thoughts about statistics

Of interest to me as a result of the conversation in class on Thursday are the data sets which elucidate that violence and criminality rates are highest in areas of poverty or urban centers, and are even reported to be centered in these areas as the locus of its origin. Predominant in these areas are peoples of color. Psychological and anthropological studies alike report these findings. My curiosity about these statistics, after our discussion, is whether they exist and exhibit such high findings as a result of hyper-surveillance, or whether the presence of such statistics produced hyper-surveillance, or if either can be truly distinguished from the other.

Also interesting are the findings that in cases of non-nuclear families, single black mothers are reported to have the greatest positive influence upon their children. These single, black mothers are statistically demonstrated as being better at solving and resolving violent or criminal behaviors in their at-risk children. These children are deemed "at-risk" not because of their non-nuclear family, but because of the socio-economic position in which they are typically found, which is a resulting factor from the single parent, but not necessarily the fault of that parent. Cohort studies between single mother families in similar socio-economic positions demonstrated that black mothers were better than white mothers in teaching their children to avoid criminal or violent behaviors (see Garbarino Lost Boys or Way Everyday Courage for more information).

Similar studies also find that nuclear families, whose maintenance comes at the cost of the children, are more likely to produce children who engage in violent or criminal behaviors in both black and white communities.

My main questions revolve around the question of whether or not, as the statistics suggest, the relationship between hyper-surveillance can be clearly elucidated and, if they can, does the relationship between hyper-surveillance and criminality need to be refocused upon the dysfunctional nuclear families who seem to be producing higher rates of criminality? Hyper-surveillance, if unavoidable, seems to need an alternate outlet.

Doing intersectionality?

Here is search result form youtube that came up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92jxFbW2_A

In the video, Karma Chavez says that there are ways to "do intersectionality" in our daily lives.  Does this make sense in the way Crenshaw uses the word?

Doing intersectionality for Karma Chavez has two uses: 1) reach across cultural boarders, and 2) bring everyone to a cause that they all believe. This does not seem to mean the same things as Crenshaw suggests in Mapping the Margins, where intersectionality is the name for the general experience of black women.

I find it difficult to understand Crenshaw because of the scattered/loose definition of words such as intersectionality and the difficult language. Does anyone else have that problem and how do you deal with it?

A Frame Shift Isn't Enough - Another Word of Caution

                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. 

Postcards from the Edge

Postcards from the Edge, run under the site gawker.com, recently sent letters to all of the U.S. death row inmates who have execution dates in the upcoming year. Below, you will find a link to their first reply from Ray Jasper. Jasper was convicted of the 1998 murder of a recording studio owner. Jasper was 18 years old at the time. He has been in prison for the past 15 years. The purpose of publishing these letters is to hear directly from people whose voices are not often heard.

Coincidentally (or maybe not so much so…) we get a message reminiscent of our discussions in class today: the mass incarceration of black people (though Jasper also falls into the trap of focusing on black incarcerated MEN).

There's this. But before it came this.

He talks in the earlier letter about the legality/fairness/whatever you want to call it of removing black people or other minorities from the jury (obviously, not cool or representative). He also discusses the high proportion of black people in the prison system, commenting in the later letter on the profitability of incarceration. Whatever your opinions on capital punishment, he also discusses his opinion about it.

His insight is also greatly appreciated: empathy, he says, is needed more in the world. Really interesting read, though the more recent letter is quite long.

~ Brooke

Oppression in the Abstract and Privilege

In class on Thursday, I tried to make the point that, especially in grassroots organizing, one should not be too hasty to criticize the individualistic - indeed, neoliberal - position adopted by those directly affected by an issue at hand. 

For example, there are quite a few programs which try to teach young men of color how to avoid interactions with the carceral system, many of these programs being led by folks who themselves have had extensive involvement therein. As per Crenshaw’s critique, these programs both ignore the experiences women of color have with the carceral system, as well as fallaciously individualize the problem of mass incarceration. However, my point was that it is often an enactment of great privilege for one to be able to circumvent thinking about things on an individual level, given someone (like myself) has never directly or indirectly been affected by the carceral system in a substantive way. It is very easy for me to detach myself from an individualistic critique when such a perspective is all but vacant from my experiential knowledge. 

My point is not at all to encourage neoliberalism, or even necessarily to discourage a critique thereof. Rather, I simply want to highlight the privilege inherent in being able to think about the carceral system solely in abstraction, in theory. 

Moreover, I think this also identifies a vicious circle, a self-fulfilling prophecy of neoliberal thinking that may occur in highly marginalized and oppressed communities. When oppression and domination is not a topic reserved for Feminist Philosophy, but rather is a quality of everydayness, when one sees friends and family member being sucked through the school-to-prison-pipeline, being harassed and beaten by police, being forced into dangerous informal economic means, there is very likely an accompanying sense of hopelessness. A sense that one is not in control of these tidal forces, that they are far too hegemonic and insidious to be affected. Thus, it would not be inconceivable that if one nevertheless retained a modicum of hope, one would direct this energy towards effecting change in one’s immediate sphere. The idea that one could dismantle oppression on an individual level is alluring, no doubt. I am not saying it is “right,” but rather it is understandable, moreover rational (given such environmental conditions). 

Again, I am not trying to purport or advance neoliberal thinking, but rather I am suggesting that without an empathetic disposition regarding why already-marginalized communities would adopt neoliberal (and thus further marginalizing) thinking, one will never be able to build trust, and thus effectively organize, in these communities.  

Duke Porn Star and the Porn Industry: Empowering or Degrading?

This Time article argues that the libertarian feminist Duke porn star, Belle Knox, is not as empowered as she claims. I think the author dismisses her claims as teenage naivete prematurely without providing depth to the larger question of whether or not sex work, especially in the contemporary pornography industry, can empower women. This question raises larger issues about what empowerment for women means and prompts the limits to autonomous self-expression.

When people discuss pornography as empowerment, they are stipulating that it combats the patriarchal thought that women -- especially white women -- are pure and should be pure, and that sex acts pollute her as a fallen woman, or a slut. This social control of women's sexuality indicates power relations more than it signifies some simplified process of our culture determining its own sexual norms in an absence of oppressive structures. One must simply see who labels whom and how this justifies systematic discrimination and even violence. For two examples: (1) systematic discrimination limiting economic freedom: this Victorian-era ideal reinforces that women should remain in the private sphere as homemakers and thus remain financially dependent on her breadwinner husband in the public sphere  and (2) violence: justifying sexual assault if she dressed in a certain way and is perceived to commonly engage in casual sex, you know she wants sex with anyone as women are seen as either pure or totally depraved. In this line of thinking, pornography thus empowers women by embracing female sexuality and sexual pleasures in a symbolic, political effort to elevate their status and destroy this frame. In a sense, this thinking asserts that pornography dismantles patriarchal influence on women's sexuality.

However, due to its constant, reaffirming images of objectification, subordination, and abuse of women, the porn industry relegates women to be objects for heterosexual male pleasure -- not autonomous agents expressing their sexual desires. Furthermore, it likely influences how people practice sex and could perpetuate violence against women, for as Gloria Steinem pontificates "Pornography is the instruction. Rape is the practice, battered women are the practice, and battered children are the practice." Thus, as a paradigm of run-of-the-mill pornography, I argue that Belle Knox's work does not empower her or women generally. She acts in videos that normalize and eroticize male dominance and female submission, such as a man ejaculating on her face. Furthermore, despite her arguments for sexual autonomy and self-expression, she discusses only three perceived options: go to college and be saddled with extreme debt from student loans, go to college and work in the sex industry to pay off the debt, or not go to college. This implies a sense of unwillingness and pressure to perform sex work. It does not suggest that she pursues the job as an autonomous act of self-expression.

Nevertheless, I hesitate to assert that recording sex acts and publicizing the footage necessitates degradation, even if one does it for pay. Is there a way for one to perform a sex act that embraces women's sexuality and shows female pleasure in a way that establishes them as agentic and capable of subjective experiences? Furthermore, if the porn actress chooses to eroticize submission or abuse, does this combat the social control of women's sexuality? I am inclined argue that this sexual expression is informed by the patriarchy and reinforces it, as no decision is made in a vacuum; however, this obviously limits how one defines genuine autonomy and self-expression.

Understanding Intersecting Forms of Oppression using Models and Sets

A classmate asked me to expound upon my final statements in class today in a blog post because they were presented a little nebulously.  This post is an attempt to clarify from my point of view, specifically from the view of a mathematician.  

We can differentiate different aspects of our identity into categories.  This post will use the examples of Class, Race, and Sex.  We can treat these categories as sets, having certain elements that correspond to an individual's identity.  Furthermore, we can assume these social sets are partially-ordered sets (aka posets) under the binary relation of privilege.  There is a "greatest element" in each set, which is the most privileged element.  For the simplicity of an example, we can use three elements for each set: Class = {Lower, Middle, Upper}, Race = {Black, Asian, White}, and Sex = {Female, Intersex, Male}.

Any type of model that we create will have to make assumptions about the group it describes and hence will have to choose an element from each social set; this will create a new set which describes the assumptions for a model.  Since the topic of our analysis is oppression, preliminary models require choosing one non-privileged element of a social set, while assuming privileged elements for all other social sets.  This essentially means that to start with, we only examine one variable at a time.  Thus, the set of assumptions for preliminary models follows as such: { {Upper, White, Female}, {Upper, White, Intersex}, {Upper, Black, Male}, {Upper, Asian, Male}, {Lower, White, Male}, {Middle, White, Male} }.  There are 6 models here, and we can call this set 'x'.

Now, we move to the topic of analyzing intersecting forms of oppression.  This task is not as simple as analyzing two preliminary models because assumptions contradict.  For example, let us look at the black female.  The preliminary model for blackness assumes maleness.  The preliminary model for femaleness assumes whiteness.  As we can see here, an assumption for each model contradicts an assumption in the other, rendering these models incompatible.  Thus, we must now go past the preliminary models and create new models, new sets of assumptions, that are not constrained to contain only one non-privileged element.  This expansion results in the following set of expanded models for the intersection of two oppressed groups: { {Upper, Female, Black}, {Upper, Female, Asian}, {Upper, Intersex, Black}, {Upper, Intersex, Asian}, {Lower, Male, Black}, {Lower, Male, Asian}, {Middle, Male, Black}, {Middle, Male, Asian}, {Lower, Female, White}, {Lower, Intersex, Asian}, {Middle, Female, White}, {Middle, Intersex, White} }.  There are 12 models here, and we can call this set 'y'. The set of expanded models for the intersection of three oppressed groups is as follows: { {Lower, Female, Black}, {Lower, Female, Asian}, {Lower, Intersex Black}, {Lower, Intersex, Asian}, {Middle, Female, Black}, {Middle, Female, Asian}, {Middle, Intersex, Black}, {Middle, Intersex, Asian} }.  There are 8 models here, and we can call this set 'z'.

The number of elements in a set can be denoted by absolute value bars and is called a set's cardinality.  Because sets x, y, and z have no overlapping elements, we can see the total number of models created by finding the union of these three sets' cardinality, namely | x U y U z | = 6 + 12 + 8 = 26.  A simpler way to calculate this is just through knowledge of combinatorics: | Class | * | Race | * | Sex | - 1 = 3 * 3 * 3 - 1 = 27 - 1 = 26.  Why do we need to subtract 1?  Because there is no need to take into account the default model, namely {Upper, Male, White}; this model is already how we view things and thus is not included in the creation of any of our sets.  We defined a model as requiring at least one non-privileged element.

All of the above is by no means an actual, strict way of analyzing intersections but rather presents the basic concepts at hand.  It is just an example.  Obviously, there are more categories than just Class, Gender, and Sex, and each category actually contains more elements than given.  Regardless, we can see that models cannot be 'additive.'  Any metric for oppression is defined under a certain model, and since no two models are compatible, an understanding of a metric is not transferable between models.  From a mathematical point of view, addition is just an binary operator that maps two elements from a set onto another element in the same set (for example, under the set of integers, the addition operator takes the arguments 3 and 4 and maps them to 7).  A way of understanding that oppression is not additive is that since different metrics of oppression arise from different models, they cannot be placed in a set under which the addition operator is defined (at least in any reasonably coherent way).