Subject making

As the theme of this week’s readings have been identified as “Subject making” I am trying to work through the concept of identity in Dean Spade’s lecture. My central focus is on how identities are created by external forces, specifically through law.

Firstly Spade’s call for “trickle up” social justice was eye-opening. To be honest I had naively thought that social justice was already operating under a trickle up policy. Yet as Spade’s direct my attention to Trans* rights there is evidently a gap in my knowledge. This was further exemplified to me whilst watching the clip form Finding Dawn. As Janice Acoos spoke about her upbringing and the multitude of barriers we faced I became keenly aware of the ways in which government institutions have failed her. Of course having seen only a clip I cannot make a blanket statement that no one ever helped her, but I think it is no exaggeration that the system itself failed her as a child, as a woman, as a sex worker. Similarly in Spade’s lecture I was drawn to the ways Trans* were distinctly alienated from conversation of legal rights. In Spade’s American context and Acoos’s Canadian context, it is evident that whatever “social justice” is being performed it is not helping those who are most marginalized.

In relation to how identities are constructed I was struck by Acoos’s comment “[I just thought] that’s how you treated Indian women” when speaking about her own experiences of rape. Her comment was most poignant as it highlights the long colonial history of denigrating Indigenous women, as mentioned in Razack’s article. The maltreatment of Indigenous people, specifically women, is traceable in Canadian law. In contrast Trans* people are not even included in many laws. Legally they have been largely omitted, which causes issues and concerns of its own. So here two identities have had to fight against law to create their own identity.

Furthermore, on the topic of identities within law, I wanted to continue on the discussion from weeks past about our relationships to law enforcement. Although I think Spade makes valid points about resisting inclusion through legalities, he does also acknowledge the necessity of legal rights. Beyond obvious reasons I would argue that one key point of legal inclusion would be the relationship different populations have with law enforcement. The perceptions and assumptions held by society and most importantly those with authoritative power create identities. The continual maltreatment of certain demographics continues to create ‘good’ and ‘bad’ citizens. For example, in my last post I mentioned how privileged I was to have a neutral relationship with police. This neutrality is not apolitical of course, by having no history with the police I am constructed as a ‘good citizen’. Whereas those who are more likely to encounter the police are already constructed as ‘bad citizens’, regardless of their encounter. This is obviously a very simplistic understanding of how identities are constructed with the police, but I am still trying to flesh out the nuances. Overall I am curious what other people think about how our relationships with authoritative bodies create subjects/identities?