While I have enjoyed much of the reading up until this point, this section “Beautiful, Difficult, Powerful” has left a bad taste in my mouth concerning both the author(s) (The Chrysalis Collective) and transformative/restorative justice. While it is possible that there are restorative justice practices that may work, the specific process described in this chapter of The Revolution Starts at Home fills me with dread and sourness.
For starters, I wonder if the Chrysalis Collective would have gone to the same lengths in an effort to transform the offender Tom if he hadn’t already been a member of their activist community. If he had just been some guy who acquaintance raped their friend, would they have cared so much about his well being and reformation? Would it have been worth it to them to dedicate so much energy into trying to make him see the error of his ways in such a deliberately gentle way? Personally, this feels counterintuitive to me. I can only assume that Tom has deeply violated the politics he claims to advocate for, and if I were in this situation it would completely destroy my trust not only in Tom as a person but in Tom’s contributions to activism. Shouldn’t we throw it out if it’s built on rot?
I found the insistent attempts at gentleness towards Tom and intentional lack of shaming rubbed me the wrong way as well. The use of the word “aggressor” to describe Tom instead of things like “rapist” or “offender” to avoid using criminal language unnerved me. While the Chrysalis Collective claimed this was not to diminish the severity of what Tom had done, to me it absolutely did. What Tom did was rape. He is a rapist. Not calling a spade a spade in this case feels again like leniency granted because of his status in the community. Had the assault been by a stranger, or happened in a more violent manner, I’m not convinced this group would have thought restorative justice was the right path.
The transformative justice procedure described in the chapter feels incredibly vague, still ultimately offender-centric, and gave me no confidence that it would genuinely succeed in transforming Tom. It did not feel that Tom was facing any concrete consequences for his actions. In my sophomore year, I was brought before the honor council for plagiarism (due to unclear instructions on an assignment), and part of my punishment was to write a 10 page paper on why plagiarism is wrong and how I’ll never do it again. It was the part I took by far the least seriously, and wrote only to get it over with. I learned nothing from that paper. This approach feels like the equivalent of that to me. I don’t know Tom, but I worry that this process leaves too much room for compliance just to make it end faster. Since he will be remaining in the community and his status has not changed, why should he feel like he needs to learn from his behavior? How can they really measure the accountability they claim to be holding him to and if it’s actually working?
The Chrysalis Collective explicitly states that Diane’s needs were often overlooked in their meetings because they became so focused on Tom’s reformation. I don’t believe Diane could get the necessary justice and healing from this process that it set out to provide her. The organization is so focused on Tom and his feelings, it felt as though Diane was an afterthought. It felt like they had decided she could deal with it herself, as long as they were there to validate her feelings. This did not feel like a productive healing process to me, but to each their own.
Ultimately, restorative justice has never been successfully taught to me as a viable system of justice. Reading this passage seemed to solidify this view in my mind. I didn’t find any of their technique to be beautiful, difficult, or powerful. I found it to be distressingly misguided, hypocritical, and unable to satisfy the goals it set out to achieve.
I’m looking forward to discussing this in class, but I did want to push on one thing you said here – the point of community accountability is to deal with how we approach violence and harm when they are perpetrated not just by “some guy” who can easily be dismissed but by members of our communities – to deal with people who cause harm as whole people. I also have some concerns about the Chrysalis Collective piece, but this aspect is very important to return, I think.