bio-political epistemologies - kevin s. · pdf filebio-political epistemologies: political...
Post on 06-Mar-2018
224 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BIO-POLITICAL EPISTEMOLOGIES
Political Economy Poverty amp Strategic Constructivism
Kevin S Jobe PhD
Philosophy amp Religious Studies
Morgan State University
Argument Terms Epistemic Objects = In philosophy of science foundational concepts that guide the basic
assumptions and theoretical models in the sciences Examples ldquonaturerdquo ecosystem ldquoenvironmentrdquo DNA neuron symbiosis ldquoetherrdquo ldquothe four humorsrdquo etc
Epistemic Objects in the social sciences include ldquosocietyrdquo ldquofamilyrdquo ldquothe staterdquo but also ldquoracerdquo ldquoclassrdquo ldquopopulationrdquo ldquoethnicityrdquo ldquopovertyrdquo ldquothe poorrdquo
ldquoBio-politicsrdquo is defined in general as the government of life in the modern state the State governs life processes through different ways of knowing differentiating calculating managing and controlling the life processes of human populations Arendt ldquonational household managementrdquo
Bio-politics in the particular context of the social sciences will refer to the ways in which human groups (lsquopopulationsrsquo) are distinguished and rationalized as objects of economic and political value utility and calculation This means that bio-politics will refer to to the differentiation of human groups according to their economic value to the State
A ldquoBio-political Epistemologyrdquo thus refers to the set of epistemic objects that informs the concepts and categories of social-scientific constructions of human populations
Argument
When it comes to thinking about inequality and injustice an uncritical acceptance of
certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) masks the structural and systemic issues we
usually want to point at (povertyhousing insecuritydiscrimination) AND
This uncritical use of certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) leads to a politics that
inevitably will value certain lives over others By utilizing epistemic objects that mask
structural and systemic issues (ldquopoorpovertyrdquo) we fall into the trap of lsquoblaming the
victimrsquo for an epistemic error of our own making
These kinds of epistemic errors that consist in uncritically using epistemic objects
that mask structural or systemic issues are part of what I want to call an
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo with regard to the government of life in the modern
state ie bio-politics
The ldquoepistemic errorsrdquo Irsquom primarily worried about concern cases where we make
knowledge claims about povertycrimeinequality while uncritically utilizing the
epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo ldquothe homelessrdquo ldquothe criminal elementrdquo etc
Conclusions ldquoStrategic Constructivismrdquo
By examining the development of political economy as a lsquoscience of lsquothe poorrsquo we are able to see how the ldquonaturerdquo of lsquothe poorrsquo has been constructed as inferior subordinate dependent degenerate and often sub-human
Political Economy and Philosophy have each been fundamental in the construction of the epistemic objects of lsquopauperismrsquo (Hegel) and lsquoidlenessrsquo (TownsendB Franklin) that dominate ideas about the ldquonaturalrdquo inferiority degeneracy and criminality of lsquothe poorrsquo that continue to drive public policy and discourse about welfare and poverty
The epistemic construction of lsquothe poorrsquo in the history of political economy and Philosophy has suffered from an ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo that can be attributed to uncritically utilizing the epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo
In order to counter dominant public policy and discourse about lsquothe poorrsquo we need not to adopt a variety of eliminativism (lsquoget rid of the concept altogetherrsquo) rather we should adopt a strategic constructivism which attempts to develop what I call ldquoepistemic counter-objectsrdquo that counter dominant discourses Ex ldquoThe 99rdquo
lsquoidlenessrsquo
Joseph Townsend
Dissertation on
the Poor Laws
1786
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Argument Terms Epistemic Objects = In philosophy of science foundational concepts that guide the basic
assumptions and theoretical models in the sciences Examples ldquonaturerdquo ecosystem ldquoenvironmentrdquo DNA neuron symbiosis ldquoetherrdquo ldquothe four humorsrdquo etc
Epistemic Objects in the social sciences include ldquosocietyrdquo ldquofamilyrdquo ldquothe staterdquo but also ldquoracerdquo ldquoclassrdquo ldquopopulationrdquo ldquoethnicityrdquo ldquopovertyrdquo ldquothe poorrdquo
ldquoBio-politicsrdquo is defined in general as the government of life in the modern state the State governs life processes through different ways of knowing differentiating calculating managing and controlling the life processes of human populations Arendt ldquonational household managementrdquo
Bio-politics in the particular context of the social sciences will refer to the ways in which human groups (lsquopopulationsrsquo) are distinguished and rationalized as objects of economic and political value utility and calculation This means that bio-politics will refer to to the differentiation of human groups according to their economic value to the State
A ldquoBio-political Epistemologyrdquo thus refers to the set of epistemic objects that informs the concepts and categories of social-scientific constructions of human populations
Argument
When it comes to thinking about inequality and injustice an uncritical acceptance of
certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) masks the structural and systemic issues we
usually want to point at (povertyhousing insecuritydiscrimination) AND
This uncritical use of certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) leads to a politics that
inevitably will value certain lives over others By utilizing epistemic objects that mask
structural and systemic issues (ldquopoorpovertyrdquo) we fall into the trap of lsquoblaming the
victimrsquo for an epistemic error of our own making
These kinds of epistemic errors that consist in uncritically using epistemic objects
that mask structural or systemic issues are part of what I want to call an
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo with regard to the government of life in the modern
state ie bio-politics
The ldquoepistemic errorsrdquo Irsquom primarily worried about concern cases where we make
knowledge claims about povertycrimeinequality while uncritically utilizing the
epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo ldquothe homelessrdquo ldquothe criminal elementrdquo etc
Conclusions ldquoStrategic Constructivismrdquo
By examining the development of political economy as a lsquoscience of lsquothe poorrsquo we are able to see how the ldquonaturerdquo of lsquothe poorrsquo has been constructed as inferior subordinate dependent degenerate and often sub-human
Political Economy and Philosophy have each been fundamental in the construction of the epistemic objects of lsquopauperismrsquo (Hegel) and lsquoidlenessrsquo (TownsendB Franklin) that dominate ideas about the ldquonaturalrdquo inferiority degeneracy and criminality of lsquothe poorrsquo that continue to drive public policy and discourse about welfare and poverty
The epistemic construction of lsquothe poorrsquo in the history of political economy and Philosophy has suffered from an ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo that can be attributed to uncritically utilizing the epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo
In order to counter dominant public policy and discourse about lsquothe poorrsquo we need not to adopt a variety of eliminativism (lsquoget rid of the concept altogetherrsquo) rather we should adopt a strategic constructivism which attempts to develop what I call ldquoepistemic counter-objectsrdquo that counter dominant discourses Ex ldquoThe 99rdquo
lsquoidlenessrsquo
Joseph Townsend
Dissertation on
the Poor Laws
1786
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Argument
When it comes to thinking about inequality and injustice an uncritical acceptance of
certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) masks the structural and systemic issues we
usually want to point at (povertyhousing insecuritydiscrimination) AND
This uncritical use of certain epistemic objects (ldquothe poorrdquo) leads to a politics that
inevitably will value certain lives over others By utilizing epistemic objects that mask
structural and systemic issues (ldquopoorpovertyrdquo) we fall into the trap of lsquoblaming the
victimrsquo for an epistemic error of our own making
These kinds of epistemic errors that consist in uncritically using epistemic objects
that mask structural or systemic issues are part of what I want to call an
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo with regard to the government of life in the modern
state ie bio-politics
The ldquoepistemic errorsrdquo Irsquom primarily worried about concern cases where we make
knowledge claims about povertycrimeinequality while uncritically utilizing the
epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo ldquothe homelessrdquo ldquothe criminal elementrdquo etc
Conclusions ldquoStrategic Constructivismrdquo
By examining the development of political economy as a lsquoscience of lsquothe poorrsquo we are able to see how the ldquonaturerdquo of lsquothe poorrsquo has been constructed as inferior subordinate dependent degenerate and often sub-human
Political Economy and Philosophy have each been fundamental in the construction of the epistemic objects of lsquopauperismrsquo (Hegel) and lsquoidlenessrsquo (TownsendB Franklin) that dominate ideas about the ldquonaturalrdquo inferiority degeneracy and criminality of lsquothe poorrsquo that continue to drive public policy and discourse about welfare and poverty
The epistemic construction of lsquothe poorrsquo in the history of political economy and Philosophy has suffered from an ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo that can be attributed to uncritically utilizing the epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo
In order to counter dominant public policy and discourse about lsquothe poorrsquo we need not to adopt a variety of eliminativism (lsquoget rid of the concept altogetherrsquo) rather we should adopt a strategic constructivism which attempts to develop what I call ldquoepistemic counter-objectsrdquo that counter dominant discourses Ex ldquoThe 99rdquo
lsquoidlenessrsquo
Joseph Townsend
Dissertation on
the Poor Laws
1786
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Conclusions ldquoStrategic Constructivismrdquo
By examining the development of political economy as a lsquoscience of lsquothe poorrsquo we are able to see how the ldquonaturerdquo of lsquothe poorrsquo has been constructed as inferior subordinate dependent degenerate and often sub-human
Political Economy and Philosophy have each been fundamental in the construction of the epistemic objects of lsquopauperismrsquo (Hegel) and lsquoidlenessrsquo (TownsendB Franklin) that dominate ideas about the ldquonaturalrdquo inferiority degeneracy and criminality of lsquothe poorrsquo that continue to drive public policy and discourse about welfare and poverty
The epistemic construction of lsquothe poorrsquo in the history of political economy and Philosophy has suffered from an ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo that can be attributed to uncritically utilizing the epistemic object of ldquothe poorrdquo
In order to counter dominant public policy and discourse about lsquothe poorrsquo we need not to adopt a variety of eliminativism (lsquoget rid of the concept altogetherrsquo) rather we should adopt a strategic constructivism which attempts to develop what I call ldquoepistemic counter-objectsrdquo that counter dominant discourses Ex ldquoThe 99rdquo
lsquoidlenessrsquo
Joseph Townsend
Dissertation on
the Poor Laws
1786
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
lsquoidlenessrsquo
Joseph Townsend
Dissertation on
the Poor Laws
1786
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Constructing the lsquoNaturersquo of the Poor
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
pauperism
Society for the
Prevention of
Pauperism ~1820
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
ldquoVagrancyrdquo1865 - 1972
bull Southern States used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to enforce post Civil War
ldquoBlack Codesrdquo through their lsquopolice
powersrsquo
bull Northern states used ldquovagrancyrdquo
laws to expand state police powers
over regulation of city and state
agencies working class
bull Also used to prosecute ldquoseditionrdquo
against US Government and anti-
war movements
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Vagrancy Laws 1865-1972
Leonard Feldman Citizens Without Shelter Homelessness
Citizenship and Political Exclusion
Vagrancy laws on the books in virtually every major US city
until 1972 when the Supreme Court ruled that they were
unconstitutionally vague ldquoconductrdquo laws
In other words the court tacitly ruled that most major US
cities had prior to that date been enforcing criminal codes
and ordinances that were unconstitutional
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
ldquoparasitesrdquo
ldquoBoth from the biological
and from the sociological
point of view one may say
that the parasite is a being
which lives at the expense of
another without destroying it
and without doing it servicerdquo
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
lsquodegeneracyrsquo
Social Darwinist idea that
ldquopauperism rdquois linked with
crime because it is partly
hereditary
ldquoDegeneracyrdquo results from
hereditary inheritance - an
underclass of lsquopaupersrsquo
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Constructing the ldquoNaturerdquo of the Poor Epistemic Object (lsquopopulationrsquo) Period
Idleness Late 18th Century
ldquoPauperismrdquo Early Nineteenth
Vagrancy Mid-19th-Late 20th
Social parasites Early 20th Century
Degenerates (prostitution sexuality mental hygiene) Early-Mid 20th Century
ldquoUrban poorculture of povertyrdquo 1960s
Homeless mentally ill 1980s
ldquowelfare queenrdquo 1990s
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Bio-politics as Critical Tool of Analyses
Each of these ways of linking lsquothe poorrsquo with crimediseasedangerousness relies upon a certain ldquonaturalismrdquo about its own epistemic categories Just as Franklin thought lsquoidlenessrsquo was a natural characteristic of certain human groups and Massart thought social parasitism was a natural feature of political bodies so did 20th century views hold that the poor suffered from some lsquonaturalrsquo degeneracy pathology mental defect illness or simply a lack of work ethic
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo as a distinct population with lsquonaturalrsquo characteristicsrsquo Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we often rely upon when making knowledge claims about ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been constructed through historical political social and social scientific processes that mask the very structural and systemic issues that worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of biopolitics ndash that is understanding how human groups are lsquoconstructedrsquo in order to be governed ndashallows us to see how the epistemic construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has worked to obscure structural issues of inequality and systemicinstitutional racism
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Poverty as deprivation v ldquothe poorrdquoldquoThe systemic nature of housing insecurity is masked by the objectifying work of the term lsquothe homelessrsquo When we speak of lsquothe homelessrsquo we mobilize a pathological category that directs attention to an individual as if living without housing is a personal experience rather than a social phenomenon Instead we might talk in terms of lsquohousing deprivationrsquo This phrase expresses that living without housing is systemically produced and must be understood as the active taking away of shelter as the social making of house-less lives lsquoHomelessnessrsquo is productive deprivationrdquo 2
Speaking about poverty in terms of economic and political deprivation works to counter the ldquohellipassumption that we already know everything there is to know about this problemhellip(in the case of homelessness)I think it derives from a notion that homeless people themselves are obvious and easy to know This is not simply the shortsightedness of those of us who are housed It is a key effect of decades of homeless management that have flattened people living without shelter into case histories devoid of complex personhoodrdquo 2
At the bottom the epistemic failure that arises when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo rather than economic-political deprivation can be attributed to ldquohellipa belief that there is nothing much to know about homeless people themselvesrdquo 10
Craig Willse 2015 The Value of Homelessness Managing Surplus Life in the United States Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
De-Naturalizing ldquothe poorrdquo
Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to begin to lsquodenaturalizersquo
and lsquounlearnrsquo what we think we know about ldquothe poorrdquo By doing so
structural and systemic causes of injustice and inequality come to the
fore Biopolitics shows us that the very concepts we rely upon in order
to think about characteristics of ldquothe poorrdquo in fact have been
constructed through historical political social and social scientific
processes that mask the very structural and systemic factors that are
worth making claims about
Looking at the discourses of poverty and crime through the lens of
biopolitics ndash that is understanding how populations are lsquoconstructedrsquo
in order to be governed ndash allows us to see how the epistemic
construction of ldquothe poorrdquo in the United States has from the very
beginning been linked to the political subordination of the poor
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Philosophyrsquos Epistemology of Ignorance
American political discourse of the poor has been dominated not only by the
economic motive to set them to work but also by the political desire to make them
subordinate dependent and at times view them as biologically socially or culturally
degenerate The poor at the end of the day have not only been victims of economic
political and cultural violence but also and I would argue in the first instance
victims of an epistemic violence
This epistemic violence against the poor I claim is something for which the tradition
of Philosophy itself is also to blame From Hegelrsquos treatment of the dangers of
ldquopauperismrdquo in The Philosophy of Right Marxrsquos subordinationde-humanization of
the lumpenproletariat to treatments of poverty and homelessness in the field of
contemporary bioethics philosophy has systematically failed to question its own
epistemic categories when speaking about ldquothe poorrdquo The result is a certain
ldquoepistemology of ignorancerdquo regarding the how Philosophers have traditionally
spoken about ldquothe poorrdquo as an object that must be ldquoknownrdquo
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
Epistemic Counter-Objects Bio-politics and Strategic Constructivism Biopolitics as a tool of analysis allows us to see how epistemic objects (such as
raceclasspopulation) are constructed for political objectives This insight that we can
collectively construct epistemic objects for strategic purposes teaches us that we should
be strategic constructivists when it comes to the concepts of race but perhaps also class
and population The Black Power tradition from Black Panthers to Black Lives Matter has
re-constructed race as a political organizing tool The Occupy Movement has re-
constructed class as an economic organizing tool the 99 In the case of lsquowelfarersquo
populations epistemic counter-objects have perhaps yet to be created
That is instead of simply trying to lsquoget rid of the conceptrsquo of lsquothe poorrsquo altogether
(eliminativism) we might be better off being strategic constructivists by considering how
social movements might utilize epistemic counter-objects to confront structural and
systemic inequality and racism This strategic adoption of epistemic objects for the goal of
economic and social justice may also serve as a way to confront the broader
criminalization of poverty that continues to characterize American politics and law
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
ldquohellipmany of the policies written into the federal and state welfare reform laws assumed a latent
criminality among the poor The welfare reform measures were aimed at excluding welfare
recipients who had engaged in illicit behavior (such as drug use or possession) in the past and
were aimed at imposing harsh penalties on welfare recipients who engaged in illicit behavior
while receiving government benefits 14 These policies engaged the get-tough-on-crime approach
used by the criminal justice system 647
ldquohellipthe criminalization of poverty highlights economically and legally institutionalized ideologies
of neo-liberalism racism sexism and the dehumanization of the poor The growth of punitive
welfare policies and the policing of welfare fraud add up to something more than the policing of
crime These policies and practices are rooted in the notion that the poor are latent criminals and
that anyone who is not part of the paid labor force is looking for a free handout In many ways
the policy goals of punishing non-working welfare recipients welfare cheats and aid recipients
who engage in unrelated crimes has overwhelmed the goal of protecting poor families adults and
children from economic instabilityrdquo 715
Kaaryn Gustafson ldquoThe Criminalization of PovertyrdquoJournal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol 99 No 3 2009
UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No 2009-1401107
The
End
top related