I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Sonia Sotomayor
One critique of Sotomayor’s statement was that it was racist, and I concur that it has the potential to be racist. It would be both racist and sexist to assume that being a wise Latina with rich experiences make you a better candidate for the job than any white male. As some logical questions would be: can a Euro-American male be wise? Don’t his experiences count? The duty of Supreme Court judges is to determine the constitutionality of the cases and state laws that come to them. In light of the task set out before the justices, one can readily concur that wisdom would be essential. The New Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines wisdom as “showing experience, knowledge, and good judgment.” There are those who would argue that the only pertinent wisdom (experience, knowledge, and good judgment) is that which pertains to the law but Sotomayor hints at more. Sotomayor tackles the myth of objectivity and contends that personal experiences, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic background matters. I believe that most people in USA still believe that the personal touch matters otherwise the justices would have been replaced with computers that can be programmed to produce more objective decisions than humans.
But my mind is still working on the issue of giving a “better conclusion than a white male that hasn’t lived that life.” Does the wise Euro-American experience matter ? I support Sotomayor’s candidacy as well as diversity in Supreme Court. I support it because I believe that a diverse group of wise individuals with various experiences will arrive at more balanced humane interpretations of the Constitution, which will make more citizens feel that they are Americans. However, I do not believe that specific minorities make better decisions than qualified Euro-Americans. Rather I believe that the Supreme Court will make better decisions because it is more representative of the American public. I think it something like ( excuse me if I sound like a heretic), the God of the flood and the God at Jesus’ crucifixion. The God at the flood as an objective outsider saw that we humans were just damn wicked and needed to be washed off the face of the earth. But when that God lived with us as one of us, at the crucifixion that God said “forgive them because they really do not know what they are doing.”
I think Sotomayor was referring to the way that life experiences can shape one’s views on a certain matter. I also think this was blown out of proportion for political purposes.
Sotomayor’s comment, I agree, suggests that a Latina woman, because of her experiences, might have more wisdom to offer than a white male. But, perhaps we can, for a brief moment, step outside the race issue and look at the issue of life experience; generally, one might agree that a life that entails struggle tends to mold and shape a person in very powerful ways. Regardless of race or gender, a life of suffering and struggle has something definitively different than a life of privilege – again the key word, I think, is different as opposed to better or superior. However, (and here is where we MUST speak of the issue of race and gender) it is without a doubt that people that come from minority groups such as women and Latino groups, tend to suffer discrimination and face more barriers than most white males. That being said, I do not even think it is a question as to whether or not the Euro-American or Euro-American male experience “counts”, not only should it and does it count, it matters just as much as the voice and experience of any minority, such as that of a Latina female voice and experience.
This, however, I think is a problem feminism faces; namely, the dilemma of boldly naming and prophetically speaking against the sins of sexism and racism and the systemic structures which perpetuate these sins while at the same time remaining in a posture where they do not become that which they speak against. There is indeed a fine line, but truth has to be spoken; feminists, as other liberation theologians, must highlight the importance of experience because it is the foundation of their work and their commitments. The power of ALL of our experiences has the potential to teach us all to live in community in more ways that are reflective of the Kingdom of God. Even more, the experience of oppressed groups will and has been categorically different than that of other groups, like Euro Americans, who tend to have less experience suffering oppression. Again, not better or superior, but different. So, though not all are going to see past being offended by Sotomayor’s comment, the comment and the controversy opens a challenging and fruitful discussion that can help us all see how the sinful structures we live in cause us to be tangled in sins where we have more power than others, be it because of our race, our gender, or even, for example the country we may be from.
The goal that we should all aim for, I think, is to look for the structures that perpetuate such sins and sexism and racism and then find the places in our lives in which we participate in these sinful structures. This is why feminism and feminist theology, at their best, are seeking redemption for all – for all of us in the instances in which we find ourselves in the role of the oppressed and in the times in which we find ourselves in the role of the oppressors. After all, as liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez says in his writings, liberation is to set the oppressed free from their state of oppression and the oppressor free from their state of being the oppressor.
So, part of the reason that it is good for Sotomayor to be nominated for the Supreme Court is not only for her outstanding qualifications but also because the Supreme Court, as you stated, should be diverse in order to accurately represent the population it represents, but also to help bring the experience of someone other than Euro American males to the Supreme Court. After all, historically, Euro American males have had more power than males and females from other minority groups (especially with respect to the Supreme Court), which has given Euro American males a position of having more power than oppressed groups and which has given these minority groups a perspective on having to overcome those obstacles – obstacles which most Euro American males may not have very much understanding about. (This, I am convinced, makes a difference when interpreting law, as well.) I think this is what Sotomayor was trying to get at, even though, as Press Secretary Gibbs stated, some think her words were “poorly chosen.”
Finally, I think your example about God is a great illustrative point, but even the “objective” God decided against destroying Ephraim because God’s heart was changed within God’s self. Experience of love trumped everything else. (Hosea 11)
I think full objectivity is an illusion (I know you were not arguing that there is full objectivity) and this is what liberation and feminist theologians have had to try and help people understand because their experience as oppressed people has given them a different hermeneutic than that of the “dominant” theology, which, incidentally has been largely dominated by European males! Does that make either hermeneutic or theology more or less valid? No. But it is certain that the voices of liberation theologians brought something to the table that had been absent prior to their contribution, something that the European males were not able to touch on because it was simply not a part of their life experience. I appreciate all you have said and I am glad you raised the question about the experience of Euro Americans, but I just wanted to highlight the importance of experience as well as the challenge feminist’s face of naming and prophetically speaking against sinful structures and our complicity in those structures, without vilifying a race or a gender.
Thanks,
Crystal