Tuesday, March 21, 2006
ANT 351 Anthropology of Law
Political and Legal Anthropology
Winter 2006
Take home short essay exam
[1.] Tilly argues that states are, fundamentally, protection rackets that monopolize the means of violence. Explain this argument and describe how European states emerged over time.
Tilly argues that states are racketeering, organized crime, that thug us out through barbaric and violent control. If protection rackets are the smoothest form of organized crime, then the warfare of the state is the largest organized crime operations. He tentatively states that all statesmen and generals are not just murderers and thieves, but then he makes the analogy that they are exactly that. His tentative argument is that when a protection racket forms, the racketeer is selling protection against a threat that the racketeer presents. Like if you don’t pay me this protection money, I’ll break your kneecaps. Tilly argues that this is exactly the form of protection that is offered by the organized state governments. We’re here to protect you against warfare and invasion, so give us tax dollars so that we can raise an army and invade another nation.
He surveys the articles that deal with contemporary concerns, like army & military being used as a commodity. War & destructiveness – nuclear destruction. Arming the armies – recourse to warfare as a means of settling disputes. Reorganize the political structure to avoid war making processes. Modern European experience – coercive exploitation – disappearing political dissidents. “Defectors” will be eliminated. How uncivilized is that? We’re so civilized, and “they’re” primitive? This is a projection of “our” political system.
Popular conceptualization: Organized means of violence as it relates to national states; relatively centralized, differentiated organizations, leaders control the “legitimate” means of violence. Inhabit large bounded territory/contiguous region/area. Ongoing self-critique of “our” system of rule, but tacitly accepted that “we” are superior to “them”. Lesser of two evils; this might be bad, but that’s really scary.
Differentiated organizations – social institutions that conflict among each other & even within the internals of the institutions, highly contested. (170) Formation of nation state, warfare & controlling the means of violence [the law is “above” the society]. Similar, small scale, operations are considered organized crime. “Legitimate” use of force.
Double edge protection, violence within the law, protection as business, warfare as international relations.
Protection – comforting: “Like a quilt, blanket, etc, hearth & home”
Protection racket: law enforcement for hire (illegal) [i.e. “pay us or we’ll rough you up!”]
Protection from a threat they create anyway. False protection from danger that is in itself dangerous => fabric of modern state. Entity like a protection racket that we “let” rule over us to maintain stability! What if the threat of instability is also created by the state? Stability that is really the controlled spread of Capitalist Imperialism heralded as freedom. State creates racial & gender biased forms of segregation [separate but equal?] but now do we really enforce the laws of EOE??? Externally & internally creates the threat against us. We accept the “protection racket” that the government creates for us?
How do states accomplish this? Threaten us physically, just like the stereotypical mobster. Utilized through force. Don’t you D.A.R.E. step out of line! Governments organize & monopolize violence. Military is legitimate violence – Hallmark of the state. What violence is acceptable? What is not? Police have legitimate use of force. How heated are the debates about gun control? What role can the state have in arming or disarming the state? Serving and protecting “their” own self-serving interests. All forms of death/murder are outlawed, except the means of violence controlled by the state. States use force for what? Extract resources from people under “their” control to expand their influence = empire building. To “protect” you with Military & Police forces. Circular fashion of expanding monopoly of power of force.
How to get “we the people” to agree? Legitimized! This is an absurd social contract, how can you get nations of millions to agree with it? Fear of the use of force. Stability is “important” … Protects you from threats both real and imagined! Including the ones that you imagine they really impose against you. This is all “normal” and “rational” (164) Elimination of local rivals. If you tread on them, they tread on you. Even the Roman Empire relied on local power magnets to consolidate their power in order to legitimize their rule. What did rule look like? Pre-modern was incredibly decentralized, now modern / post-modern world is a conglomerate of corporations so much that only a few people actually exercise control over the entire system. I.e. President is “leader of the free world”. Is he just a figurehead? Or does he really control the launch of the nuclear missiles? He might be a representative figurehead, but he actually controls the entire U.S. military – the sole legitimate use of force in the known world. Isn’t that what they would like us to believe…that ‘He’ is in control, whoever ‘He’ may be? [kind of like ‘Him’]?
Where are today’s modern magnets of power? Formerly the lords, nobles, etc. of pre-modern times, where are they today? Capitalist Imperialism! Private armies gave way to privatized security forces masquerading as national armies. Tensions among monarchs and lords emerge as to who controls which army, territory, weapon… in tandem with each other, but also in contestation among each other. Extend officialdom to local government and create a local police force. Exemption of taxation, allegiance, struggle. Monarchs gave way to Congressional Democracies. How are the means of violence perpetuated and concentrated in the hands of the few? Technology, ships, guns, germs, pillage, plunders warfare…nuclear destruction.
- The various authors in this section provide different views into what law is and how it works. Using references to three articles, discuss different definitions of law, and the relationship between law, group identity, and individual and community rights.
Law is the cultural means used to settle disputes through a recognized social authority. Therefore it is a system of social control. Secular law & religious thought = deified law. Gossip as a social control [law]? Transgressions of “law” social/moral law, not formal! Reproducing social/societal laws – impose sanctions real consequences. Imbued with power & creating power relations. Politics: Who gets what & how! Political organization – regulation of physical force in a particular space. Process for making & carrying out public policy according to cultural/societal rules & laws. Power: ability to control symbolic or actual (material) resources.
Authority: institutionalized power (formal positions of individuals who “enforce”)
Leadership: exercise influence to generate desired behaviors (informal)
Dynamic social world.
Durkheim: (1858 – 1917) Functionalism [France].
Organic metaphors: parts of society work together to make a functioning whole. Monarchists/conservatists vs. anarchist/socialist
All societies have collective conscience: shared sense of “belonging”. Division of labor – only social differentiation common/universal human experience => shared sense of world. [mechanical solidarity] => group cohesion. Modern society, shared beliefs & values of group centers on celebration of the individual [cult of the individual]. Resulting diversity of experience => little shared values/experience [organic solidarity]. Breakdown of primitive mechanical solidarity manifests in anomie [lack of moral order, loss of norms] => conflict among individuals: interpersonal conflict. Morality, religion, law, dictates sentiments of groups & dictates their actions => equilibrium / stability of society. Neolithic revolution = sedentary living patterns & agriculture => formal state-based religions. This is the basis for formation of the modern institutions and the ORIGIN OF LAW!
Historical origins: social differentiation (division of labor) is evolutionary – slow, gradual, progressive change over time. (survivor able: survival of the fittest [natural law])
Mechanical/undifferentiated => organic/differentiated
-motor of social change: combination of interaction among neighboring societies, concentration of population in central areas (demographics & diplomacy)
Problem with evolution: industrial society, evolution is beginning to dissolve solidarity => pathology, abnormal development. Law develops in order to formally define individuals as criminals deserving to be punished to reinforce group cohesion [social solidarity]. Religion gives laws legitimacy.
We need bureaucrats (state members) to stand between the individual & society to protect existing structures (prevent conflict among individuals) neoliberalism
NAFTA removed the barriers (lose solidarity) middle group has to link all the other groups together [bureaucrats].
Webber: bureaucratic machine new political force driving society. Comparative history/German nationalist, unification limited by group differences. To understand is to change the society.
Conflict theory of law: Bourgeois controlled system designed to oppress & control the proletariat. Better to get screwed in “the system” than to live without it [life is otherwise short, brutal, violent]. It is a truth that the law is the force and coercion that enforces the system’s “will”: the rich control the poor!
Ralph Derindorf states that the law reflects the interests of the class that makes and enforces them. Overlapping interests protect us from the power of the few. Karl Marx states that economy is the source of all law. Economy is epiphenomenal to law. Not comparable across economic realities. It is only in a capitalist society where the worker exploitation is central to profit motive [surplus value = unpaid wages]. Don’t pay labor what they’re worth. Sanctions are legal remedy to enforce the status quo. Law controls or integrates you into the system. Controls threat to systematic integrity. Systematic perpetuation of the status quo.
High school notion of law: legal pluralism/consensus. Competing interest groups where some groups have more resources than other groups. Profit motive is a shared common interest among capitalist imperialists? Elections, compromise, representatives. Tyranny of the majority = corporate front man A or B. Corporate campaign contributions. In fact, elite dominated institution, not representative of anything but corporate welfare.
- Talal Asad, in his discussion of Western hegemony, argues that notions or ideas about “law,” “rights,” “nations,” etc. were central in establishing colonial rule and in reorganizing and reorienting colonized areas/cultures to Western cultural forms of politics and law. Use this idea in conjunction with class notes to discuss three or four central features in the establishment of colonial rule, using concrete examples from articles of your choosing.
Colonialism:
Settler colonialism or direct rule/economic domination were the foundation of contemporary life. Broad political and economic patterns structured by or through conflict [i.e. colonial government vs. agricultural class]. Conflict among the colonizers about who will manage the colony. Military v. gentry conflict over ideologies about social order. Conflict between colonizers and the colonized, or even among the colonized.
How does power get established and perpetuated? Primarily about controlling economic livelihoods. Typically accomplished by controlling the labor that produces commodities; either by forced production, or taxation of sales. Complete transformation of identity of the indigenous population occurs under this mode of rule. Education, clothes, culture, etc. all give was to the dominate colonizing force by undergoing radical transformation. Egalitarian society is forced into the existing colonialized power structure. Imposed hierarchical structures emerge patterned after existing structures. Control is enforced through brutality and violence. Brutal force is maintained over long periods of time. This conflict transforms both the colonized and the colonizers who can sense the identity conflicts [i.e. white, civilized males vs. savage, primitive, Indians].
Racial categories emerge from colonization processes. Premodern, feudal Europe was ruled through status distinction that formed the hierarchy. Caste categories were different and unequal; people were born into their social status. Corporate entity is the modern social status group. National identity emerges with ideology that forms over the complex knowledge systems of technology. This becomes a platform for legitimizing rule. Cannot displace violence from the process. Staggering amounts of violence is needed to subdue and reorganize social order. Overthrowing the savages, but we’ve been at war for over 500 years! Rationalizing the armies is more like it, justify the white man’s burden…self-protection justifies the brutality we require. Explains our violence, justifies its use.
Hegemony is the ideology that becomes labeled “common sense”. It carries the ideals and violence needed to maintain a system of rule. Most do not have the chance to witness firsthand the actual application of this force. Instead we utilize “self-surveillance” so that when the larger system observes you, you’re in your proper role. Since that there is a greater surveillance system in place that will “catch you” if you step out of line for too long. All-seeing eye. Disciplinary power. Jeremy Bentham’s penopticon. Restrain your behavior => rule from a distance. How does this become the prevalent method of social control? Criminal Statistics and labels?
Criminal statistics in Germany and the united states drew on mathematical theory to improve on word descriptors. Draws on use of statistical expertise and is referred to as the “science of the state” [statistics]. Express regularity over time. Numbers are the quantification of the state curiosities and redirects the attention of the state. State can penetrate deeply into society to control behavior through self-surveillance by use of the criminal statistics by defining categories of persons as either law-abiding or criminal. This creates classes of citizenry, each with their own different likelihoods that criminality will emerge from within their ranks. This is a “risk assessment” that uses an alignment of factors to assess and “predict” who is criminal. Actually becomes racial profiling though and is utilized to justify the racial disparities that exist in the criminal justice system [protecting the status quo]. Conjures images of solutions whereby we are able to manage the risk. Contain the problems that arise, predict the risks. In actuality, nothing more than govern-mentality, population control through fear.
Political products of the relations of power in action. Premises of the statistical analysis are that there is an internal us and them [law-abiding and criminal]. Collectively we must always be on the lookout for “them”. Never question the system that gives rise to violent criminals like clockwork. We don’t view “them” as products of society, but rather monsters of their own creation. Violence and the threat of violence are then maintained through disciplinary power and the cultural consensus. Such thought appears to be normal, natural, and right. It spreads through the social institutions and becomes hierarchically organized. Some “higher ups” become valued as expertise that has “correct” knowledge. Public schools are but one segment of this state control with the intent of forming a shared world view. A view that endorses the monopolization of force by the ‘legitimate’ government rulers. The ‘legitimate’ government rulers who utilize violence, structural power, and disciplinary power to perpetuate their caste.
Colonial educations systems help establish hegemony. They impose European literacy and ideology onto the “savages”; rules of law, unmet ideals about equality before the law. In real life though there is massive inequality, hegemony: we’re less evolved? Why? Because you [the ruling class] won’t let us democratize our society? Then we might be as evolved as you? Fuck you then. We’ll evolve and kick your ass for the right to be evolved like you. [We’ll fulfill the role of violent, primitive savage so that we can evolve to be like you! (social evolution)]. Hey, wait just a minute, isn’t that how “ you ” ended up with 500 years of warfare before you got here? So, who’s primitive, and who’s evolved?
Extra credit: Trouillot suggests that contemporary states are changing in relation to globalization. What is new about globalization, or what is “it” doing? How are states changing in the context of globalization and why?
Globalization undermines the power of contemporary states. State’s function = controlling borders. Economy is a central feature. National space loses importance. World globalization isn’t “new” and didn’t just begin recently. Massive flow of goods, commodity, information, capital, and people began well before pre-16th century. (p. 128) How “new” is that?
Ideology, not factual representation. Reveals some truths about reality, while obscuring others? Who controls the political system [who gets what, how, when?]?
There is no free flowing “political” power! Power is centralized into few locations that are collectively referred to as the 1st world, or the “modern”/developed nation. North America, Japan, Europe. “this then” Commerce – dynamic flow of resources [raw materials => finished goods, but also non-productive assets: tourism, banking, insurance, Wal-Mart]. Flow of capital – quick returns, not long-term investment. “Only thinking of those dividends.” Making the quick buck. Fallout: Enron, S&L Bailout, illegal arms trades. Productive capital is “offshored”, shipped to the 2nd or even 3rd world [former colonies]. Cheap labor markets let Wal-Mart exploit that labor. Increases profits, drives down cost. Yet corporate welfare exists in the form of government subsidies for large corporate conglomerates. Materialistic culture. Circulate between epicenter points of the flow of the capital. Astronomical increase of consumption. Materialism reigns king. “Free trade” a misnomer. Government regulations, tariffs, market formations, corporate welfare.
Largest bulk of trade occurs within a company. Supplies – manufacturers, distribution {i.e. one company with multiple sites all over the globe}. Parts just shifted around the world in large crates. Monopolies rise. “Free trade”? Merge & Conglomerate => corporate control. Enormous areas of low wage / low consumption populations feeding into the materialistic culture by providing the cheap slave labor that is exploited by the greedy corporate monster. Patent laws, intellectual property rights, huge government regulation. “Free”? Legal and political manipulation. “Free”? Three main epicenters of global political power.
The domains of jurisdiction of national governments are changing. Nation-states are crumbling in the post-modern world. Western civilization is on the decline. Economic desperation in low wage areas – less than $1 per day wages! => “Quiet Riot”. “Brain Drain” occurs as migrants move toward the epicenters as veritable experts in their fields, simply to hope for better living conditions. Should we close the borders to them? What about the vigilante U.S. Border patrol shooting Mexicans for trying to cross? Nationalist politics survive a disporia of entire nations. Nationalists living in one epicenter can still wield huge political influence “back home”. The rise of social movements and non-governmental political organizations give formation to a new version of nation-state. This makes irrelevant the physical location of the nation-state. Transnationalism, like the Red Cross, spans interest groups across the globe in networks.
Video: "From one Prison"
Video: “From one Prison”
QCA profile:
Ofemal Vmale =Race Expr Singoff
Geraldean: =age =race /=sex Ofem Expr knife Owht Singoff
Linda: =age =race /=sex Ofem Expr innoc. Owht Singoff
Juanita: =age =race /=sex Ofem Expr knife Oblk Singoff
Violet: /=age =race /=sex Ofem Expr Gun Owht Singoff
The top 5 QCA profiles for female offenders situational analysis shows them to be Family members of the opposite sex of the same race and age, who kill their single victim who is also black. Among the top 10 Unique Adult Profiles (RH 173) number 4 shows female black offenders killing a family/intimate that is of the opposite sex with a gun. Number 9 is the white female offender with a gun, and number 10 is a black female offender with a nongun (knife?). Among all 4 profiles on page 205 depicting female offenders, each involves a female offender killing a family member with a gun. Four of the top 10 Intimate Partner Homicides involve women offenders killing their male partner.
Among intimate and family homicide, between 1976 and 2002, spouse homicide was the most pronounced pattern with N = 37,719 of ยต = 104,047. This figure comprised 36.3% of the sample population. (WTK 61)
All of the women in the video represented a defensive response to the expression of power. The relationships that they were involved in were held together by intimidation and aggression. (WTK 64) These women committed their homicides as a response to intimidation, threats, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.
30-year-old Francine Hughes of Dansville, Michigan was acquitted November 4, 1977 for the murder of her sleeping husband Mr. Mickey Hughes. The inspiration for the TV film, The Burning Bed [and also the video From One Prison], Mrs. Hughes set her husband ablaze whilst he slept. She was found not guilty by temporary insanity. (WTK 66) Apparently the jury decided that 14 years of battery and death threats was enough to drive a woman to become a homicidal maniac.
This case founded the contested defense of the “battered woman syndrome”. While not usually a complete exculpatory defense, it is often grounds to lessen responsibility or increase the leniency when sentencing. When invoking self-defense arguments it must be shown that the threat was both imminent and inescapable. In spite of this, courts have ruled that it’s permissible that the threat be continuing and ongoing instead of imminent. Also waivable is the requirement that the threat be inescapable if we find evidence of sufficient legal, financial, and emotional ties “that can strangle a woman as much as her abusive spouse can”. (WTK 65) Stockholm syndrome, “learned helplessness”, or other symptoms of psychological abuse may also be admissible as evidence towards building this affirmative defense.
Relate their lives & homicide incidents to domestic violence concepts in WTK and the situational theories and QCA profiles (Chicago data 1965-94) in RH.
2-3 pages typed, double spaced
10 writing points
Due in class Tuesday, March 21st.
Female offenders, intimate partners as victim.
Michigan prison inmates.
CH. 4 WTK Intimate and family murder.
Francine Houghs, Nov. 4, 1977 “burning bed”
[80% women self-defense => prison]
“From one Prison” by Carol Jacobson.
What can you tell me about yourself?
Geraldean Gordon: Nothing left to live for – no children. Failure, angry. No longer believe in criminal justice system. Self-defense? Who has money, gender, power? Court game. 9 years in. My sons understood.
Juanita Thomas: One day at a time, surgery, lost mother & family, force yourself to go on. Believe in justice, I deserve another chance. Life without parole, but didn’t have ‘intent’.
Violet Allen: I wouldn’t be here, he’d still be alive. I can’t believe it? How can I have done it? I didn’t have a choice. Your life and your children’s lives are at stake. What do you do? Don’t think, react! It’s human nature.
Linda Hamilton: Next appeal I hope. First they told me 7-10, later 10-15. Now I’m at 16 years. Lifer. Done all I can think of! What can I do to leave? Maybe when I got 20 years in. Doing life. Don’t know what to hope for.
Can you tell me about your victim/intimate partner, was he prone to violence?
Violet: I told my stepfather’s sister. I was raped by his brother. My sister stayed with my stepfather’s mother. She was there when he raped me. I told my stepfather’s mother and she told my mother. She said I lied. They beat me, told me it was my fault. I didn’t know no better. I married an image of my stepfather. He was 32, I was 16. I left and took the guns. He’d kill me. He pointed the guns at me, and some other people.
Juanita: He killed his momma’s boyfriend. He did 11 months. Self-defense acquittal. He was getting revenge against his mother who beat him.
Geraldean: knife wounds, bit chunks, bruised my face for fun, and strangled me.
Linda: He molested Robin. “Heat of passion”. I couldn’t believe my eyes. Nothing in life prepares you for that. You can’t believe your eyes. He left. John hurt Robin’s butt. Military hospital. Cried without feeling. I’m okay mommy. It’s all a dream. I can’t feel it.
Did you ever try to leave?
Geraldean: I moved. He found me, leave California again I’ll kill you. He timed me, clocked mileage. He took keys, escorted me…called work.
Linda: I was going to move. He destroyed car’s alternator. Kept me prisoner. I escaped from Washington to Michigan with the help of one of his friends.
Did you ever try to contact the police?
Juanita: He hit me with a chain while I was at work. The police were called. They maced him and arrested him for drunk and disorderly. I didn’t bail him out. He did 10 days.
Linda: Military police covered it up for him.
Violet: Calling police didn’t do no good. When my step-father physically abused us, the police would tell us, “It’s a family affair. When my husband beat me, I didn’t call when my husband beat.
Geraldean: Talked only to him, no phones to call.
What was the police response?
Linda: Father-in-law did that to his daughter. Oakland County [Michigan] didn’t do anything. Old boy’s network.
Juanita: They’d come; tell him to leave for a night. I changed the locks. He kicked in the door 2 or 3 times. I gave him the keys. He’d change the locks and lock me out for months. “I can change.” He would say. Liar. I didn’t know that he was lying.
What can you remember about the homicide that you committed?
Geraldean: I broke down, lost control. I crashed the “ride”. Fear, paranoia. Scared to be out the house. Scared in it. Drunk, harassed at work => fear and tension. Nothing to do. Go with the children…go with him. Help him make it better. He was angry and would throw stuff, slap me, throw chairs at me. I hid in the basement. There but not there. I’m not gonna take it. Metal car part. Don’t disturb him. He rolled over. Slammed him in the head. Grabbed the knife. He reached for it. Slashed his throat. Realization: How can I be in the mirror if I’m here? Now he’s gonna kill me.
Violet: Gone a long time, rampaged, threw my daughter. Flashback: can’t let it happen to her. Somebody different {she felt} I have to stop him. Killed his ass. He use to try to have sex with her {daughter}. I’d let him. I had to stop it. So I did. Saw gun, shot him. He came flying at me. He collapsed in the kitchen. Got bags and left for moms. Thought he wasn’t dead. Then I saw the body on the floor. Expected him to still get me. Police came.
Juanita: He stays out, has sex. Wooden letter opener my daughter made, scissors to cut his hair. Butcher knives hidden everywhere but in the kitchen. He killed mom’s boyfriend with one. Orally raped me. He grabbed the scissors; I hit him with the butcher knife. He bit leg, hit him again. Fell on the stairs running out the door, messed up my leg. Ran out into storm in underclothes. He’s still after me. I couldn’t believe the reports.
Linda: His father was brass, covered it up. He came home. Thought I was going to be safe for a year and a half. David, my new boyfriend, he did it. What else could happen, right? I believe David killed him. David was found innocent; I was convicted for aiding and abetting.
What has incarceration been like for you?
Violet: Found people I could relate to. I shot him; she burned him {Francine Houghs}. We did 7 months in the same cell. Felony murder and 1st degree murder. Here I sit, she’s at home. One of us got lucky…I’m just glad to be alive.
Linda: Three years in county. Child’s psychologist said the children must visit for their well-being.
What was the court experience like for you?
Geraldean: I had a slick public defender. Wheels & Deals. Don’t cry it’ll make you look guilty. I’m guilty, but here’s why.
Juan: All upper class white folk. My peers?
Violet: Never asked about the abusive husband. I never talked to the jury.
Linda – 1st degree murder and conspiracy. I didn’t know what I was doing. Robin’s rape came up. Attorney said act like happily married and I had no knowledge. Plead innocent.
Do you have any final message for our audience?
Geraldean: Educate attorneys and judges so they know about domestic violence!!!
Linda: Don’t throw away the fallen woman.
Violet: Prison conditions are like everything’s gone. You’re just a number.
Juan: $4.32 per day. 1 or 2 days a week. Look after yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment