A Socio Trial is a community-based, participatory justice process inspired by J.L. Moreno’s sociodrama and designed to address persistent injustices—such as those rooted in racial or economic oppression—by transforming the traditional trial format into a vehicle for collective healing and social change. Unlike a mock trial, which simulates legal proceedings for educational purposes, or a show trial, which is orchestrated for spectacle and control, a Socio Trial is grounded in democratic, power-sharing principles and the belief that mutual understanding, empathy, and creative action are a catalyst for justice.
In a Socio Trial, community members gather not as adversaries, but as co-actors in a dramatized exploration of the injustices affecting their lives. Roles—such as those of the harmed, the accused, bystanders, and community leaders—are cast to reflect real social dynamics, with participants encouraged to step into each other’s experiences and perspectives. The process is guided by a director who ensures that the proceedings remain open, respectful, and focused on uncovering underlying values, beliefs, and systemic patterns that perpetuate harm.
Drawing from Moreno’s teachings, the Socio Trial leverages the power of surplus reality—the enactment of scenarios beyond the limits of everyday life—to allow participants to imagine new possibilities for justice and reconciliation. The aim is not to assign blame or deliver punitive verdicts, but to surface collective lived experiences, foster empathy, and co-create actionable solutions that can repair relationships and transform the community’s social fabric.
Ultimately, a Socio Trial is a living, evolving practice of justice that invites communities to move beyond the “dead past” of entrenched oppression and toward a more thriving future—one in which every voice is heard, and every member is empowered to participate in the healing of the whole.
Augusto Boal Would Have Supported
It is highly likely that Augusto Boal would have been in favor of the concept of a Socio Trial. Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed was explicitly designed to empower communities to analyze, dramatize, and transform their own realities, using participatory theatrical forms where audience members become “spect-actors” who actively intervene, propose solutions, and rehearse social change.
A Socio Trial, grounded in sociodrama and aimed at resolving persistent injustices through collective enactment and dialogue, aligns closely with Boal’s vision of theatre as a rehearsal for real-world transformation and liberation. He believed that theatre should not be a spectacle for passive consumption but a democratic space for critical reflection, dialogue, and the co-creation of new possibilities for justice and equity.
Boal’s methods—such as Forum Theatre and Legislative Theatre—were specifically developed to address oppression, foster empathy, and give marginalized communities tools to reshape social structures. A Socio Trial, as a participatory, justice-oriented process, would embody these principles by enabling communities to confront and resolve systemic injustices together, making it a natural extension of Boal’s legacy.
And Paula Freire Would Have Agreed
Paulo Freire would have almost certainly be in favor of the concept of a Socio Trial. Freire’s critical pedagogy centers on dialogue, collective problem-solving, and the co-creation of knowledge to challenge and transform structures of oppression. He rejected traditional, hierarchical models of education in favor of “problem-posing” approaches, where teachers and learners engage as equals to critically examine their lived realities and take action toward emancipation from injustice.
A Socio Trial, grounded in participatory drama and aimed at resolving persistent community injustices, embodies these principles: it invites all participants to share their experiences, reflect on power dynamics, and collaboratively imagine solutions. This process not only raises critical consciousness (conscientização) but also turns reflection into praxis—collective action for social transformation. Freire believed that education and justice are never neutral, and that true liberation comes from processes forged “with, not for, the oppressed.” Thus, a Socio Trial would align closely with Freire’s vision of humanizing, dialogical, and transformative justice.
For further reading:
Anchor, R. (1967). The enlightenment tradition. California: University of California Press
Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. Hillsdale NJ: The Analytic Press.
Bagnall, R. G. (1999). Discovering radical contingency: Building a postmodern agenda in adult education. New York: Peter Lang.
Baim, C., Burmeister, J. & Marciel, M. (2007). Psychodrama: Advances in theory and practice. East Sussex: Routledge.
Berne, E. (1970). Review of gestalt therapy verbatim by F. Perls (1969). American Journal of Psychiatry, 10, 163-164.
Blatner, A. (2004). Foundations of psychodrama (4th Edition). New York: Springer
Blatner, A. (June, 2007). Meta-theoretical perspectives on psychodrama. In C. Baim, J. Burmeister & M. Maciel (Eds.), Psychodrama: Advances in theory and practice (pp 5-20). London: Routledge.
Boal, Augusto. Theatre of the Oppressed. Translated by Charles A. McBride. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1993.
Bromberg, P. M. (1998). Standing in the spaces: Essays on clinical process, trauma, and dissociation. Hillsdale NJ: Analytic Press.
Fleury, H. J. & Knoble, A. M. (2011). The concept of the co-unconscious in Moreno’s psychodrama. In E. Hopper & H. Weinberg (Eds.) The social unconscious in persons, groups, and societies, volume 1: Mainly theory (pp. 23-44). London: Karnac.
Freire, Paulo (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, London: continuum.
Hare A. P. & Hare, J. R. (1996). J. L. Moreno. London: Sage.
Holmes, P., Karp, M. & Watson, M. (Eds.). (1994). Psychodrama since Moreno. London: Routledge.
Kipper, D. A. (1988). On the definition of psychodrama: Another view. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 40(4), 164-168.
Karp, M., Holmes, P., & Bradshaw Tauvon, K. (1998). The Handbook of Psychodrama. New York: Routledge.
Kipper, David A. (1997). Classical and contemporary psychodrama: A multifaceted, action-oriented psychotherapy. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role Playing, 50(3), 99-107.
Kellerman, P. F. (1987). A proposed definition of psychodrama. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry, 40(2), 76-80.
Kellerman, P. F. (1992). Focus on psychodrama. London: Jessica-Kingsley.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being (3rd ed). Canada, Wiley & Sons.
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Letters to the editor. LIFE Magazine, August 2,
Moreno, J. L. (1945). Who shall survive: Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama. New York: Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. (1994). Psychodrama first volume (4th ed reprint). McLean VA: American Society for Group Psychotherapy& Psychodrama.
Moreno, J. l . (2011). The theatre of spontaneity (4th ed). U.K.: North-West Psychodrama Association.
Moreno, J. L. (1955). Preludes to my autobiography, New York: Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. (Ed.) (1956). Sociometry and the science of man New York: Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. (2011). The autobiography of J. L. Moreno (abridged), U.K.: North-West Psychodrama Association.
Moreno, J. L. & Moreno, Z. T. (1975). Psychodrama , second volume (2nd ed). New York: Beacon House.
Moreno, J. L. & Moreno, Z. T. (1969). Psychodrama third volume. New York: Beacon House.
Nolte, J. (2008). The psychodrama papers. Connecticut: Encounter Publications.
Phillips, D. C. (2000). Constructivism in education. Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues. Ninety-Ninth Yearbook for the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Oudijk, R. (2007). A postmodern approach to psychodrama theory. In C. Baim, J. Burmeister & M. Maciel (Eds.), Psychodrama: Advances in theory and practice (pp 139-150). London: Routledge.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
Scheiffele, E. (1995). The theatre of truth: Psychodrama, spontaneity and improvisation: The theatrical theories and influences of Jacob Moreno. Berkely: University of California.
Schutz, W. (1971). Here comes everybody. New York: Harper and Row.
Sprague, K. (1994). Time, space, reality and the cosmos: the four universals of Moreno’s philosophy. In P. Holmes, M. Karp & M. Watson (Eds.), Psychodrama since Moreno (pp. 6-26) London: Routledge.
Usher, R., Bryant, I. & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the post modern challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routledge.
Williams, A. (1989). The passionate technique. London: Routledge.
Yalom, I. (2005). Theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed). New York: Basic Books
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
This post is used as source material for Prof. Blankenship’s courses.
Setting: A small Southern town. The community is tight-knit, the courthouse just a few blocks from the police station, and reputations carry long memories.
Characters:
Officer Dana Reyes, a patrol officer known for being community-minded but under pressure from her department to “show results.”
Attorney Malcolm Ward, a defense attorney with a growing practice, sharp-minded, idealistic, but burdened by student loans and a partner who wants him home more.
Attorney Sheila Marks, a public interest lawyer who once clerked for a federal judge, committed to protecting civil rights.
ADA Jordan Clay, a local assistant district attorney with ambitions for a judgeship, known for being measured, politically savvy, and hard to read.
Eric Nolan, a 17-year-old high school senior with no prior record, whose older brother is serving time for gang-related activity.
Part I: The Arrest
Officer Reyes pulls over a vehicle driven by Eric Nolan. A cracked taillight gives the legal pretext. In the car, she finds a paper bag under the seat with several plastic baggies and a scale. Eric claims the car is his brother’s, recently borrowed. There is no smell of drugs, no observed transactions, no record on Eric. But the items suggest potential intent to distribute.
Reyes hesitates.
She remembers the Law Enforcement Ethical Frame, particularly its command to “never engage in acts of corruption or bribery, nor will I condone such acts by other police officers” and to “enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor.”
She’s heard rumors that supervisors want higher drug charges to justify a grant renewal. If she calls in the K9 unit and gets a false alert, it could provide cause for a deeper search—standard practice, but ethically dubious here. She opts not to fabricate any probable cause but books Eric on suspicion based on what she found, documenting everything cleanly.
But when she files the report, her sergeant pulls her aside and says, “We need to be a little more aggressive on this if we want that Department of Justice funding next year. Write it up like he made a sudden move to hide something.”
Reyes must decide whether to amend her report.
Part II: The Defense Dilemma
Eric’s mother contacts Attorney Malcolm Ward, who immediately sees a potential case of racial profiling and possibly an illegal search. But as he digs in, he finds that Attorney Sheila Marks, a civil rights lawyer, has already filed a public information request on Reyes’s traffic stops, suspecting a pattern of targeting Black teens for pretextual stops.
Sheila offers to share her data—but with conditions: she wants to co-counsel, and she’s planning to challenge the entire department’s practices through this case, not just get Eric’s charges dropped. She believes the ends (systemic change) justify taking a bold path.
Malcolm knows that the Attorney Ethical Frame is informed by ABA Model Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation) and Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients) that he must act in Eric’s best interest—not in Sheila’s broader advocacy goals. He also worries that a public campaign could harm plea negotiations or even draw unwanted attention that could complicate Eric’s case.
He feels torn. Sheila’s data could be the key to winning the case outright. But he’s not sure if teaming up aligns with his duty to his client, and he wonders whether Sheila’s approach introduces a potential conflict between co-counsels.
He files a motion based on Brady v. Maryland demanding that the prosecution disclose any evidence that is favorable to the defendant and material to either guilty or punishment. Also, he requests a meeting with the local bar’s ethics counsel before deciding.
Part III: The Prosecutor’s Puzzle
The case ends up on ADA Jordan Clay’s desk. She knows Reyes—respected, but not above departmental pressure. She reads the clean report, then notices the timestamp change in a later version of the file. Something was revised. Something small, but possibly material.
Her instincts tell her something’s off.
She also knows Eric’s brother is in prison on her office’s prior prosecution, and the optics of this second case might draw attention.
Jordan faces a three-pronged ethical dilemma:
Do I disclose to the defense that the officer’s report may have been altered?
Do I dig deeper into Officer Reyes’s history—even if it strains relations with the police department?
Do I offer a plea deal to avoid public scrutiny and quietly resolve the case, or go forward and risk a larger institutional issue becoming public?
Once she got home, her mind was still racing, “Should I recuse myself?” She thinks to herself. “What other ethical dilemmas might I be missing?” She stares at the file late into the night.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
His insolence … may be founded on stupidity rather than malice. -Winston Churchill commenting on Charles De Gaulle
In leadership, especially in the context of building inclusive and forward-thinking communities, our approach to conflict and misunderstanding defines the culture we cultivate. One powerful principle that can guide leaders toward fairness, patience, and constructive problem-solving is Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
While the phrasing might be blunt, its underlying wisdom is profound. It calls us to resist the impulse to assume ill intent and instead consider other explanations—such as lack of knowledge, misunderstanding, or systemic inefficiencies—before casting blame. When applied to leadership, and particularly to Restorative Leadership, this principle fosters environments where growth, accountability, and healing take precedence over punitive reactions.
Restorative Leadership: A Framework for Growth
Restorative Leadership is an approach that prioritizes relationships, accountability, and the well-being of both individuals and communities. It seeks to resolve conflicts, repair harm, and build trust by focusing on dialogue and shared understanding rather than punishment and division. This leadership style aligns seamlessly with Hanlon’s Razor, as both encourage leaders to:
Assume the Best in People – Instead of immediately attributing setbacks or mistakes to bad faith, Restorative Leaders inquire into the circumstances, recognizing that ignorance, miscommunication, or systemic obstacles often play a significant role.
Encourage Learning Over Blame – By reframing missteps as opportunities for growth rather than evidence of wrongdoing, leaders create a culture where individuals feel safe to acknowledge errors, learn, and improve.
Navigate Complexity with Compassion – The modern workplace and broader society operate within intricate systems where incentives, pressures, and misunderstandings shape behaviors. Leaders who understand this avoid reactionary judgments and instead seek systemic solutions.
Beyond Blame: The Power of Systemic Thinking
Hanlon’s Razor does not mean ignoring accountability—it simply means looking deeper before making assumptions. A related concept, Hubbard’s Corollary, expands on this idea: “Never attribute to malice or stupidity that which can be explained by moderately rational individuals following incentives in a complex system.” This perspective is essential for leaders who wish to address root causes rather than merely treating symptoms.
For example, if a team member consistently fails to meet deadlines, a traditional leader might assume laziness or defiance. A Restorative Leader, guided by Hanlon’s Razor, would instead ask:
Is this person overwhelmed with other responsibilities?
Do they have the resources and training they need?
Is the organization’s workflow structured in a way that sets them up for success?
By asking these questions, leaders create environments where challenges are met with solutions rather than hostility.
Creating a Culture of Psychological Safety
One of the greatest benefits of applying Hanlon’s Razor to leadership is the development of psychological safety—a workplace or community atmosphere where individuals feel safe to take risks, voice concerns, and admit mistakes without fear of unfair judgment. This is a cornerstone of high-functioning teams, as research consistently shows that organizations with strong psychological safety outperform those where blame and fear dominate.
Conclusion: Leading with a Restorative Mindset
Hanlon’s Razor is not just a philosophical curiosity—it is a practical tool for leaders committed to building understanding, fostering growth, and strengthening communities. In the spirit of Restorative Leadership, applying this principle means leading with patience, curiosity, and a commitment to uncovering truth rather than jumping to conclusions. By assuming good faith where possible and addressing systemic challenges thoughtfully, leaders can transform misunderstandings into opportunities for learning and growth.
In a world quick to assume the worst, restorative leadership offers a different path—one built on empathy, accountability, and the belief that most people, given the right guidance and support, are capable of doing better.
For justice, two distinct yet complementary approaches have emerged as vital tools for addressing historical injustices and human rights violations: transitional justice and restorative justice. These frameworks strive to heal societies marred by conflict and systemic abuse, bridging the gap between restorative and transitional Justice in addressing historical Injustices and hoping for reconciliation, accountability, and healing.
Transitional Justice: A Framework for Change
Transitional justice is designed to address large-scale past abuses during political transitions. This multifaceted approach includes tribunals, truth commissions, reparations, and institutional reforms aimed at recognizing victims and promoting reconciliation (Theidon, 2018; Andreevska, 2013). These mechanisms can be endogenous or exogenous, depending on whether they are implemented internally by the society or externally by international actors (Kaminski et al., 2006). The challenges in this field often involve balancing peace with justice, ensuring accountability, and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations (de Hoon, 2020).
Restorative Justice: Healing Through Dialogue
Restorative justice shifts the focus from punishment to healing, prioritizing the restoration of harm and societal repair (Pointer, 2020). This approach has shown efficacy in diverse contexts, such as post-conflict reconciliation in Northern Uganda and international criminal proceedings (Thomas & Gardner, 2014; Henham, 2009). It fosters victim engagement, dialogue, and future-oriented outcomes, leading to profound personal and relational transformations (Savage, 2007; Pointer, 2020). Despite its promise, restorative justice faces significant systemic barriers, including institutional inertia and structural inequities (Savage, 2007; Pointer, 2020). Victim-offender dialogues, supported by Mark Umbreit and Marilyn Peterson Armour’s research, can lead to healing and accountability when properly facilitated (Umbreit & Armour, 2010).
Integrating Justice Approaches
The integration of restorative principles into show trials, often seen as political spectacles, presents an intriguing possibility. While show trials are typically associated with predetermined outcomes and political agendas, incorporating restorative elements could enhance truth-telling and community healing (Cook, 2016; Hughes, 2015). This hybrid approach would require careful balance between accountability and due process, ensuring fairness and transparency (Fairlie, 2004; McDermott, 2016).
Challenges and Opportunities
Applying restorative justice to severe human rights violations involves addressing power imbalances and ensuring victim safety. This approach offers a victim-centric framework that prioritizes healing and systemic change (Braithwaite, 2016; Llewellyn & Philpott, 2014). However, challenges such as re-traumatization risks and addressing large-scale harms require careful consideration.
Future Directions
Further research is needed to explore restorative justice’s long-term impacts and its potential in complex contexts. Developing best practices for implementing restorative principles in severe cases will be crucial for advancing these justice frameworks. Additionally, studies examining the integration of restorative elements into transitional justice processes could provide valuable insights into creating more holistic approaches to addressing historical injustices.
Conclusion
Restorative and transitional justice offer promising avenues for addressing historical injustices and promoting societal healing. By prioritizing victim narratives, fostering dialogue, and ensuring accountability, these frameworks can contribute to transforming societies and preventing future violations. As the field evolves, continued scholarly inquiry and practical innovation will be essential in realizing their full potential.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
– Andreevska, J. (2013). Transitional justice in post-conflict societies. – Braithwaite, J. (2016). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. – Cook, S. (2006). Show trials and the politics of justice. – de Hoon, M. (2020). Balancing peace and justice in transitional societies. – Fairlie, M. (2004). Ensuring fair trials in international tribunals. – Henham, R. (2009). Restorative justice and international criminal proceedings. – Hughes, E. (2015). The performative nature of show trials. – Kaminski, M., Nalepa, M., & O’Neill, B. (2006). Endogenous and exogenous transitional justice. – Llewellyn, J., & Philpott, D. (2014). Restorative justice in international contexts. – McDermott, Y. (2016). Due process in international criminal law. – Pointer, L. (2020). Restorative justice: A new paradigm for justice. – Savage, S. (2007). Systemic barriers to restorative justice. – Theidon, K. (2018). Truth commissions and transitional justice. – Thomas, E., & Gardner, J. (2014). Post-conflict reconciliation in Northern Uganda. – Umbreit, M. S., & Armour, M. P. (2010). Victim-offender dialogues in restorative justice.
What is justice? Restorative leadership is an approach to leading that focuses on healing relationships, rebuilding trust, and creating positive change through inclusive and collaborative practices. Once restorative leadership is introduced, a natural follow-up question is: “Restored to what?” Explaining that the restorative leadership model is rooted in restorative justice doesn’t answer the question either. That leads to a deeper inquiry, “What is justice?” I’ve been wrestling with that question for a while. In some ways, I feel like Justice Potter Stewart who famously said of obscenity, “… I know it when I see it.”1 But for me, it might be more accurate to say, “I know it when I feel it.”
Justice is often modified–criminal justice, social justice, economic justice, and so forth. Narrowing justice in this way may be helpful for assessment and problem solving, but whenever justice is qualified, it necessarily represents something less than justice wholly. My frustration has been in trying to define justice in this way, as an end in itself. I’ve reached a point where I am thinking that justice is not an aim to itself, that it must be anchored is something more broadly, like community.
To understand this complexity, consider the moral dilemma presented in The Lord of the Rings with Gollum’s story. In his quest to possess the golden ring—an artifact so corrupting it resembles a radioactive force, destroying all who come near it, Gollum committed numerous crimes, including murder. When Frodo accepts the burden of destroying the ring to protect the community, Gollum continues to pursue it relentlessly. Despite Gollum’s criminal past and treacherous nature, Frodo chooses to show him mercy, a compassionate stance that stands in stark contrast to other characters like Sam, who distrusts Gollum and advocates for harsh justice. Ironically, it is during a final fight with Frodo for possession of the ring that Gollum falls into molten lava, taking the ring with him and inadvertently saving all living beings from its destructive power.
It feels just—Gollum’s actions, driven by his own greed, led to his reward.
While Gollum’s fate may seem just in the moment, what happens when we examine it through the lens of broader community? Assuming that criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts, check–criminal justice is accomplished. Anchoring criminal justice in justice more broadly by removing the modifier “criminal,” still feels just. But what if justice is anchored more broadly into community.
The Concept of Community
The concept of community refers to a group of people who are connected by shared experiences, goals, values, interests, or geographical location. It is characterized by mutual relationships, interaction, and a sense of belonging among its members. It is where completeness, wholeness, harmony, and the flourishing of all creation happens. There is a field of study that has its own theories of community that should be consulted. For the limited use of this post, I freehanded some first principles of community that integrate social, relational, spiritual, and group dimensions.
Wholeness and Completeness: Community invites a state of wholeness and perfection, where nothing is lacking and all relationships are restored. This encompasses not only personal well-being but also societal health, justice, and equality of opportunity.
Peace and Harmony: Community invites peace—not just the absence of conflict but the presence of right relationships and reconciliation. It fosters harmonious relationships among individuals, communities, and even with the environment.
Reciprocal Engagement: Community invites engagement with others as members would like others to engage with them. Rather than something received, reciprocal engagement is the obligation to treat others rightly. It involves treating people with fairness, defending the vulnerable, and working to rectify imbalances of power. It emphasizes doing what is right and creating structures that promote equality of opportunity.
Reconciliation: Community invites mending broken relationships between people, within communities, and with God. It involves healing past wounds, restoring trust, and building bridges across divides.
Community and Mutual Care: Community extends beyond the individual. Members of a community bear responsibility for one another, promoting mutual care, respect, and love.
Flourishing and Well-Being: Community invites everyone to thrive in all aspects of life—physically, emotionally, spiritually, and materially. It aims to create conditions in which all people can reach their fullest potential.
Stewardship and Creation Care: Community invites a harmonious relationship with the environment. It calls for caring for the earth and ensuring its health for future generations, recognizing that human well-being is intertwined with the well-being of creation.
Love and Compassion: Community invites love and compassion for others. This principle calls for extending kindness, empathy, and generosity toward all people.
Healing and Restoration: Whether physical, emotional, or spiritual, Community invites healing and restoration. This can include personal transformation, reconciliation with others, and systemic change to address injustices.
Holistic Peace: Community invites peace that permeates every aspect of life. This principle highlights the interconnectedness of all things, meaning that peace in one area (e.g., personal, social, environmental) affects and is affected by peace in other areas.
These principles collectively reflect a vision of community that extends far beyond the absence of conflict, emphasizing a state of thriving, harmony, and justice within oneself, relationships, communities, and the world as a whole.
The Relationship Between Justice and Community
Alabama Judge Joseph A. Colquitt, who serves as the Chairman of the Alabama Sentencing Commission, suggests that
It is vital that we do not succumb to oversimplifying a complicated process and accepting easy answers. In this complicated area of law, solutions that sound simple are invariably based upon limited information or faulty assumptions.
Anchoring justice in community still leads to the conclusion that Gollum was treated justly in many ways. Frodo did extend him grace and repeatedly invited Gollum to be a part of community. But his end was not wholly just. Justice is not complete because Gollum is no longer a part of the community. Throughout Gollum’s story there were moments that evidenced that he had the potential to be a community member, to make reciprocal investment. He confronted the darkness in himself, he aided Frodo and Sam in their journey, he did serve an ultimately good end.
Creative Tension
So, maybe creative tension should be a component of community. By creative tension, I mean the dynamic friction between what we imagine our community to be and reality, which drives us to grow and improve as individuals and as a community. Maybe we have to acknowledge the messiness of it. Acknowledging that we imagine Community perfectly but that it isn’t perfect. That Community is striving for justice and recognizing that it is worth striving for but that we just cannot perfectly get there. This so-called creative tension2 can be a source of energy that drives positive change in the Community.
Perhaps we can also acknowledge that when we oversimplify complex issues or reach for easy answers, we are actually avoiding the creative tension that is essential for building communities. This avoidance prevents us from engaging in the difficult but necessary work of addressing challenges that shape the kind of communities we aspire to create. Embracing complexity and resisting quick fixes, though uncomfortable, allows us to participate in the transformative process that builds community.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
So-Called by Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and more modernly explored by by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline. ↩︎
Matthew Martens is a partner at WilmerHale, an international law firm, where he represents clients in high-stakes criminal and civil matters. Over his career he
Served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist at the U.S. Supreme Court
Worked as a federal prosecutor for 9 years
Practiced as a criminal defense attorney for 13 years
Lead the SEC’s Enforcement Division’s litigation program
Notable Cases and Expertise
Martens has handled a wide variety of criminal cases, including:
Securities fraud
Drug trafficking
Firearms violations
Child pornography
Mortgage fraud
Voter fraud
Public corruption
He has tried more than two dozen cases across the country as both a prosecutor and defense attorney. One of his most high-profile cases was serving as lead trial counsel for the SEC in the securities fraud trial against former Goldman Sachs trader Fabrice Tourre.
Academic and Writing Pursuits
In addition to his legal practice, Martens:
Teaches Legal Ethics at Duke Law School
Graduated first in his class from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1996
Holds a master’s degree in biblical studies from Dallas Theological Seminary
Is pursuing a Th.M. in theological ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Martens received recognition for his work, including:
The SEC’s prestigious Chairman’s Award for Excellence Praise from former SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro for his ability to present complex information clearly
Personal Life
Matthew Martens lives in northern Virginia with his wife of 30 years and their youngest son. He is a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC.
Brandon L. Blankenship is an assistant professor, continuing legal education presenter, and business educator. He and his wife Donnalee live on their hobby farm south of Birmingham, Alabama.
