Subject: For Novemner workshop
From: Lawrence Liang <lawrence@altlawforum.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:52:54 +0530

 Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:52:54 +0530
HI all
We had a small discussion about the novemner workshop, the last segment, the
word bank, and including my notes ont he same, we need to do the same for
the legality and the experience segment as welll


Lawrence


Meeting : The word wall
 
* Ethics- Arvind 
> * The question of the core vision of the group and how do we address what may
> be the core ethics of a group
> * Rather than looking at the possibility of identifying a core ethic that
> defines the group the question may be redefined in terms of how does a group
> work out the idea of a core vision: and the difference between substantial/
> procedural determination; and the fact that these questions may be resolved
> through a procedural rather than a substantive discussion/ determination
> * Is there a process of prioritization of the question of ethics and how does
> that get adressed
> * How does the question of ethics get reflected within the internal structure/
> dynamics of the group in terms of the structure that gets created
> * Differentiate the question of the ethical from that of the moral: to speak
> of ethics is not to speak of morality (ought)
> * We can leave out some of the specific ethical questions that we face in
> terms of legal practice such as speed money/ client interest, the kind of
> funding that you take or not take etc.
 
* Conflict- Geetanjali
> * Three of four levels at which we may speak of the issue of conflict
>> * The first level is external: Social conflicts permeates a lot of that
>> organization. These may be which we do: but even here we need to say a little
>> more about the very idea of social conflict itself, both in terms of its
>> relationship to civil society institutions as well as to the legal field: One
>> sees the emergence of a wider canvass through which we can understand the
>> idea of conflict, if conflict was configured primarily through class terms
>> this has changed with gender, sexuality and caste. There is also the question
>> of what is the role of law/ critical lawyering in understanding and
>> intervening in social conflict, some of the earlier ideas of law was that it
>> is primarily to do with the resolution of conflict but a  lot of our work
>> also stems from a recognition of law as a harbinger of conflict (Land
>> Acqusition, Differential access to Land, Communal issues etc). But at the
>> same time one uses law and non formal legal processes to intervene in
>> disputes ( from ADR to  gendre related work)
 
 
>> * Then the next level at which we could think about conflict is the kind of
>> internal conflicts within an organization. Sometimes they may not necessarily
>> be Œconflicts;¹ and that may be a strong term to use, and they could be the
>> usual differences, irritations etc that goes with the running of an
>> organization. But sometimes they may also spill into more serious issues
>> which threatens the very existence of the group. The ones that are most
>> difficult to characterize and deal with however are possibly internal
>> conflicts that masquerade as conflicts about social issues or vice versa.
 
 
>> * Conflicts with other organizations/ people that you work with. Especially
>> the case when the people are doing good work and you cannot dismiss them, but
>> yet have to deal with the fact that you may have intense disagreements etc
 
* Outreach / Communication- Jagga to handle outreach and Namita to handle
communication 
> * What are the purposes and intention of outreach, how does the idea of
> outreach change and depend on the following contexts
>> * Who is your public
>> * What is the mode of address
>> * What is the method you adopt
>> * What is the media you use
* Jagga¹s account of training sessions as well as the entire ways in which
you have to negotiate around power through performative acts, using power,
using the status that has been accorded to you etc.
* You recognize the sheer in relatedness of the above concepts, n that the
kind of public you are addressing then determines the mode of address you
use, the method of communication etc
* At the same time when you reach a certain impasse as a result of the
stubbornness of some of the categories that we have spoken about, you are
also forced to think through newer modes of communicating etc, for instance
given that the legal structure is so rigid in its politics of
representation, you determine new modes of communicating: for instance the
court structures recognize only a language of victimhood, the lawyer client
relation is imbibed with power etc , while the useof newer forms may be more
playful, humourous and experimental
*