Good Evening Everyone,
Today was an excellent class! I found it very intellectually
stimulating, especially when finally coming together and creating a concrete
definition of structural violence.
On this note:
Structural Violence is defined as the interlocking systems
of injustice that operate in a way that can or will cause harm because of the
consolidation of power that manifests as social, political, or economic
interests.
However, a concrete definition of personal violence is still
under construction:
Personal Violence is when a person inflicts direct harm to
any being, or place.
With this framework in mind:
· What are
some examples of structural violence and/or personal violence within your respected
agencies?
· If personal
violence is present, how would you define that specific situation as an
indication of said violence?
Keep in mind that when applying these concepts, it is not
always noticeable depending on our roles within our respected agencies (i.e. direct services vs.
research). It could be a bit of a
challenge.
Safe Horizon:
Structural Violence:
In
Safe Horizon, our clients are victims of both labor and sex trafficking because
of situations within their home country that spur migration. Political, social,
economic and civil strife are the main reasons why people migrate, and not
necessarily why people are trafficked. People are trafficked because of the
conditions in their home country that are the result of interlocking systems of
injustice which include, but are not limited to the government and poverty
(which is spurred by other factors). For example, Mexico is experiencing
state/structural violence on an enormous scale. The government of Mexico is run
by corrupted officials who support gangs that wreak havoc on the population at
large. The government fails to provide the population with services that
support education and social welfare. Structural violence also occurs when
victims are exploited in the United States, this is through the attitudes of
policy makers and individuals who are against im(migration) as a whole.
Structural violence in the framework of Safe Horizon and its mission, also
implicates that personal violence has been incorporated into the trafficking
process.
Personal Violence:
Personal violence is very noticeable when engaging with
clients at Safe Horizon. Unlike structural violence, personal violence is often
inflicted on the victim by the trafficker. Different styles of personal
violence could be verbal, physical, or psychological in the forms of abuse and
threats to their victim or the victim’s family. Personal violence also occurs
when social service providers are engaging with a client and the provider experiences
vicarious trauma. Vicarious trauma is trauma that occurs when a social service
provider is affected by the trauma(s) of their clients.
Some additional information:
Training Module:
(FREE)Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
training: http://tfcbt.musc.edu/
20 comments:
Great prompt Gabby! And I do agree, the discussions we had in class yesterday really helped clarify some concepts and challenged me to think more about these issues. Because I just officially started working at my internship with CJA last week, it will be a little difficult for me to assess noticeable examples of structural and personal violence that we see at the agency. Nevertheless, these are some of my ideas…
Structural Violence:
So far, I can’t think of clear-cut examples in which the defendants I have interviewed have been victims of structural violence. I did, however, learn something quite interesting during my first few days at CJA. I learned from multiple sources that laws prohibiting less serious crime are more heavily enforced in Queens than in other boroughs and as a result, many more individuals are arrested and charged in Queens with crimes like theft of services (jumping a turnstile). I also heard that this is because there is more serious crime in other boroughs than in Queens, thus making it harder for these other boroughs to crack down on small crime. As a result, I began to question whether there is injustice present if laws on less serious crimes are more enforced and possibly dealt with more harshly in Queens than in any other boroughs. In addition, if injustice is present and there are political or economic incentives behind this enforcement and crackdown on small crime, are individuals arrested for crimes like theft of services in Queen’s victims of structural violence? Of course, there is the idea that the strict enforcement of these laws in one borough than another should not be a problem because it is the duty of all individuals to abide by the law. Not sure if this made sense, but these are just some of my initial ideas at the agency.
I would, however, make the claim that the goal of our agency is to reduce the effects of structural violence. The CJA emerged out of the Manhattan Bail Project, which was originally created to reform the bail system and reduce unnecessary pretrial detention. If we remember from the Sturz biography, private bail agencies were setting bail at ridiculous rates that almost no individual could afford. One could argue that this exemplifies structural violence because these bail agencies were causing harm and seeking to satisfy their economic interests. Because the CJA understands that paying bail is often not possible for defendants, our agency seeks to recommend individuals for release on their own recognizance if they exhibit strong community ties based on their answers during the interview. If, however, the judge does set bail for the defendant (of $3500 or less), we send them to BEX (Bail-Expediting Project, which is a CJA project), where these individuals will be assisted in contacting family or friends to see if anyone is willing bail them out. I’m a total fan of what we’re doing here at CJA and I can’t wait to learn more these next two semesters.
Personal Violence:
Examples of personal violence are much more noticeable and evident at CJA. While shadowing some of the other interviewers, I encountered a few cases of domestic abuse, which I’m sure many of you see at your agencies as well. Usually we are dealing with the person inflicting abuse, but there are also many circumstances where the abuser is also a victim of some sort of violence him or herself. Evidently, domestic abuse is a prime example of personal violence, as it involves a clear actor that inflicts harm on another being, causing the victim to be subject to physical, emotional, or psychological damage. At CJA, we always ask defendants during our interviews with them whether there is an alternative address they can stay at if the judge releases them on their own recognizance but permits them from returning to their primary address because the complainant of the domestic abuse dispute is currently living there (having an alternative address also increases the chances that the judge releases them without bail).
After our class yesterday, I really gave some thought into way the CJA deals with the issue of homelessness in relation to the concept of personal violence. Some of you might remember from our discussion in class, but I had the opportunity to interview a homeless man at Central Booking who didn’t want to tell me that he was homeless. Now, I honestly did not know what to do at the time because protocol requires us to probe for the primary address of every defendant (address is an important aspect during the verification process). If they don’t have an address, there is an option on the interview report for homeless. After class, however, I began to reflect on what we were discussing about and on some of the possible reasons as to why the interview turned out the way it did. I gave a lot of consideration to the possibility that he may have been ashamed to tell me that he was homeless. I also strongly considered the idea that he may actually have wanted to stay locked up because he would at least have access to food and water. Both of these possibilities raise important issues for our agency to consider.
Some striking and disturbing questions came to mind when I was thinking about this situation in relation to the concept of personal violence. For example, are we as interviewers causing personal violence by probing for a primary address? In other words, are we inflicting emotional harm/personal violence when asking for an address by possibly causing our interviewees to feel ashamed for being homeless? These are some really thought-provoking questions that challenged me and I definitely don’t have the answers yet. From these questions, I came to the realization that personal violence can be inflicted subtlety on another individual. Regardless of whether this constitutes as personal violence, however, there is definitely a need for a better approach during our interviews. As a result, I will continue to keep these questions in mind and work towards a more positive way of dealing with similar situations.
Hi Gaby! I think it's a great prompt because it allows us to apply this huge theoretical term to our own experiences!
Since I intern at Fedcap, I primarily work with recently incarcerated individuals and those without permanent residency. Unlike Nicholas, I have a harder time tangibly finding instances of personal violence that occur within my field. Or I should say - I believe these instances of personal violence are accredited to the much larger concept of structural violence. For example there are a view customers in the program who have exhibited violent tendencies in the past, and there have been in house discussions on the way their environment has shaped this. I recall one woman who successfully (which was amazing!) landed a job as a security guard, but expressed a concern that if there is an altercation taking place where she worked if she should attempt to break up the fight - and if this would trigger a reaction for her. She, as so many others in the program, have stated that because she was "from the streets, if someone hits me, I will hit back." Of course this fulfills the technical requirements of personal violence: the subject, verb, and object. Many of this displays of violence have either led to the disqualification of the program or may have been how they ended up requiring such a service.
However my main issue with labeling this as personal violence is that the social environment has had a much larger impact than is stated. One way of looking at this would be the urban survival syndrome, used and legitimized in court proceedings, to highlight the necessary mentality in order to survive living in a high risk environment. Additionally if I were to perform an analysis of the customers requiring our services I would easily find that they belong to certain categories of people that have been disadvantaged by the current system: racial groups, living within the poverty line. These are two factors that cannot be ignored. As we have found in our discussions, the structure has almost set certain populations up to fail. The education system benefits those who pay higher taxes, which certain communities cannot afford, and thus the supplies and even standard of education falls. The prison system which, according to the New Jim Crow, has unfairly targeted black men in America. The statistics in the book are startling especially if you pay careful attention to chapter 5. One clear example that highlights the increasing inequality found in the book is: “992 black men received a bachelor’s degree from Illinois state universities in 1999; while roughly 7,000 black men were released from the state prison system just the following year for drug offenses alone” (Alexander, 2012). The book points out another interesting aspect of structural violence that is highly applicable to my placement: "young black men may be just as likely to suffer discrimination in employment, housing, public benefits, and jury service as a black man in the Jim Crow era…because it is based on one’s criminal record" (Alexander, 2012). The use of criminal record to bar one from social services has seriously disadvantaged populations (for whom it has become clear are targeted unfairly as demonstrated by NYC's failed stop and frisk policy).
Having had this discussion in class will certainly allow me to keep more of an open mind towards noticing injustices in our policies.
And Nicholas - I am really really happy to hear you say that you're looking at the policies of your workplace! Of course I don't think any of us will deny that these are social services that are highly necessary but we can always work on improving the standards. I thought it was a really interesting point we talked about yesterday, how we may not always see the problems until we step away from it.
The link Gabby posted has some great resources that I think we could all benefit from. Particularly the training regarding cognitive behavioral therapy as they have a program for adults. This may better equip us as Verons to be alert, empathetic, and trained to react to personal difficulties.
Good luck!
The exercise leading us to a concrete definition of structural violence in class was very stimulating for mind. It really allowed me to take a step back and examine what's actually going on in several cases. Bringing what I learned in class to my site, I was able to identify an instance of structural violence as well as personal violence.
Structural violence:
An instance of structural violence appeared during a conversation I had with my supervisor. We were discussing some of the court mandated participants at CASES. She spoke about one of her favorite participants who is no longer in the program due to a violation of their parole. A curfew was part of the agreement and was the term that was violated. She went into detail as to what was discussed at the final court date that she attended. In court there were surveillance videos of this participant violating parole. They began watching this individual closely because he was well known in the neighborhood. You would not believe what he was doing that was considered a violation. The parolee was helping his elderly mother get groceries from the car (which was parked directly in front of his establishment) after his determined curfew time. The majority of violations had dealt with aiding his mother. The participant was sentenced to several years behind bars because of this and we all found it to be an injustice. I do believe they cracked the whip a little hard on this case and there must have been more behind it. Apparently they meant the participant should be behind his door by curfew time not around his establishment. I believe the determined sentence was influenced by political and social interest. The time that this individual is behind bars harms his mother and himself.
Personal violence:
As said in class, personal violence is easily identified in comparison to structural violence. At the CASES' Harlem site I've been able to see many interactions between the young individuals. One day before observing a class one of the participants was heading to the store and asked if anyone wanted something. Another participant overheard him and put him in a headlock asking why he's going to the store when he owes him money. Of course I viewed this as boys being boys but actually looking at it now it's personal violence. The two laughed about the altercation afterwards but you can tell the one in the headlock was harmed not only by witnessing the action but because of the way he kept massaging his neck afterwards. While this happened the two ended up being late for class which resulted in them being locked out. I consider them missing class as personal violence as well because missing these classes can have long term effects to their performance on their GED exams. Harming their educational advancement in society.
In class we defined the concept of structural violence as “the interlocking systems of injustice that operate in a way that can or will cause harm because of the consolidation of power that manifests as social, political, or economic interests.”
As far as my experience had gone with the CEO (Center for Employment Opportunities), what I have learned to be the structural violence present within the system is the incapacitation of women and men with criminal records from being able to reintegrate themselves into the workforce after getting released from prison.
As the CEO’s vision goes: “Anyone with a recent criminal history who wants to work has the preparation and support needed to find a job and to stay connected to the labor force.” Before delving deeper into the structural violence present within the system which the agency of my placement tries to address the problems therein, I would like to step back and go back to the definition of structural violence and the discussion we had as a class last week.
The first part of our definition is the “interlocking systems of injustice.” Without digging deeply into specific details, we can recognize and identify what these systems in place are that altogether brings injustice, a state of unequal opportunities leading to unequal outcomes. Within the criminal justice system, we can cite racial injustice that is evident in this country that affects millions of people annually. Just this year alone, the United States have witnessed the brutal truth in how much work there needs to be done and concerns to be addressed when it comes to reforming the criminal justice system on the basis of what and how much role racial relations have in it. Historically, from racial injustice stems all the other elements that have direct effects on the people on the other end of the rope. The social, political, and economic interests of those in power are maintained and preserved by denying those that are victims of injustice the same interests.
Why does an agency like the CEO, along with all the other non-profit spin-off agencies that stemmed from Vera, exist? It exists from the mere fact that there is a gap in how the American society and the government treat people who are perceived to have somehow “deviated” from the norms, both social and legal. For the clients of CEO, the formerly incarcerated, it is the notion that they are perceived to be less than able, functional, members of society after having a criminal conviction. This is where the problem of working to reintegrate — or in many cases also integrate — back into the workforce to support themselves and their family comes in. Not many companies and/or agencies are willing to provide employment to formerly incarcerated persons. Simply, there are not just many that offer a bridge, provide the resources that these people need.
It is the cycle of incarceration and recidivism that the CEO aims to break. Going along our definition, still, of structural violence, these are the direct harms to the people with a history of criminal conviction. In its ways of addressing these issues, CEO works around a model of providing resources and services to the formerly incarcerated with the goal of helping them get employment and maintain their presence within the workforce.
The structural violence is that there is an absence of major efforts, policy-wise, to cater to the needs of formerly incarcerated people. The prisoner reentry crisis in the United States remains one of the biggest problems in the criminal justice system. A U.S. Department of Justice study on recidivism published in 2014 found that 67.8% of almost half a million (404,638) state prisoners released in 2005 in 30 states were arrested within 3 years of release, and 76.6% were arrested within 5 years of release. Since there aren't enough government services that aim to reduce this problem, some people with a history of crime conviction do not get the chance to have access to employment opportunities that would help prevent them from going back to criminal behaviors and activities.
Here is where CEO steps in by providing services and employment opportunities to the affected women and men to help resolve a crisis that plagues the formerly incarcerated population in the country. (1) Job Readiness Training, in which the participants attend a week-long Life Skills Training that involves interactive sessions where resume-building, interview preparations, and job applications are involved; (2) Transitional Job Training, where graduates of the Job Readiness Training are placed in work sites and are evaluated by supervisors on their work performance, and get paid at the end of a work day; (3) Permanent Job Placement, a program that provides a full-time job placement to those who succeed in the first two steps of the model, and finally (4) Post-Placement Retention Services, where counseling is provided by Retention Specialists at CEO who work to make sure that the participants maintain their job once they get it.
The gap (or hole) that the CEO aims to fill is a by-product of the structural violence herein identified.
Hi everybody! Yes, last class was very challenging. I enjoyed the fact that we all came from different lenses of academia to come up with one concrete example of "Structural Violence". I noticed this more than ever when Professor Rose pointed out that she was coming up with words for the definition at a psychological perspective while Professor Waterston was thinking about it through her interdisciplinary lens. It was really interesting- and I think our definition trumps any we can find via google.
Anyway, structural violence can be seen at my site over personal violence (not actually at my site, but we work to mitigate a form of structural violence). I work at the Center for Youth Justice for the Status Offense Reform Center. We deal with cases that would not be considered illegal if they child weren't of age--ie not going to school, running away ect. The structural violence in this offenses is the impulsive nature to throw a child in jail because of their defiance to attend school. There is nothing criminal about the child's choice to not go to school--although some forced instances where they can not make it sure are.
Instead of providing resources for children who make absenteeism a habit, the government collects monetary funds for the child's behavior and in many cases--make them serve time in prison. The impulsion to get rid of a child by throwing them in jail as oppose to meeting the child where they are and focusing on the reasons why they are unable to attend school makes a child feel as if they are not worth the effort.
The definition to structural violence once again, as we concluded, was "the interlocking systems of injustice that operate in a way that can or will cause harm because of the consolidation of power that manifests as social, political, or economic interests". The interlocking system of injustice is our Juvenile/Criminal Justice system that deems it appropriate to fine and incarcerate minors as oppose to council them, and the economic interests is present in the collection of these truancy fines.
Structural Violence:
Within Common Justice structural violence can be seen within the criminal justice system. As Nicholas was referring to, the severity of sentencing has taken the form of structural violence for the responsible parties (perpetrators). Due to the harsh sentencing many individuals opt into plea deals in order to face a considerably reduced term or no time at all. However, when people accept the plea deal they accept that they are guilty of the alleged crime. In some cases, defendants accept a plea deal even when they are innocent of all charges either from a lack of knowledge or because of the fear of being found guilty and being forced to face a longer-term for a crime they did not commit. When being found guilty, it legally strips you from many privileges such as housing, employment, and voting. Specifically, an issue within Common Justice is that individuals, who did not commit the alleged crime, are being accepted into the program on the belief that the responsible party is fully aware as well as admits their wrongdoing and responsibility of the crime. In actuality, the “responsible party” is willing to take the Common Justice route considering how they avoid the harsh sentencing of the alleged crime and stay out of prison/jail. This ultimately diminishes the impact of Common Justice and makes it difficult to select a party that is truly guilty of the crime.
Harsh sentencing has reformed many black communities by separating families and simply deteriorating people’s lives through the years they have to sacrifice in prison/jail. The stereotypical belief that black men are not involved in their children’s life is due to the fact many black fathers are incarcerated. Harsh sentencing is one of the root causes for the lack of black fathers. Additionally, statistics suggest that because of the lack of fathers, their children have an increased susceptibility to commit crime.
Personal Violence:
In Common Justice personal violence can be identified through certain crimes the responsible party commits such as burglary and assault. These specific forms of crimes have a direct impact on the harmed parties (victims). When such crimes are committed it can affect the harmed party emotionally, mentally, psychologically, and physically. Being assaulted or burglarized can have traumatizing effects, which may also invoke the responsible party to physically assert themselves in order to achieve their goal. Both burglary and assault can be viewed as a crime that explicitly harms an individual, whether that is financially, physically, or emotionally.
I agree, Gabby this is a great prompt and your right as far as the differences at our respected agencies. I'm placed at Vera where direct service is nonexistent so I cannot provide detailed case studies about structural violence or personal violence affecting clients. However, I can see how my department's (The Center on Sentencing and Corrections) work at Vera is helping to reduce structural violence. We came to a consensus that the best definition for such a multilayered concept is "the interlocking systems of injustice that operate in a way that can or will cause harm because of the consolidation of power that manifests as social, political, or economic interests." I think mass incarceration is the perfect example of a system of injustice that brutally immobilizes a specific group of people while it feed the social, political and/or economic interests of others. It is no secret that there are people in power who have some kind of resentment towards black people. Jasmine’s post clearly illustrates the magnitude of a system that constantly put black people at the bottom of the social ladder. The piece of her post that really got my attention was:
The statistics in the book are startling especially if you pay careful attention to chapter 5. One clear example that highlights the increasing inequality found in the book is: “992 black men received a bachelor’s degree from Illinois state universities in 1999; while roughly 7,000 black men were released from the state prison system just the following year for drug offenses alone” (Alexander, 2012). The book points out another interesting aspect of structural violence that is highly applicable to my placement: "young black men may be just as likely to suffer discrimination in employment, housing, public benefits, and jury service as a black man in the Jim Crow era…because it is based on one’s criminal record" (Alexander, 2012).
The information paints a certain picture about black people socially if you’re unaware of the structural violence. Additionally, actions that usually develop social promotion seem to be inaccessible to black men due to discrimination and/or a criminal record. Those unaware might see it as black men rather commit crimes than pursue education. On the contrary, it is a system working against black men. Using an article from The Atlantic, we can take heroin use as an example. When their was a “black” heroin epidemic in the 1960s, the immediate response was to demonize and punish (Cohen, 2015). However, now that white Americans are leading the race in heroin use and abuse, based on federal records for the years between 2006 and 2013, it is a public health issue instead of a criminal justice system one. Its use is now considered a disease to be treated or cured compared to the past when it was commingled with violent crime (Cohen, 2015).
The Center for Sentencing and Corrections main goal is to reduce incarceration. The less people go through that ordeal, the less people will be victimized by structural violence. There are so many systems within it that impede on people’s development even more. That is why my department is needed to conducted social science and legal/policy research, provide technical assistance, convene for certain beliefs, and produce informative publications. These actions will have a direct influence on pretrial and court processes, detention policy, sentencing policy, conditions of confinement, and reentry.
Another example of structural violence that came up a few times in conversations with my supervisor is prisoner debt. As if the psychological and emotional affects of being locked up in a steel cage or in a windowless box wasn’t enough. “Prison officials in at least six state systems have the authority to impose fines in addition to solitary for a single rule violation” (Eichelberger, 2015). These rule violations can range between many different things from fighting to being disruptive enough to interrupt the daily inmate count. The costs of fines add up greatly when combined with court fees and other payments prisoners have to make. The Department of Corrections defends this practice claiming, “that access to a combination of punishments helps it reduce violence and maintain order” (Eichelberger, 2015). However, it also damages families, communities and delays successful reentry.
Gabby, like you, many of the programs that my agency is involved with deal with individuals migrating to the United States because of unsafe conditions in their own countries. Today, I had a meeting with someone who leads a program through my agency, the Center for Immigration and Justice and we were discussing the need for individuals with mental illnesses who have come through the US via illegal channels to have lawyers. This is an underserved population in many countries including our own. One of the things mentioned was the argument in the past that since immigration court was civil and not criminal they did not need counsel, but I learned that there was a penalty for coming here illegally, and that no longer were you just sent back but could be detained for a period and even face jail time for up to 6 months for your first offense, and up to 20 years if a crime had been committed in the United States! (Note - they wouldn't be in a facility where their mental illness would be treated like with a U.S citizen but would be in a jail with criminals). This isn't an adequate solution as it poses a huge cost to the United States and jail time hasn't been seen to deter illegal immigration. It has been questioned in terms of constitutionality whether it was okay to (a) allow people who are incapable of defending themselves to defend themselves and (b) penalizing them for their mental illness.
This is an example of structural violence because mental illness isn't addressed for many individuals by their home governments and therefore they flee to the United States to receive treatment and get sent back. Another example of structural violence can be found in the main program I am working on now which is the justice AmeriCorps program. I've been doing a lot of reading on unaccompanied minors since the clients in the program are all unaccompanied children under the age of 16. The girls often flee countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatamala because of sexual violence prevalent in their countries. One narrative involved a 15 year old girl whose uncle helped her flee because a known gang member had an infatuation with her and she states that the last time this specific member had an infatuation with a girl he raped her and then murdered her.
I'm not sure if this is an example of personal violence, but many of the children in the Justice AmeriCorps program have sought asylum because of fear of violence at home. While this may fall under structural violence, the children are often forcefully recruited into gangs through violent means. They are threatened along with their friends and family. Additionally, living in a neighborhood where here is a known gang population and going to a school where a rival gang exists can lead to violent physical confrontations. There was one narrative I read of a boy who fled because kids from his school that lived in his neighborhood had been killed and he had no choice but to flee.
I'm not sure if my understanding of structural violence vs personal violence is sufficient enough yet to really be as to differentiate between what types of violence falls under which category but I'm sure once the semester progresses and it will become much easier.
Great posts everyone!! Andrene, I really liked reading your post about status offenses and how they turn really minor incidences into something criminal! It's also important to look at the kinds of children that are often found to commit status offenses. I was discussing with Krista(?) writing about it because in Texas (one of the two states that does this the other being Wyoming I believe) schools are far from where children live and there is no public transportation system. Few children can afford their own vehicle and few parents can afford missing part of their workday to take their kid to school. One time I missed the school bus which had come early and ended up walking nearly an hour and a half and note we don't have sidewalks (through woods and brush where we have deadly snakes) to get to an exam. As a high schooler I thought that was normal, but as an adult I realize how crazy it is that a 15 year old should have to endanger herself because their parents can't afford to leave work to take them to school or can't afford to pay the excessive fine of missing school!
It strikes me when thinking about our discussions so far--starting from the first day of class, that every single one of you is passionate about social change. So when we talk about structural violence as the way the society (as an interlocking system) is organized that creates the kinds of injustices that we want to see change, then it makes me wonder what, exactly, it is that we should be changing.
Should we be focused on the structures that create the conditions that lead to the violence? Or do we tackle what Jasmine called the symptoms of structural violence (such as interpersonal violence). Or do we tackle both at the same time? And what is the best way to go about working towards the kinds of changes we think we want to see? I don’t know the answers to these questions. I raise them because I think these are the hard questions that are at the center of so much of the struggle towards constructing a more just society.
It’s actually fascinating to go back and look at your responses to the first blogs of the semester. Keeping the notion of structural violence in mind, it’s interesting to see what you wrote about the greatest threats facing humankind and about social change. Do you see what I mean??
By the way, here is Galtung's website in case you want to check out his lifetime of work towards social change:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/category/editorial/
And here he is on Youtube!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYFn_hSF3wQ
Nancy-YES! Exactly. Your example is perfect in analyzing exactly why the concept of incarcerating and/or fineing minors are so criminal--ie: structural violence. policy does not put these factors into perspective.
While Monnero and Jasmine are under the topic of incarceration, I also wanted to make a note about status offenses that I found SO interesting (in a criminal way). The myth about status offenses are that girls are more subjected to these kind of behaviors: running away, not going to school, ect. But the reality is that girls are much more subjected to harsher punishment than males when it comes to these offenses.
I had an excellent conversation with my coworker Lindsay when we spoke about how girls are treated in juvenile cases relevant to status offenses. Because there are limited alternatives to incarceration for girls, judges are left to decide whether or not to send these girls to jail for their "defiant" behavior as a form of rehabilitation, or send them back into society to commit the same crime or being subjected to the same gender based violence that resulted in her committing the crime. Because of societies constant need to "shelter" or "protect" these girls over the same compulsion to do it for guys, judges often times chose longer sentences for these girls--even when their crime is not considered criminal, but the environment she is subjected to is...
...I don't have an answer to that Professor Waterston.. But I CAN SAY in the cases of SO related offenses, it would be best to focus on the structure that creates the conditions that lead to violence. This structure would be the policy that deems it appropriate for absenteeism to be illegal. There are other penalties that can be put into place rather than incarceration and/or excessive fines.
Check out this article that talks about what I've said: http://jjie.org/girls-incarcerated-longer-for-less-serious-offenses-texas-study-shows/137855/
Gaby, yay! This post did a great job getting to what we missed in class, The Examples! Whoop Whoop! Nick! Excellent reflection and exploration. Yes! High arrests for low level crimes is a strong example of structural violence. The collateral damage of arrests is well documented. Jessica, your post's example of structural violence is a vivid illustration of the relationship between personal and structural violence, be sure to acknowledge the interconnection there. Marcus, great examples. Valfrie, Andrene and Monnero, your posts do a great job citing examples of structural violence, what are examples of personal violence that relate to your agency's work? Look to the literature, there are unfortunately plenty. Nancy, yes! The example you give about structural violence is inextricable from personal that is stated clearly in the example- young women are migrating because of sexual violence. Be sure to map the interconnection.
We will be addressing how to approach structural violence tomorrow! Can't wait! Great job!
To answer Professor Waterston's post (or at least attempt to with my very limited work with the concept so far) I believe we should tackle both at the same time, but over time if the movement is successful more emphasis should be placed on structural violence as the sickness. It would be wrong to ignore the symptoms as it will not go away immediately - but instead of focusing solely on these sicknesses as independent of each other the best path would be to educate them as an INTERLOCKING system. I highlight interlocking because education as just as much to do with health and work as the criminal justice system. If in our respective agencies we were able to raise these questions in addition to solving the immediate needs it would move us away from providing a relatively bandaid service. While this is is in no way a solution I believe that it is the beginning of finding a solution. Education and discussion on the issue would be vital before anyone would even be willing to make a change.
I'm not really too sure I can totally figure out the ways in which structural violence affects the clients of DVLEAP because I haven't yet had the opportunity to meet with anyone but I can theorize (which can just be a manifestation of assumptions).
To begin I don't think the definition we came up with during our last seminar course is concrete because "interlocking systems" leaves a lot of space and maybe in an effort to consise we actually came up with a definition that is equivocal. Because of loose and vague definition it all the awkward correlations around class, gender, race that we encounter at our agencies will have a strange lense (or at least for me).
To answer the prompts though (sorry I get side-tracked). I'm believe that DVLEAP or Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (see I figured it out @ProfessorRose) is a direct response to the structural and personal cycle of violence. Our clients or victims are receiving aid or housing from us because the "interlocking systems" (see, it's kind of awkward to not have a concept to point to) puts folk in situations where their abuser feels entitled to inflict personal violence in the form of sexual assault, physical assault, financial abuse, etc. Although spaces like DVLEAP exist to aid clients or victims seeking justice and becoming autonomous and safe we don't have agencies that attempt to eliminate the socio-political ideologies that create this climate of abuse in the first place.
I suppose of a question of have for my peers is:
Do you think it's pragmatic to instead of just responding actually reimagine and recreate spaces where individuals don't need our respective agencies?
I'm sorry I couldn't answer your question in the manner in which everyone else has I don't have any anecdotal experience to recall (I will friday however, and perhaps I'll revisit this)
Post a Comment