In "Families, Unvalued" and "Border (In)Securities" both focused on the more conservative family values as well as the more "radical" ones. The Human Rights Watch piece was working within the system of immigration in the U.S. with portraying homosexual couples as having that "norm" sense of family values. The people whose stories were featured usually had children, were white middle class, were successful and had access to lawyers etc. This picture seems more relatable for those conservative individuals/lawmakers who are having a hard time getting past the homosexual aspect of it. Chavez questions this approach, basically saying it is too exclusive of other family values/ways of life/"non-normal" families. "Families, Unvalued" holds the institution of marriage as the standard for families. Chavez questions this in her piece saying that working within this system, using marriage as a standard, is ignoring the other "sub culture" because they are too different. I feel like these two pieces boil down to this very point: working within the system vs. working outside it. My question is how do you work outside it and still make concrete (new laws/reform) progress? A student said today in class that it seemed like the Human Rights Watch piece was a liberal way of fighting for progress, while Chavez is more radical. I feel like there should be a point when the two merge, but I am unable to identify what that would look like, ha.
To work within the system, or to work outside the system? This is the question.
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/147957