Knock out debut! It's true that individuals do not experience systems, but you can still gerrymander the field of view down to their level. Power dynamics discourse does not have a coherent response for disputes between individuals. It's obvious who has the power if you draw a tight boundary around a black man beating a white woman, but you'll get resistance over conceding this answer. Instead, the boundary has to be stretched out until you get the "right" answer, until you reach diluted categorizations about race or wealth or privilege or whatever else is lying around.
If the result of the analysis depends entirely on what kind of boundary you draw, then power dynamics analysis is a useless tool.
Interesting article. I agree of course that this tactic is widespread in the "discourse," especially around Israel/Palestine (I was surprised you didn't mention the gerrymandering tactic of justifying Israel's defending itself by labeling Jews as oppressed due to antisemitism).
But why not simply reject the punching up/punching down framework entirely? The State is obviously much more powerful than a poor criminal. But that doesn't mean that it's inappropriate for the State to punish that criminal when he murders someone. I would approach the question not by trying to somehow reframe the State (or the citizens it is protecting) as actually punching up in this context, but instead by rejecting that question as irrelevant and instead simply looking at whether it was reasonable/just/etc. for the State to treat the murderer how it did. Similarly with Israel/Palestine--Israel may be stronger and thus in some sense "punching down" against the Palestinians, but for me that simply provides little to no information as to whether any of its actions towards the Palestinians are just/unjust.
Knock out debut! It's true that individuals do not experience systems, but you can still gerrymander the field of view down to their level. Power dynamics discourse does not have a coherent response for disputes between individuals. It's obvious who has the power if you draw a tight boundary around a black man beating a white woman, but you'll get resistance over conceding this answer. Instead, the boundary has to be stretched out until you get the "right" answer, until you reach diluted categorizations about race or wealth or privilege or whatever else is lying around.
If the result of the analysis depends entirely on what kind of boundary you draw, then power dynamics analysis is a useless tool.
Thanks so much! Yes, individual-level gerrymandering matters a great deal too.
Great analysis, looking forward to more :)
Thank you!
Interesting article. I agree of course that this tactic is widespread in the "discourse," especially around Israel/Palestine (I was surprised you didn't mention the gerrymandering tactic of justifying Israel's defending itself by labeling Jews as oppressed due to antisemitism).
But why not simply reject the punching up/punching down framework entirely? The State is obviously much more powerful than a poor criminal. But that doesn't mean that it's inappropriate for the State to punish that criminal when he murders someone. I would approach the question not by trying to somehow reframe the State (or the citizens it is protecting) as actually punching up in this context, but instead by rejecting that question as irrelevant and instead simply looking at whether it was reasonable/just/etc. for the State to treat the murderer how it did. Similarly with Israel/Palestine--Israel may be stronger and thus in some sense "punching down" against the Palestinians, but for me that simply provides little to no information as to whether any of its actions towards the Palestinians are just/unjust.