Two Reviews:
1999 PSA Conference
Portland, Oregon
April 15 - 18
Attending the PSA conference was tremendously exciting for me. It was my first opportunity to see and hear what some of the leading (and certainly up-and-coming) scholars in my field were doing; indeed, it was an incredible "learn outside the classroom" experience. I attended nine sessions over a three-day period; I will review two of these.
The first session I will cover is U.S. Criminal Justice: Towards a Police State? The first presenter in this session, Justin Galt from UC-Riverside (Repeating the Past?: Links between Private Prisons, Coerced Prison Labor, and Racial Disproportionality in Prison) made a powerful statement on the institutional bias we find inherent in the criminal justice system. Essentially, Galt claims prison system in America is paramount to slavery: a disproportionate minority population, coerced into working for the private corporate gain in a captive environment. How do we make this leap? Galt's research indicates of the 1.8 million people caught in the criminal justice system, approximately five percent (90,000) are held in private prisons. The privatization of the prison system is a trend that appears to be increasing. Privatization is a way to help states defer the cost of incarceration, while fueling expanding "prison management" career opportunities. In short, private prisons are good for the economy. The growing Prison Industrial Complex is a money making opportunity, engaging in speculative building based on a "if you build it they will come" marketing strategy. Once built the idea is to fill beds . In keeping with the spirit of capitalism, the PIC is concerned about increasing profits. Services for inmates are cut, the staff to inmate ratio is lower, and prisoners are coerced into a private labor market at wages averaging $0.70 per hour. Of this seventy cents, the state is entitled to a portion for restitution, fees, and taxes. When one combines this entrepreneurial innovation with a racially unbalanced prison population (a symptom of racism built into the institution of policing and law) Galt's claim of institutional, corporate sponsored slavery makes very real, and very frightening sense.
The second presentation, Suspending Civil Liberties: The US War on Drugs from Christopher Brannon, CSUSB was equally eye-opening. Quoting from former White House Chief of Staff (Nixon Admin) H. R. Haldeman's 1969 diary "[President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact the whole problem really is the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to" Brannon clearly implicates the federal government, specifically the criminal justice system, in sanctioning genocide. He calls the war on drugs actually a war on people. The war on drugs fosters conditions of distrust and hostility among communities and in the public at large. It is less a control on drugs but a control on people. This cultural domination in turns fuels (however far below radar) class conflict. Brannon further claims the war on drugs has brought about a drastic reduction of fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, while expanding criminal forfeiture laws.
From David Cole's No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (1999), Brannon gives statistics supporting the racial bias in policing and the legal system. Eighty percent of illegal drug users are white middle class males, eighty percent of defendants in drug related trials are people of color. Also, nationally, for every one black man that graduates from college, 100 are arrested. Brannon concludes by suggesting the solution to the drug problem lies in radical social structure reformation.
Session 70, Race/Ethnic Relations: Politics of Conflict and Commonality had four presenters. First, Wade Roberts, University of Arizona, presented his research on Political Centralization and its Discontents: Direct Rule and Engendering of Peripheral Nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, 1789-1918. Roberts argues traditional theory assumes National Separatist Movements rose out of the French Revolution and simply spread towards the East via Christians. He claims this is not necessarily the case. There are in fact several steps involved in developing a nationalist state. First, there must be an impetus for centralization (war, debt, etc). Following centralizing reforms, one of two things happens: the local notables can be co-opted or "pruned" of their power. If the former takes place, there will be little separatist activity. However if the latter model is used, we can expect mobilization toward a national separatist movement. The Balkans were the first targets of centralization in the empire due to their proximity to Russia. In short, centralization failed, and independence came more as a domino effect rather than by mouth of good Christians. It is a very complex issue to tackle in the15 minutes allocated for presentations, and again recap in a few paragraphs.
The second presentation was-if I may say so, very cool. Thomas Kearin of Weber State presented his preliminary research on The Paramilitary/Sectarian Urban Murals of Northern Ireland. The history of the murals goes back to the turn of the 19th century, initiated by the Protestants depicting William of Orange. An ensuing exchange between the Catholics and Protestants has been representative of civic strife. The murals also serve as boundaries between the segregated portions of Northern Ireland. Kearin has noted the Protestant murals are typically defensive posturing, while the Catholics' are more representative of oppressed people's demand for freedom. Kearin made special note of one such mural that he claims to have seen all over the world-Central and South America, China, South Africa, etc. It is only the colors of the flag that have changed; the spirit remains the same. Kearin also finds a correlation between the style of the Catholic murals and the traditional Book of Kells. He is examining this connection further this summer on a return trip to the area.
Dennis Downey of UC Irvine presented his research on Polarization and Political Alignment of Social Attitudes toward Cultural Diversity. He argues attitudinal polarization regarding cultural diversity fuels culture wars and conflicts in US society are predominately cultural in nature. Using 1994 GSS data on attitudes of ethnic relations (scale 1-favoring maintenance of traditional, distinct culture for immigrants (?) to seven-assimilation into 'meltpot' ideology of America) Downey found greater polarization among blacks than whites. Overall, his data shows a mean score of 4.1, indicating general indifference. Admitting problems with the data, Downey acknowledged the general vagueness of the question insofar as the respondents' interpretation of "distinct cultural traditions." Does this mean basket weaving, cooking style, or female circumcision? In addition, the GSS uses a vague "other" category for non-black minorities.
Finally, from Portland State University, Jose Padin presented an alternative paper to the one listed in the program, "I Don't Know, But. . . .": Triple Consciousness of American Whites: Paradox of White Racial Attitudes in the Post-Civil Rights Era(?). His study showed whites have a marked increase in favorable attitudes about blacks and black/white relations. At the same time, there is strong opposition to concrete federal policies aiming to improve such relations. Padin then asks the question: Are whites more racist than they let on, or have they mastered politically correct language as to conceal racist beliefs? Alternatively, are whites acting out of non-racist motivation?
On the yes side of the racist coin, he finds persistent symbolic racism harboring anti-black affect that is activated in reaction to symbols and articulated in non-racist language. The other option of course is "not really." Opposition to federal programs and policies (i.e.: Affirmative Action) could simply be a reaction to protect perceived group interests or protect egalitarian values (enter: reverse discrimination). That is to say, whites in general may incorrectly view Affirmative Action as a means of denying the groups access to resources such as employment.
In personal interviews with whites, Padin found most whites to have liberal racial attitudes. Their level of consciousness followed a general pattern where at first abstract ideas about rights emerged followed by "practical knowledge" of blacks (I don't know, but . . .). Padin also found a distinct white ethnic consciousness, apparent in the gravitation towards homogeny. Personal comfort factors within this homogeny can seem relatively harmless on the surface, for example, white students gathering together, black students gathering together-the appreciation for sameness. However these personal comfort factors can lead to implementation of what appears to be racist policy, insofar as personal comfort for homogeny lead to hiring practices reflecting that belief.
The sessions I attended were full of valuable, thought provoking information. It is inspiring to hear what scholars are researching. For all the questions that were answered, many more arise, spurring on the sociological imagination.
Send E-Mail to: stephanie@sociologycafe.zzn.com