it's all gotten lost somewhere deep down. It's not an excuse, it's just the best response I can think of. Everything is much deeper and more complex than we like to think. Maybe evil is all of that working together to create a terrifying act.
3. I think that this is called modern day slavery because people think that slavery was abolished. Whether or not slavery was truly abolished is another question. But I think it is similar to how people believe we have conquered prejudice. So now they have subtle prejudice or covert prejudice, which is really just still prejudice. Yes, it has changed a bit, but it is still prejudice (not to mention some of the old fashioned prejudice also still exists). I really think it is more of a marketing tool - to make us think there is a new issue or to remind us that slavery does still exist. It may different or not...and it may have never stopped existing. I have no idea.
4. I don't know if I agree that because people think human trafficking is wrong that it shows that we are evolving. People are killing and abusing people all over the world. People are also stupid. Okay, maybe not stupid but are very easily ignorant in regards to huge disconnects in the way that they view the world and different situations and the way that they act. I see our morality as completely circular or something similar. We think one thing is bad and another is good and then we just swap out or change our minds or whatever. We think it's brutal to stab men with spears and knives but it's okay to bomb cities - both were in the name of freedom and nationalism (supposedly). Uh, but, I do not believe in moral relativism or cultural relativism for that matter I suppose. Really we're just getting at who is right and who is wrong, correct? We need to be culturally sensitive, but stick to our absolutes. Besides, the majority doesn't equal rightness. There are so many great exceptions to that (MLK Jr) and unfortunately there are many ways to measure morality and I'm not satisfied with any of them.
5. I love that Tim called human trafficking a Pixar movie. It is very true. I heard Gary Haugen speak, and he was great, but it was still very emotional and story-oriented rather than informational. Where's the real meat here? I want to understand and do something not just feel bad.
It would be interesting to talk more in person about the whole evil thing. In some important senses, it is one of those things that can never be quantitatively proven... it is more of a lens through which we see the world. My back-up is that confessional Christianity believes in original sin (although interpreted differently by different traditions). I guess I (surprise) see more evidence that we are somehow really fundamentally corrupted than I do that we are fundamentally good. I think earlier in my short life I might have been more likely to think we could go hours, days, even weeks without "sinning," but life has shown me that my personal default is selfishness, pride, and resentment. I might be socialized not to say it every 5 minutes, but that doesn't make my heart clean. And I think it takes more "effort" to do good than to be bad... more effort to go the extra mile than to do what I want... extra effort to live in authentic community than to live alone. Even biologically, self-preservation is the norm, not altruism. I just think that there is much more evidence - both in the world and in my heart - that my default settings are not so great, and with the apostle Paul, I am constantly seeing the good I should do and not doing it. I don't think that's because I am fundamentally good. When doing good is more of an effort than being selfish, I think that selfishness is my default and anything other than that is... supernatural, divine, socialized, etc... but not inborn.
At risk of becoming a bit too heady in this discussion, it seems to me what we are really talking about is our definition of evil. Like Jessica, I definitely struggle with wondering if the true definition of evil is misunderstanding, cultural lenses, true pain and suffering, and a lack of options - in essence, brokenness. If we use this definition , I can definitely see evil in all of us and can point to Christian sense of good to guide our transformation process.This distinction in definition is essential to how we address evil. If people are truly bad, full of sin and purely selfish motives, conflict seems to inevitably amount to violence. We are fighting the evil ones... seeking to eliminate those who are wrong. Uprooting evil becomes a language of distruction. But, if evil is the result of internal struggle, pain, misunderstanding and brokenness, our attempt at dealing with evil forms around affirmation, understanding, selflessness and relationship. This is the form of reconciliation that we are called to when Jesus told us to love our enemies. This is the evil that I am prepared to address, if I am committed to a life of nonviolence.
When you look at it that way, the IJM woman's comment makes complete sense. She is saying that slavery is not caused by an external condition like poverty, but by internal struggle that has to be met and dealt with at its deepest causes. I agree with that and in many ways feel that putting the blame on poverty goes back to the mistake many liberals make in eliminating any sense of personal responsibility. It was uncomfortable to hear, but I think an even greater challenge if we are truly committed to non-violence.
Finally, in this extraordinarily long post, I wanted to address the terminology of modern day slavery. I think it is a whole different issue in that the slavery that Not For Sale addresses is not one outwardly supported as an institution of the state. It is not written as legal. It is not for the public to see. Therefore, our style of addressing this issue must be different. We cant look to have a similar abolition movement... there is a whole new set of challenges. In some ways, the term Modern Day Slavery commissions our modern day society in a new way that requires a different depth and approach than abolition movements in the past.
Post a Comment