![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Can the System exhibit Grace?
Oct. 5th, 2019 02:52 pmAt the end of his most recent column, Andrew Sullivan writes about the brother of Botham Jean, who was killed in his own apartment by police officer Amber Guyger. At Guyger's sentencing, Botham Jean's brother gave a statement of forgiveness, and there were hugs.
As Sullivan notes, there are a lot of people who are suspicious, not so much of this forgiveness itself, but of the response to it.
Who could deny the moral hazard in white people's lauding of the forgiveness shown to other white people by black people whom they have wronged, and whom the system has abetted them in wronging? Not me, and not Sullivan:
Part of what Sullivan is saying here is a comment on a specifically Christian religious notion of grace. Since I'm outside of that religious context, my ability to comment on it is limited. But since I live in a society shaped by Christianity in many ways, I'm still interested by the secular interpretation of his comments. Is it true that systems can never exhibit grace?
To the extent that it is true that systems can never exhibit grace, this has consequences. Large societies are increasingly being run by systems instead of by people. It's becoming harder for individuals exercise their own humanity in the course of their job to show mercy to someone struggling. Instead, well, in the immortal words of Little Britain, "Computer says no."
But I'm not sure that we should just throw up our hands and say, oops, I guess systems are indifferent to grace, no point asking for them to show any. I really don't think that's true. In particular, even if grace needs to be exercised by individuals at the point at which it is given, a system can make it more or less possible for grace to be offered. For example, the Constitution gives to the President of the United States the power to exhibit grace on behalf of the American people: to pardon someone, or to commute their sentence. It explicitly leaves room for this to happen. In practice, to be sure, this power may be used gracelessly -- to pardon someone who did a great wrong and isn't sorry at all, but with whom the President wishes to curry favour, for example. But the purpose of this power is quite clearly to allow the People, as a whole, to exhibit grace, rather than being a faceless, uncaring system that cannot be stopped.
So perhaps we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, hey, systems can't exhibit grace. It may well be that systems do not exhibit grace only because, all too often, we don't choose to build them that way.
As Sullivan notes, there are a lot of people who are suspicious, not so much of this forgiveness itself, but of the response to it.
"I'm not moved by the white establishment making a genre of Black people hugging white people who have been violent against us. If there were genuine belief in agape love, racial oppression wouldn’t exist & you wouldn’t send police with snipers when we protest it,” Bree Newsome Bass tweeted.
Adam Serwer was a little more restrained: “We would be living in a very different world if many of the people who exult in black displays of forgiveness reciprocated that grace and mercy but that’s not reflected at all in our criminal justice policy, and it makes you question what they really find compelling about it.” Jemele Hill: “How Botham Jean’s brother chooses to grieve is his business. He’s entitled to that. But this judge choosing to hug this woman is unacceptable. Keep in mind this convicted murderer is the same one who laughed about Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination, and killing ppl on sight.”
Adam Serwer was a little more restrained: “We would be living in a very different world if many of the people who exult in black displays of forgiveness reciprocated that grace and mercy but that’s not reflected at all in our criminal justice policy, and it makes you question what they really find compelling about it.” Jemele Hill: “How Botham Jean’s brother chooses to grieve is his business. He’s entitled to that. But this judge choosing to hug this woman is unacceptable. Keep in mind this convicted murderer is the same one who laughed about Martin Luther King Jr’s assassination, and killing ppl on sight.”
Who could deny the moral hazard in white people's lauding of the forgiveness shown to other white people by black people whom they have wronged, and whom the system has abetted them in wronging? Not me, and not Sullivan:
I don’t begrudge these feelings given the way our criminal-justice system is far too often indifferent to the lives of black men and women. But grace is grace. “Systems” can never exhibit it. Only people can. And when grace breaks out, it’s always in a personal human context. When forgiveness happens, it is the choice of a human soul, regardless of that person’s place in an intersectional hierarchy.
Part of what Sullivan is saying here is a comment on a specifically Christian religious notion of grace. Since I'm outside of that religious context, my ability to comment on it is limited. But since I live in a society shaped by Christianity in many ways, I'm still interested by the secular interpretation of his comments. Is it true that systems can never exhibit grace?
To the extent that it is true that systems can never exhibit grace, this has consequences. Large societies are increasingly being run by systems instead of by people. It's becoming harder for individuals exercise their own humanity in the course of their job to show mercy to someone struggling. Instead, well, in the immortal words of Little Britain, "Computer says no."
But I'm not sure that we should just throw up our hands and say, oops, I guess systems are indifferent to grace, no point asking for them to show any. I really don't think that's true. In particular, even if grace needs to be exercised by individuals at the point at which it is given, a system can make it more or less possible for grace to be offered. For example, the Constitution gives to the President of the United States the power to exhibit grace on behalf of the American people: to pardon someone, or to commute their sentence. It explicitly leaves room for this to happen. In practice, to be sure, this power may be used gracelessly -- to pardon someone who did a great wrong and isn't sorry at all, but with whom the President wishes to curry favour, for example. But the purpose of this power is quite clearly to allow the People, as a whole, to exhibit grace, rather than being a faceless, uncaring system that cannot be stopped.
So perhaps we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say, hey, systems can't exhibit grace. It may well be that systems do not exhibit grace only because, all too often, we don't choose to build them that way.
