Rights, Remembrance, and the Reconciliation of Difference

Abstract

Rights in American society present a paradox-critics increasingly assert that proliferation of rights is undermining Americans' sense of community, yet scholars continue to document Americans' reluctance to assert formal legal rights. We explore the meaning of rights in American society by describing the intersection between the evolving civil rights of a previously excluded minority, culminating in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the personal histories of two individuals who might potentially invoke or benefit from such rights. Tracing the life stories of "Sara Lane" and 'Jill Golding" from childhood through adolescence to adulthood and employment, we relate the everyday relevance or irrelevance of law to important elements of the reconstructed pastthe development of self-concept and of one's place in relation to the social mainstream. The article, which is part of a larger project involving a more broadly based interview sample of adults with disabilities, analyzes life stories to critique familiar assumptions about the perceived conflict between rights and social relationships and about the mobilization of law. It also offers an innovative approach to the study of law and legal consciousness by involving Sara Lane and Jill Golding in the analysis of successive drafts and by including their reactions to what the authors have written. Our thanks, first and most importantly, to the two individuals whose stories are discussed at length in this article, "Sara Lane" and "Jill Golding," for generously sharing their thoughts and experiences with us and with those who may read this article. We are deeply grateful for their time, patience, and commitment to this project. Our thanks, too, to an outstanding group of students who have assisted us with this project since its inception:

Legitimacy, Social Identity, and the Mobilization of Law: The Effects of Assembly Bill 540 on Undocumented Students in California

“…Previous studies on the mobilization of law have focused on racial minorities, women, the disabled, and other disadvantaged groups (Bumiller 1988; Engel and Munger 1996; Nielsen 2000). This study extends this line of inquiry to examine the experiences of undocumented immigrants, another disenfranchised group in the United States (Chavez 1998; Menjívar 2006).…”

“…The neutral label disguises subjects’ marginal status, thereby promoting a more accepting environment in which to claim their rights. Unlike the potential beneficiaries of civil rights and other rights‐granting laws who are perceived as victims when they invoke the law (Bumiller 1988; Engel and Munger 1996; Nielsen 2000), undocumented students are able to further hide their marginalized status with a label that is neutral and socially unrecognizable. When invoking the ADA, or calling for protection against sexual harassment or other legally defined discriminatory actions, subjects are directly identifying as members of marginalized groups.…”

Legal Consciousness and Dispute Resolution: Different Disputing Behavior at Two Similar Taxicab Companies

“…In this rendering, people may invoke and enact legality in ways neither approved nor acknowledged by the law" (Ewick and Silbey 1998,22). The legal consciousness framework understands that people interpret their experiences by drawing on a collaboration of law and other social structures (Engel and Munger 1996;Sarat 1990). These interpretations may be highly individualized, based on each person's social characteristics, previous contact with the law, and political standing (Cooper 1995).…”

Falling Outside: Excavating the History of Central American Asylum Seekers

“…In excavating the history of such temporal movements, I also draw on the notion that law is located within a variety of formal and informal legal transactions (see, e.g., Merry 1990; Yngvesson 1993; Engel and Munger 1996, 2003). Filing a class‐action suit and applying for asylum through a notary both have legal effects, and the cumulative impact of these effects may reshape law, regardless of actors' legal knowledge and intentions.…”