Language Justice & Cultural Relevance

Recently, LCJP got the unique opportunity to facilitate a Restorative Justice conference involving a young man from the Philippines. This opportunity was essentially made possible thanks to the shared creativity and vision of one of our star police liaisons and a beloved ally within the local merchant community. Together, these two tireless advocates of RJ, were able to skillfully traverse language and cultural differences in order to provide this individual with the opportunity to take accountability for shoplifting. As we considered how to move forward with the case, it was evident that we would not only need to find suitable interpretation services for this individual but also shift our cultural perspective—and therefore our expectations—to meet him and his family where they were at.

 “It was not LCJP's purpose to compel the Responsible Individual to complete contract items consistent with American values.”

This was unchartered territory for us as an organization as we had previously never worked with someone so far from our own socio-cultural paradigm. The further we went, the more we realized that the principles of Restorative Justice—as typically practiced—didn’t fully translate into the worldview of these participants. Two of our intrepid and fearless facilitators accompanied us in this unparalleled learning experience and grappled firsthand with the acute discomfort of having to question the applicability of several fundamental tenets of RJ. In the words of one of our facilitators, “The primary consideration of this case was the respect for the Philippine culture's role in the acceptance of restorative justice principles. It was not LCJP's purpose to compel the Responsible Individual to complete contract items consistent with American values. Thus, the challenge was to reconfigure our posture so that the results coincided with the culture's values. This meant that the negotiation of the contract items focused on the family's need for him to 'make up for' the embarrassment and shame he had caused them. I found the main challenge was to accept the significant cultural differences that necessitated a modification of the familiar RJ process.”

 “As I continue to reflect on the process as a whole, I am left with the humbling sensation that the guiding maxim of RJ to Do No Harm may actually require us to sometimes let go of our most cherished beliefs and values…”

With this reflection, I was most struck by the constant need for us, as service providers, located within a particular social framework, to continually reevaluate our own biases and assumptions about what accountability and repairing harms should look like. It was simultaneously thrilling and frustrating to acknowledge that at the end of the day, these individuals may not embrace, or even understand, our attempts to shift the emphasis of their focus from punitive to restorative language, or our desire for the individual to articulate the harms to self as a result of his actions as differentiated from the impacts to his family. As I continue to reflect on the process as a whole, I am left with the humbling sensation that the guiding maxim of RJ to Do No Harm may actually require us to sometimes let go of our most cherished beliefs and values in order to preserve and respect the validity and sanctity of differing viewpoints. In conclusion, I am once again reminded that this is not a path of easy answers but rather, a living process of exploration that invites us to question the “known”, and for that, I am grateful.