Values, norms, and meaning are socially constructed. Such social construction through social institutions is used to shape identity, often dictating what is considered truth within a particular culture. At the same time, it is often the dominant, powerful classes of society or culture that control social institutions that dictate such meaning. At the same time this can privilege some members or classes of society, it can also marginalize others. As Pease and Fook share of FoucaultÆs definition of discourse, he viewed them as ôhistorically viable ways of specifying knowledge and truthùwhat it is possible to speak at a given momentö (1999, p. 14). This is true primarily because of the shifting meaning of values, ethics and truth. To me, critical social theory is the search for justice in social judgments in ways that construct a sustaining context for fairness and future possibilities. In director Phillip NoyceÆs (2002) Rabbit-Proof Fence, we see that social justice, conviviality, and future possibilities are often undermined through social institutions for non-dominant groups or cultures. This analysis will analyze this condition in Rabbit-Proof Fence to illustrate critical social theories that pertain to such marginalization.
From power and control to setting norms, social institutions are often dominated by the wealthiest groups in society. This is certainly true in American culture, where largely Protestant, wealthy, white males continue to control social institutions. It is also true in Australian society, as evidenced in Rabbit-Proof Fence. At a time when most of the Western world had abolished slavery, AustraliaÆs social institutions maintained it by forcing mixed-race aboriginal children from their mothers and deported to training schools that prepared them for employment as domestic or factory workers. Preparing these children for menial labor is not the only racist or prejudice values and norms they are ...