Sanctuary’s exclusionary logic of separated power paradoxically produced protection for the vulnerable

Evidence

But here is a situation where those traditions of sequestration and seclusion, so often the trappings of power, came to serve the needs of the most vulnerable. It’s a classic instance of the crack-back complexity of dialectic: The very ideologies that constituted the sanctuary as a space “apart” produced a powerful universalizing countercurrent. And that took the following form: Certain things absolutely could not be done in the sanctuary. For instance, the secular hand of law and vengeance could not reach into the sacred precincts. This meant that score-settling, revenge, worldly retribution—all of this was categorically forbidden. Therefore, the sanctuary served, in times of strain, distress, and emergency, as a place of respite. If you could make it to the sanctuary, you could claim a special kind of protection. You were untouchable by worldly forces. You were safe. — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!, 338

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the paradox-of-sanctuary logic that grounds the whole chapter’s argument.
• XREF: Wonky parallel to how exclusionary/differential spaces get re-appropriated — resonates with the ‘Grafting & Growth’ theme of repurposing old structures; also echoes prior chapter on sanctuary ethics.