Crenshaw
claims that we need to shift analytic frames such that we include Black women
in the scope of our understanding of mass incarceration. She also points out
that we must avoid shifting to the wrong frame—as in the case of the neoliberal
frame—otherwise we will not be addressing what we intended to address in the
way we intended to address it. I would like to add another word of caution:
Even if we do alter frames so that we understand the situation of Black women
in relation to mass incarceration, we must be careful to avoid the same
scripting or stereotyping that we have placed on Black men. Otherwise, we will
more formally script their lives.
Sometimes it is referred to as a cycle. Sometimes as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes
as labeling theory. It is all of these things, but with minor differences in
each case. What I am referring to—and what is constant across its various names—is
the phenomenon in which the blaming of, or labeling of, or finger pointing to
an individual or group tends to recreate the very behavior, action, or
condition that the accused were thought guilty of in the first place.
In Criminology, this phenomenon
is called Labeling Theory. It is the theory that labeling an individual as a
criminal is what makes them a criminal. Not only this, but it is likely to
induce the same behavior that “earned” the status as well as inducing other
related “criminal” behaviors. For example, no one thinks of their friend as
criminal for smoking weed, or breaking into an amusement park at night, or some
other minor illegal activity, until they are caught and arrested and labeled “criminal.”
In fact the very notion of criminal is defined by society; and as we can see with
the change in pot smoking laws, the content of what society views as criminal
behavior changes over time.
Crenshaw notes a similar, cyclic occurrence
in the UCLA Law Review. She calls it a vicious cycle given rise to by the
silence about the involvement of girls and women in mass incarceration. It goes
as follows in the words of Crenshaw verbatim:
- Discursive focus on men and boys leads to research and intervention that generate increasing knowledge and public awareness about their vulnerability
- Yet this frame often excludes research on women and girls
- This in turn reinforces the assumption that women and girls are not also suffering because the evidence is comparatively sparse
- But the evidence is comparatively spare because the frame precludes the inversitgation.
Within this cycle is an idea very similar to labeling
theory. The research done is with respect to the vulnerability of Black males
to mass incarceration. The general assumption is that minority groups,
especially Black males, are more likely to behave criminally because of their
race. This, in turn, gives rise to some of the criminal behavior exhibited. It
is not that they are actually anymore criminal than what we might call the
normal person. It is simply that they are labeled as such, which tends to
create a sense of criminality in the individual him/herself, and tends to
induce crime. Not only this, but they are only criminal in that we call them,
or label them, criminal.
Crenshaw’s
point is that this idea has been so scripted in society, that we tend to only
think of Black males as “at risk,” and we are hyper-aware of them as Black
males in relation to mass incarceration. This tends obscure the reality of
Black women who experience a similar relation with the law. Crenshaw wants shift analytic frames so
that reality of Black women can be addressed.
Yet, we need to be careful, even
if we get this shift right. Otherwise, we will have just expanded/altered
our script from only Black males to Black males and Black females. This could,
in effect, further exacerbate the relation of Black women to mass incarceration
just as it has done for Black males. In our shift, then, we need to recognize
the power of name-calling and blaming; that such behaviors can give rise to
very behavior which “earned” the name in the first place.
The frame-shifting is such a strange concept to understand. In class we were talking about it and it seems the conclusion is that a frame-shift means bringing black women's perspective to the center of discussion. Crenshaw probably does not mean that we should label black women instead of black men, that would be simply ridiculous. She probably meant (then again I really have a hard time figuring out what is said in those pages) that we need to shift the neoliberal mindset that caused all of those problematic intervention methods that we have now. She suggests that a frame that incorporates concerns for intersectionality will be a better one. But how?You are right to ask whether the intersectionality amendment really changes the neoliberal frame. Does Crenshaw clarify the ways intersectional identities oppose neoliberalism and functions to combat it?
ReplyDeletePierce and Briana,
ReplyDeleteI think another important part of Crenshaw's "frame shift" is the idea that centering the analytic focus on black women's experiences will eliminate many of the patriarchal, sexist assumptions that become part of the black-male-centric discussion of mass incarceration. Much of her argument about shifting the frame to black women centers on the fact that in doing so, we would be able to more closely examine the systematic oppression of marginalized groups because we could eliminate arguments that "nuclear families" with fathers as heads of households would solve the "problems" in African American communities. These realities are obscured in the current framework because it is still a sexist, albeit anti-racist, frame. To answer Briana's question, I believe Crenshaw's whole idea about the frame shift is predicated on the intersectional identity of black women. By doing research on the plight of African American who are victims of mass incarceration, we can show that it's not just a "problem with our boys," but rather a systemic problem that assumes all people of color are inferior, etc.
I think that for the most part, Crenshaw's idea of a frame shift is appropriate because it not only moves to include black women, but also just generally toward the marginalized people who are more likely to be arrested on certain charges that white people would, resulting in the general mass incarceration complex that spreads across a vast amount of marginalized identities who are unfairly victimized by the criminal justice system.
ReplyDelete