For this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I have inserted below a couple of photos. The first one I took a few years ago when in Washington, DC, attending a professional meeting. I remember having to search for the statue, which seemed metaphorically appropriate.
The second photo I took when my family
and I were walking to the 1991 opening of the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis.
It is simple enough to say “I am
for justice”. I have yet to come across someone who says, “I am for
injustice”. Trump and his lockstep constituency – so hostile to
immigrants, LGBTQQs, Muslims, ethnic minorities, women, the disabled, et al –
routinely assert “We are for justice”. It is much more complicated to be
just and to seek justice – beginning with the question, “Justice for
whom?” One reason for the complexity is the reality that no single
definition of what is just in the access to and distribution of limited
resources is equally compelling and clarifying for all situations. But
the reason for the complexity on my mind this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is
the degree of sacrifice and risk the privileged/advantaged must embrace in
order to act seriously on a claimed commitment to justice. I have
inserted below the current draft of a spectrum I first created several decades
ago as a tool for differentiating the differences – in some cases, very subtle
differences – among those who say “I am for justice”, a spectrum designed to
avoid an easy/relieved conscience or a hesitancy to probe to the core.
The spectrum is organized around a few key terms or phrases – e.g.,
‘affluent’ (to flow to/toward), ‘respect’ (to look back/again), ‘hunger and
thirst’ (an incomparable or unparalleled value – yes, with echoes of Jesus and
Bonhoeffer), ‘radical’ (to the root), ‘genuinely present’ (with
integrity).
“But what does it mean for the affluent to ‘hunger and thirst for justice’?”
(-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (3)
(-3) (-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2) (3)
DISPOSITION -3: The protected/advantaged who demonstrate a complete lack of respect for neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights by noticing them only for the purpose of exploiting them.
DISPOSITION -2: The protected/advantaged who demonstrate a complete lack of respect for neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent without basic civil rights by noticing them only for the purpose of shunning/avoiding them.
DISPOSITION -1: The protected/advantaged who routinely disregard neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights, but who are latently predisposed to purposefully shun/avoid them if significantly disturbed by them.
DISPOSITION 0: The protected/advantaged who are not predisposed to purposefully shun/avoid neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights, but who do not respect them deeply enough to make a serious effort to be genuinely present with them (i.e., to ‘welcome’ them).
DISPOSITION 1: The protected/advantaged who express an interest in being genuinely present with neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights (i.e., to ‘welcome’ them), but who do not respect them enough to make substantial lifestyle changes for such to happen.
DISPOSITION 2: The protected/advantaged who respect neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights deeply enough to make radical (i.e., ‘to the root’) lifestyle changes necessary to be genuinely present with them (i.e., to ‘welcome’ them).
DISPOSITION 3: The protected/advantaged whose respect for neighbors, colleagues, and the widening circle they represent of the many without basic civil rights leads them to put their lifestyle privileges and even their lives at risk in their effort to be genuinely present with them (i.e., to be ‘welcomed’ by them).
