Implementation of Theory, on what scale is what we learned effective?

This week had a strong focus on subject formation and the racialization of space. Razak and Gotell talk at length about how the intent of the law is circumvented through the use of historically constructed ideas to undermine the subjectivity of the, often First Nation, women. As always I am interested in how this can be applied and the issues in taking these ideas into practice.

                I have been thinking of this vaguely over the past couple weeks but I feel as if one of the larger issues with implementation is the scale and receptivity of the idea on multiple levels. Obviously there is the interpersonal scale, which would be the most effective means to implement any idea, but it is limited in scope. Furthermore, it is also problematized by the existence of the racialized spaces discussed by Razak. This is not to say that it is impossible to communicate and implement ivory tower ideas to communities that have been marginalized and isolated, but it is admitting that these scenarios would have the most resistance and issues in implementation.  

                Both Razak and Gotell discuss the legal application of consent laws. Clearly the neo-liberal government application of consent law has been problematic but Gotell goes further to even point out the application and adherence of these laws to economic utility and risk. What disturbed me was the discussion of a perpetrator taking “serious risk by founding an assumption of consent on passivity and non-verbal responses” (Gotell, 876). This is not a risk; it is a violation of the other party. The risk is being charged in this scenario. Comparing this to the “risk” of not getting caught for charges like theft of murder break down because in this description of “risk,” there is no admittance of immoral act.

                So the interpersonal level  is not a possible scale to affect large change, especially because the legal system is too flawed with the social legacy of race and the “risky” body used to deny women their right to safety and reinforce oppressive social structures rather than protect its citizens. Then what means are there to combat the socio-historic constructs of race and the racialized violability of bodies? This is especially disheartening when there is already so much power and inertia driving the reinforcement of these concepts through the legal system and ignorance driven social interactions.

                Dean Spade also speaks on the formation of the Trans subject and the resistance structures that they face through the law. What I enjoyed most about the lecture we viewed was the suggestion Spade provided on mobilizing Trans communities. Spade pointed out that the prison system was a significant issue for Trans people, albeit not the largest but a tangible subject from which to use as a starting point to unpack and, eventually, solve the issues in the treatment of these people. Spade showed, tangentially, that arguments and articulations against the institutions which reinforce oppression are a good starting point for mobilization.