Right thought => right speech => right action

[much_ado]

Today I think about language as a tool used in restorative justice.

Accountability is a big part of the restorative justice models used by organizations like CJI. One of the ways they encourage participants in their program and groups to take ownership of their own experiences and expressions by replacing the ambiguity of "you" statements with the

Comments

[lightcastle]

Intriguingly, the disassociated "you" is a staple of comedy, and I'm not sure a routine based on it would work if reformulated.

I'll have to knock that around a bit.

So is "Static label" to "active label" just this past/present tense thing? (If so, it sounds a lot like my personal move away from ideology as identity.)

Of course, I know people for whom "offender" is entirely appropriate as an active label. I'm assuming you are talking about people who there is actually a reason to assume the behaviour has ended and not those who simply prefer to distance themselves for obfuscatory purposes.

[siderea]

The observation about "you" dissociating is astute. (QOTD: "When you say that 'people' think/feel this or that, I'm hearing that you have had those thoughts or feelings.")

The dissociating "you" also universalizes. It can be a bid to argue, "It's not just me who is like this. It's not just me who thinks so." Thus it's sort of an implicit in-person version of "the lurkers support me in email."

That might not be entirely fair -- I don't think that all universalizing statements are badwrong. I think it's fair to attempt to discuss the common human condition. But it's also can be a responsibility evading (a la "mistakes were made") and/or defensive status borrowing (a la "even people who have worth and matter, unlike me") maneuver.

[pseudonominal]

The concept of tense of verb when referring to someone convicted of an offense is intriguing. I wonder if our predilection to maintain a "present tense" for certain criminalized behavior is a reflection of the culturally perceived severity of the crime. For example, it is, some would argue, more "acceptable" to have used illegal drugs than it is to have committed a violent crime. I admit that my experience of this is completely anecdotal, but I have heard the statement "he was a drug dealer", or "he sold drugs" when explaining a past criminal history. On the other end of the spectrum, however, an individual is labelled a "murderer" for being someone who has committed that crime