In addition to dismantling the current system, we also have to be working toward different ways of dealing with social problems, ways that don't involve locking people in cages. That can mean a whole range of different things, from building closer-knit, healing-oriented communities, to using restorative and transformative justice approaches to deal with conflict and violence, to addressing mental health issues and addiction as public health problems and not "crimes." It also means providing health care, early childhood education, housing, good food, mental health care, childcare, and other necessary support for everyone who needs it. Those are ingredients of a caring and healthy and healing society. We have grown used to thinking that "protecting public safety" has something to do with police and prisons, which are violent institutions. Real collective safety comes from providing for each other, nurturing each other, helping each other grow and heal.
What you say makes sense, Maya. Getting some, most or all of it done is more complicated. Am I correct in assuming that the prison industry, prison guards unions, police might be either somewhat or very opposed to any 'reworking' of the present system? And if so, how can we proceed?
Yes, they'll be opposed, but anytime you're working to change the status quo, you're going to face opposition. What this transformation is about is building a new society, so some shaking up will inevitably occur. We can't not make changes because we're worried that powerful interests might not like them. Plus, the roles that those parties currently play (prison guards, police, etc.) are actually harmful to society. Their preservation hinges on the preservation of deep-seated racism and anti-blackness, classism, heteropatriarchy, and a brutal and ineffective punishing state. So really, we shouldn't have an interest in preserving those roles--and we shouldn't feel bad about needing to make that break.
Violent jobs and roles and industries have often been removed from societies throughout history--that's one of the ways in which we need to move forward.
You've mentioned various alternatives to what we've got now. Before we wrap this up, can you flesh one of them out a bit so we can more easily envision what this change might look like, at least in part?
Again, what we've got now is such a giant monolith, a lot of what an "alternative" would be is simply decarcerating people; when it comes down to it, we're locking up a lot of people because they're black or poor or disabled or transgender, not because they have done harm. But on the level of harm: We need to talk collectively about how to address problems and prevent violence in ways that don't involve state intervention. I always hate to single out a specific example of something that's working, because then people latch onto that and think that one thing represents what we can do to address harm instead of prison. When the point--if we're thinking beyond carceral structures--is to actually tackle specific problems in their contexts and in their communities, not attempt to use a one-size-fits-all solution.
Agreed.
In the book I look at a lot of different situations in which people are working to confront difficult issues--conflicts, violence--in community. One project I look at is Safe OUTside the System, in Brooklyn, an initiative of the Audre Lorde Project. It centers on violence against queer and gender-nonconforming people of color. Particularly, it is focused on creating "safe spaces" in community establishments--businesses, restaurants, cafes, bars, service organizations. Those places both work to foster healing, safe environments and provide sanctuary to people who need to get out of immediate violent situations.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
