Decoteau Irby explains how many Black males in this country who would feel more valuable if they were given a fair chance in an unjust criminal justice system.
–
As of Friday, June 26, 2015 gay couples living in the United States of America have a constitutional right to marry. Justice Clarence Thomas, apparently, sees no merit in extending this right to gay couples as reflected in his dissenting response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 affirmative decision. In his dissent, he argued that “those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits.” Clearly by “those,” Justice Thomas is referring to gay couples.
There is so much about his dissent that is humiliating, not only to gay couples but to anyone who has experienced humiliation and degradation at the hands of a government, that I felt compelled to set the record straight about dignity. My reason for writing this is to defend the concept of dignity from narrow-mindedness and parochial use.
If one adopts a narrow notion of dignity as merely a person’s unconditional, incomparable, inner value, then Thomas’s assertion that government cannot bestow dignity or take it away could certainly be understood as an accurate statement. And it may be this narrowly tailored understanding of dignity as inner worth that is familiar to many. But scholars across fields understand human dignity is more nuanced ways. Among scholars who write about dignity – including within Black Studies, nursing, and human rights to name a few – there is a general consensus that when it comes to dignity, it is critically important to consider how people are treated and how mistreatment can strip away at a person’s sense of self.
The acknowledgement of threats to non-inherent human dignity is important for the many Black males in this country who would feel more valuable if they were given a fair chance in an unjust criminal justice system.
|
Justice Thomas’s explanation of dignity as inviolable is consistent with the idea of full inherent human dignity. But his explanation is inconsistent with the concept of non-inherent human dignity, which holds that dignity is an acquired condition of self-worth that is contingent upon a person’s circumstances and experiences. Non-inherent human dignity recognizes that human dignity is a relational and social phenomenon.
Indeed non-inherent dignity thrives in the absence of humiliation and degradation, be it at the hands of a person or a government. In simple terms, non-inherent dignity helps us to understand the social fact that governments can treat people in humiliating and degrading ways that strip away at a person or group of people’s sense of unconditional and incomparable worth (full inherent human dignity).
—
In my research on Black Male Achievement programs in Milwaukee, I’ve found that organizational leaders believe that cultivating and preserving a sense of dignity among Black males is a central aspect of their work. What I call a dignity-based Black Male Achievement perspective recognizes the ways in which Black males’ experiences with government systems, such as the criminal justice, have the potential to chip away at their sense of self-worth.
Contrary to what Justice Thomas argued, I am convinced that governments are indeed responsible for extending and preserving the non-inherent human dignity of its citizens. Food assistance programs meet the substantive dignity needs of people who otherwise would go hungry. Providing funding for homeless shelters or housing assistance are also cases in point. I could go on with numerous examples.
Recognizing that governments’ actions or in-actions can strip away at a person’s dignity is critical. Clarence Thomas’s failure to acknowledge the relationship between how people are treated, their life conditions, circumstances, and their sense of dignity is irresponsible and misleading. The acknowledgement of threats to non-inherent human dignity is important for the many Black males in this country who would feel more valuable if they were given a fair chance in an unjust criminal justice system.
It is equally important for gay women and men who would feel more valued if they were able to say the words “I am married” no matter their state of residence. Dignity is an important concept. If we took it more seriously in the realm of U.S. public policy, it might fundamentally change our understanding of what counts as justice.
–
Would you like to help us shatter stereotypes about men? Receive stories from The Good Men Project, delivered to your inbox daily or weekly.
Photo: AP