Professor Frank Pommershierm in his article, A Snapshot from the Field, (1996)(21 Vermont L. Rev. 7.) includes the following quote in a reference to the development of “tribal jurisprudence.” “As noted by the Irish Poet Seamus Heaney, recent recipient of the Noble Prize in Literature, ‘In any movement towards liberation, it will be necessary to deny the normative authority of the dominant language or literary tradition.” He further states, “Although literature is not law in periods of liberation, law too will confront dominant norms.”
Does the dominant language of the “Western” researcher gain normative authority? To what end? To redefine experience? To justify projects which may actually further US imperialism in the name of charitable good? In the name of international development?
During my last year of law school, many of my “radical” friends went to work for large corporate law firms. They didn’t want to, but the financial obligations were crushing. Many of them said that it would be okay. They could change the system from within. Or-- it was just for a few years. Twenty five years later, they are still in the firms. The firms are still the same.
Can we do one research project accepting the normative authority of the dominant language? Or will we find it just easier next time to rely on our now familiar method? And the next time…and the next? Does it really matter? Is this a period of liberation? For whom?
No comments:
Post a Comment