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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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