Today, we went to film at the Clarke County District Court, where Paulette appeared as a litigant. As it goes, we ended up booked to be filming at the Circuit Court and the District Court was unavailable today—being used for mediation.
As a researcher, I can’t limit my vision to what I can see. Just because I had planned to look at the older building with the paintings which would confirm some of my ideas, it doesn’t mean that’s the way it does (or should) develop.
Since we did have an appointment with the Circuit Clerk of the County, we walked over to that building and met a wonderfully charming woman who was nicely dressed in a grey suit who’d been a clerk, or deputy clerk, for forty five years. She was so kind to take a few minutes to talk with us. Joan Acker, Kate Barry, and Johanna Esseveld in their essay, Objectivity and Truth, published in Fonow and Cook, Beyond Methodology (1991, Indiana University Press) attempt to identify problems in doing feminist perspective. They seek to find modes of thinking, data collection and analysis that are more appropriate than others for studying the situation of women from a feminist perspective. In doing so, they challenge us in the theoretical reconstruction of our research to account for the investigator as well as those investigated. To locate the rsearcher in the social structure. They suggest that we ask the questions, “What are the social relations that produce this researchsituation and the enterprise of research itself? What makes it possible to raise this research problem at this time, in this place, in this society? What are the processes that have rsulted in the researched and the researchers coming together in a particular kind of social relationship?” (Fonow, et al, 146).
Today, we had our first interview with the Clerk who was a person that neither of us had a social relation. I did tell her that I was a lawyer in a neighboring county and Paulette had filled her in on her work at Shenandoah and EMU. However, we didn’t have a relationship. However, we do share a common interest—courts. This kind woman has devoted her life to seeing that the paperwork of the court is orderly addressed. And while we have no history of trust or adversity or companionship, we still share this love of justice and a fascination with the structures which are to house its producers.
The Circuit Clerk seemed a little more reserved and less likely to launch into a story as did those others with whom we have dialoged. However, she was so kind and forthcoming. She did describe the structure of this unusual courtroom and brought up a theme which has emerged. When she moved to the new courthouse in 1978, she also missed the old courthouse, and the lack of formality and community that was shared. She indicated she has gotten used to it, but I couldn’t help but think of the others who have raised this issue.
In Objectivity and Truth the researchers adopted a format of discussion similar to the transformative inquiry. However, they noted, “One strategy was encouraging the interviewee to take the lead in deciding what to talk about. This did not always work, people have ideas about what it is like to be interview end they want to be asked questions so that they can give the ‘right response” (Acker, et al., 140.) Perhaps the Clerk was in that category.
Another delightful surprise by our winding up in the Circuit Court was the unusual space. It is set up as a circle. At first I found that delightful, exciting and quite beautiful. But when I started thinking about where everyone would sit (since I knew that there are assigned seats) I noticed that the defendant would be at the side of the circle, against the glass and wood paneled wall. The prosecutor would be sitting next to the judge. Mmmm. Maybe the circle isn’t the perfect structure for the courtroom. Further physical research took us to a small room off of the main courtroom filled with volumes of “law books.” On one wall was a group of the Virginia Code, that’d be useful “good law.” However the next wall was filled with old case books dating back to 1858. Another gem was a 1939 bound report of the West Virginia Bar meeting. I recognized many names, including Judge Sander’s father. This speaks to the history of the place I suppose. The back room has a bunch of old books that someone undoubtedly donated at one point which still form the backbone of this building.
Paulette’s interview went well. It was strange to be interviewing her, but I have decided that including our own experiences is important not only to be ethical in disclosing our own positions or biases, but also in showing our commitment to our interview subjects that we are not asking them to expose themselves and more than we have. Again, relying on Acker, in their interviews they offered something about themselves to their subject at the end of the interview but reported that it was usually required, the subject had already asked (Acker, at al,141.)
From Paulette:
What struck me most about today was our "deconstruction" of the design of the circuit courtroom. As Brenda says, at first glance the built environment seemed welcoming. A circle! What could be better?! But when I sat in the defendant's chair I realized I felt trapped - actually pinned against the corner made of bullet proof class. It was the farthest point from the judge and literally "framed" - I felt anyone sitting there had the appearance of guilt - it was obvious who was being protected by that bulletproof glass.
It was interesting to be interviewed about my experience in the court. Talk about serendipity... the Winchester Star published a story this morning talking about the portraits that hang in the Berryville Courthouse. I had noted those portraits when I was there for a traffic ticket a few years ago. I felt a little oppressed by the paintings at the time because they reached from floor to ceiling and because I assumed they were all of confederate soldiers. Come to find out from the article - they were all lawyers and judges involved in the courthouse - what a cool historic thing! And an example of what Judge Sanders described as an "architecture of the mind". My assumptions were holding me back.
The relational aspect of courthouses emerged unexpectedly from my interview as well. I remember being surprised when I stood before the judge after my speeding ticket.. that he was conversational and very human... interested and amused by the fact that I received the speeding ticket on my way to Clarke Co. dog shelter. The cop that pulled me over was pulling for me not to have too strict a sentence - I had expired stickers as well as a lead foot.
Brenda asked me whether I felt I had received justice - I did because I was acknowledged, joked with and because I felt that I was trusted with some leniency. It made me respect the system - I've certainly not sped on the way into BVille again.
I also realized that my experience in that courthouse would be much different today than it was the first time because I am more a part of the community. I do yoga with a circuit judge - I know a lot of the lawyers from the Daily Grind - I go to the post office across the street nearly every day. The speeding ticket experience drew me farther into the community... today I feel that courthouse is a much more welcoming place - I no longer feel like the label of just being a northern yankee feminist... I am a contributing community member with ties to cultural, educational, environmental parts of Clarke County and ties to those who are a part of the courthouse. The courthouse is my courthouse. Perhaps that ownership and inclusive part has to do with justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment