Hello, everyone, and welcome to this first installment of the Key Law After Hours Research Conversation or Talking Research, a series of short interviews with colleagues from the Keele Law School about their latest research. My name is Mario Prost, and I'm a senior lecturer in the School of Law. It gives me great pleasure today to welcome two wonderful colleagues from the department, Fabienne and Felicity. In normal circumstances, these are conversations that we would be having on campus, either informally in the corridors of the department or formally as part of our Work in Progress seminars. But obviously, COVID has made those conversations more difficult. So I'm really pleased to be able to see you both today and catch up online.
Let's start with short introductions. Fabienne, Felicity, can you tell us a little bit about yourselves, including your background and your ongoing research? Let's start with Felicity.
Hi, yeah, I'm Flick. I'm a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Law and a Graduate Teaching Assistant. My Ph.D. project centers on a queer feminist abolitionist critique of prison law and penal governance strategies in England and Wales. I explore how incarcerated transgender women are constituted by the system and how they, in turn, shape the system.
Great, thanks, Flick. Fabienne?
Hi, I'm Fabienne. My research intersects with Flick's research. I'm broadly interested in power and resistance within prison, not just within the material institution of the prison but also in culture beyond it. I'm also looking into the dichotomy between reform and abolition. Our chapter today sits within this context, focusing on prison law as a technology of governmental and disciplinary power, and prison jurisprudence.
Super. That leads us to your paper, "Mapping the Manifestations of Exclusion: Challenging the Incarceration of Queer People." In this paper, you argue that prisons, as sites of disciplinary power, are deeply gendered institutions that produce various forms of exclusion for queer people challenging the gender binaries inherent in the prison system. You also argue that legal reforms and decisions on this subject, while recognizing the special needs of incarcerated queer people to some extent, can be insufficient and may even reinforce exclusions. Could you expand on the crux of your argument in this paper?
Shall I go first? So, our starting point is to examine the prison and conceptualize power relations and resistance within it. We draw on Foucault's work on disciplinary power and governmentality and the work of others like Eamonn Carrabine and Kenny Kelly Hannah Moffat. They argue that these mundane strategies within the prison either homogenize present populations or create the "normal" and the "other." The "other" is often perceived as dangerous or deviant, and this leads to their exclusion. So, if you are deemed dangerous, you are segregated, and if you need protection from violence, you are also segregated. This segregation results in similar material realities, regardless of the reason behind it.
In terms of legal decisions, even when judges acknowledge the inherent violence and coercion in prisons, they often fail to challenge the culture of transphobia or homophobia within the system. Legal reforms might appear helpful, but they often do not address the core issues. For example, policies accommodating trans prisoners might still lead to exclusion, especially for non-binary, gender-fluid, or gender-non-conforming individuals.
Thanks, Fabienne. The conclusion of your paper strongly asserts that the anti-queer, homophobic, and transphobic nature of prisons are innate characteristics that no legal reform can adequately resolve. You argue that meaningful conversations about the rights of incarcerated queer people must involve discussions about prison abolition. Could you briefly explain the distinction between prison reform and prison abolition and touch on potential alternatives to imprisonment?
The difference between prison reform and prison abolition is crucial. Reformists believe that the criminal justice system and the prison industrial complex can be reformed, that there's an opportunity to fix them. Abolitionists, on the other hand, argue that these institutions function as intended – to maintain systemic inequalities and produce violence. They believe in abolishing these systems and replacing them with communities that address violence, harm, healing, and accountability without replicating the violence of the prison system.
In terms of alternatives to imprisonment, transformative justice is a key concept. It involves building communities that properly address violence, harm, and healing, without relying on state institutions. Transformative justice challenges the idea that prisons are the solution and encourages us to find ways to transcend and transform the system.
Thank you for that explanation. Now, before we conclude, could you tell us a bit about your project "Read and Resist"? What is it about, and what activities are you involved in as part of this project?
Read and Resist is a collective and collaborative forum centered on transformative justice. It brings together activists, academics, community organizers, and various voices to discuss and explore transformative justice as a framework for addressing violence and harm in society. Our activities include a web platform, a YouTube channel, a podcast, a monthly reading group focusing on transformative justice themes, and an open call for contributions to our blog. We aim to provide a space for people to creatively contribute and engage with transformative justice in various ways.
Thank you both for joining us today and sharing your research and the work of Read and Resist. I'm sure our audience will find your insights and initiatives inspiring and informative. Goodbye for now.
