As revealed by the Norwegian sociologist, Victor Shammas (year
unknown), one of the key concerns of sociologists of punishment, and criminologists,
has been the impact on the policy making process and the wider body politic, of
penal populism. Shammas defines penal populism as the ways in
which political parties have competed with one another to present themselves to
the voting public as exponents of a politics of law and order. Exponents routinely promise the electorate
‘tough on crime’ responses, matched by longer prison sentences, harsher
punishment regimes, all supported by an ever-expanding prison complex and
police force. Penal populism is best
viewed as a collaborative project that encompasses a triumvirate made up of the
political/policy class, the media and the ‘community’ who work off (and with) each
other in a mutually beneficial project based on the generation of fear,
victimisation, demonisation and moral panic.
Shammas rightly points out that besides the lack of evidence of
the effectiveness of the policies and interventions that generally result from
penal populism, the process also involves the marginalisation of the right sort
of commentator, namely sociologists and criminologists, who offer an
empirically informed, ‘neutral’, objective, sophisticated view of the world of
deviance. In a policy process dominated
by penal populism, the technical and empirical knowledge of the criminological
elite is sidelined, or as Shamma beautifully states it, “supplanting the
(putatively) reflective, restrained, and rehabilitationist dispositions of a rational,
reasonable elite who were tasked with shaping the field of crime control in
past times”.
In Shammas’ thesis, the sociological and criminological experts represent
the physical manifestation of the mirror concept of ‘penal elitism’, which he
describes as “the normative (over)valuation of elites and consequent
devaluation of the public’s right to determine the field of crime
control”. My translation: the massive
egos of the academic elite leads them to believe that only their views and
perspectives should impact crime control policy, while the perspectives and
experiences of Joe Blog should not (unless of course it has first been filtered
through the world view of an academic).
Shamma then claims that unlike penal populism, which has received
extensive attention from the penal elite, penal elitism has itself received little
critical attention; thus “leading a largely subterranean existence, rarely, if
ever, subjected to reflexive scrutiny”.
Well, not quite: as part of a wider critique of racism in the
western academy, the ‘other’ academy is fighting back and increasingly exposing
the bigotry and condescension that lies at the heart of the mainstream
academy. This is true also of mainstream
criminology, a discipline some commentators hold partially responsible for the
ongoing subjugation of the poor, Indigenous peoples, and the descendants of slaves
residing in North America and the Caribbean (see for example Agozino, 2003; Kitossa,
2012; Tauri, 2016, and for discussion of racism and bias in the academy per se,
see Fredericks, 2009; Gunstone, 2009; Harrison, 2012).
I will now take Shamma’s thesis and apply it specifically to the
discipline of criminology, and most especially to the ‘types’ of criminology –
the administrative and authoritarian strains prevalent in Australasia - and
criminologists - namely white, middle class and non-Indigenous - who market
themselves as criminological experts on Indigenous peoples and Indigenous
issues. I believe Shamma’s analysis of
the mirrored concepts of penal populism/penal elitism provides fertile ground
for understanding the ongoing bigotry that sits at the heart of the
criminological enterprise, most especially to the work many of its adherents do
on ‘coloured folk’ the world over.
The Deceit
and Condescension of the Criminological Elite
I wish to begin by
reframing Shamma’s concepts of penal populism and penal elitism so they refer
more directly to my commentary on mainstreams criminology’s ‘attitude’ towards
Indigenous peoples, including Indigenous academics and criminologists:
Criminological Elitism
The normative (over)valuation of non-Indigenous criminologists’
perspectives on Indigenous peoples and Indigenous issues to influence crime
control policy in relation to ‘the Indigenous problem’, supported by the purposeful
devaluation of Indigenous perspectives and experiences (see below).
Indigenous Populism
The representation of Indigenous perspectives and experiences of
crime control and the work of Indigenous criminologists, as lacking in ‘objectivity’, resulting in knowledge derived from ‘unscientific’
methods of observing, measuring, analysing and ‘knowing’. In other words, the purposeful denigration of
Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies, and the refutation of Indigenous
peoples rights to self-determination.
And so, exactly how do these two, intertwined concepts manifest
through the behaviours and attitudes of mainstream criminologists in the
Australasian context? There are the
obvious examples, or strategies through which this occurs, some of which I have
discussed previously, both here in my blog and in published academic work (see
Tauri, 2017), but the most common include:
The denigration
of Indigenous knowledge
A common strategy in Australasian criminology, usually in the form
of derogatory comments about ‘others’ knowledges being ‘non-scientific’, ‘non-rationale’,
gathered and disseminated using inadequate methods, gathered by practitioners ‘too
close to the sources’, and so on. The
strategy is used to create the impression that Indigenous knowledge and
experiences of crime control AND criminology are subjective, irrational and ‘emotional’,
and therefore should not impact the development of crime control policy (for recent,
classic examples of this strategy see Marie, 2010 and Weatherburn, 2010; 2015).
Exaggerated
notions of criminological scientism
Closely linked to the silencing of Indigenous voices and
experiences is the exaggeration by mainstream criminologists as to the scientific
bases for their research. Or as Shamma
eloquently describes it “[the[ strong belief in the supremacy of rationalism
and science” that forms the basis for the ideological construction of a “stereotypical
opposition between reason and emotion, rationality and intuition, science and
lay knowledge… in short between (elevated) scientific expertise and the
(debased) ‘people’”.
Many mainstream, Australasian criminologists seem to be under the mistaken
belief that they and their work is ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’. This especially appears to be a case for
those who choose to ‘research from afar’, who prefer desk-based research in
lieu of actually talking to Indigenous peoples about their experiences (see
Deckert, 2016). One can easily surmise
that the two strategies are closely linked because if you are a) going to
denigrate the knowledge systems of others, then you must also b) create the illusion
that your ‘way of knowing’ is the only one of value.
And it is in this realm that things get really interesting for the
Indigenous scholar, because the way in which this strategy is constructed and
deployed in the service of whitestream criminology is devastatingly effective. For not only is it deployed to silence
Indigenous communities, to invalidate their anti-criminal justice statements,
but also to discredit the epistemologies and methodologies employed by
Indigenous scholars. This is done in the
hope that their community-informed texts will be superseded by the more ‘scientifically
derived, detached commentary of the white privileged criminologist (for an
exploration of this strategy in the wider academy see Moreton-Robinson, 2000).
The
silencing of Indigenous voices and experience
Another common strategy that involves non-Indigenous scholars
conveniently ignoring the Indigenous lexicon; the research, publications and
public pronouncements of Indigenous scholars, activists and community members despite the easy availability of said material. This strategy appears to be common amongst
restorative justice scholars and advocates, especially when they are commenting
on the ‘Indigenousness’ of RJ and their favourite RJ products. Absent from their ramblings is any meaningful
engagement with criticisms by Indigenous scholars. This strategy, of ‘forgetting’ (perhaps more
accurately, ‘ignoring’), is especially common amongst New Zealand RJ advocates
such as Maxwell (2008), Morris (2002) and McElrea (2003) (for a recent example
see Henwood and Stafford, 2014, and my critique of this publication, Tauri,
2015).
Indigenous
contributions as criminological ‘piece-work’
One of the increasingly popular strategies, is for criminology
departments to confine the teaching of Indigenous issues within ‘mainstream’
papers, to a lecture here (on Maori and prisons), and there (Maori and
policing), more often than not given by a non-Indigenous criminologist with no
experience of researching the actual topic with Indigenous people. This is a rather peculiar situation, given
both the extent of Indigenous over-representation in criminal justice, and the
demonstrable lack of success by settler-colonial governments in effectively
responding to the problem.
Dove-tail this strategy with the lack of commitment (or ability)
of criminology departments in general, to hiring Indigenous scholars (yes, we
are rare, but if you get off your asses and strategise, put some effort into growing
Indigenous post-grads, etc, it is possible), you have the basis for explaining
why the drop-out rates of Indigenous students is higher than the norm; no, it
is not because they are not as smart as their non-Indigenous colleagues, but
because what is being taught does not resonate with them or their life experiences. For example, when a well-known, senior New
Zealand criminologist stands in front of an introductory criminology class, as
one did a few years ago, and in response to a question from a Maori student about
the devastation of white law on Maori, states that ‘if white people did not
come here Maori would still be axing each other’, then you will lose those
students to other disciplines.
The main point I am trying to make here is this: in general, in
the Australasian context, the criminology academy’s commitment to teaching and researching
Indigenous issues, is piecemeal: our knowledge, our experiences are more often
than not add-ons that enable departments to tick the Indigenous box in their
yearly reports. And far too many of Indigenous scholars hired by criminology departments are treated as ‘piece-workers’, teaching the small amount of 'Indigenous stuff' the whitestream academy finds will allow it to fulfil its 'Treaty' and 'Reconciliation' obligations under the University's Aboriginal Strategy.
Racism and
bigotry
And last but not least, there is the strategy of outright racism
and bigotry, whether it is the micro-level aggressions we experience every day,
such as colleagues placing our names on grant applications as ‘cultural
advisors’ without actually seeking our advice, to using our Aboriginality as an
argument for shedding their committee work to us (as in ‘we so need an
Aboriginal voice on this committee’, regardless of the fact that said committee
doesn’t actually need one). Then there
are the macro-aggressions, such as the construction of the Indigenous critic of
institutional practice as aggressive, emotional, dangerous (and therefore in
need of increased surveillance and
scrutiny), in order to draw attention away from the unethical and disempowering
conduct of non-Indigenous members of the academy; or demonstrating commitment
to the aims of institutional Indigenous strategies by cutting the number of Indigenous courses, or only hiring Indigenous
members of staff on contracts and not in tenure track positions (until they ‘prove
themselves), and so forth.
References
Agozino B. (2003)
Counter-Colonial Criminology: A Critique
of Imperialist Reason. London: Pluto Press.
Deckert A (2016) Criminologists, Duct
Tape, and Indigenous People: Quantifying the Use of Silencing Research Methods.
International
Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 40(1): 43-62.
Fredericks, B (2009) The Epistemology that Maintains White Race
Privilege, Power and Control of Indigenous Studies and Indigenous Peoples’
Participation in Universities, Australian
Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association eJournal, 5(1): 1-12.
Gunstone, A (2009) Whiteness, Indigenous Peoples and Australian
Universities,
Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association e-Journal.
Harrison, F (2012) Racism in the Academy: Toward a Multi-Methodological Agenda for
Anthropological Engagement. American Anthropological Association.
Henwood, C and Stratford,
S (2014) A Gift to the World: The Youth
Justice Family Group Conference. Wellington: The
Henwood Trust.
Kitossa,
T (2012) Criminology and colonialism: Counter colonial criminology and the
Canadian context, Journal of Pan African
Studies, 4(1), pp. 204-226.
Maxwell, G (2008)
Crossing Cultural Boundaries: Implementing Restorative Justice, International
and Indigenous Contexts, Sociology of
Crime, Law and Deviance, 11: 81-95.
McElrea, F (2003) Restorative justice— a New
Zealand perspective, ADR Bulletin, 6(1):
Article 3.
Morris, A (2002) Critiquing the Critics: A Brief
Response to the Critics of Restorative Justice, British Journal of Criminology, 42(3): 596-615.
Moreton-Robinson, E (2000) Talking
up to the White Woman: Indigenous Women and Feminism. Brisbane: University
of Queensland Press.
Shammas, V (unknown) Penal
Elitism: Anatomy of a Professional Ideology; available via Academia.
Tauri, J (2015) Beware Justice
Advocates Bearing Gifts: A Commentary on the Glorification of Family Group
Conferencing, New Zealand Sociology, 30(1): 183-190.
Tauri, J (2016) The State, Crime
Control and Indigenous Justice: A Counter-colonial Critique, PhD thesis,
University of Wollongong.
Tauri, J (2017) Imagining the Future of Indigenous Criminology, in A. Deckert and R. Sarre (eds), Australian and New Zealand Handbook of Criminology, Crime and Justice, Palgrave Macmillan.
