*Welcome to the final part of our discussion of Becoming Abolitionists by Derecka Purnell! As always, we welcome your (thoughtful) comments below!*
Ashley:
The dehumanization that occurs within the institution is not what teaches people to humanize others, to think of women as people, to think of people who are smaller or more vulnerable than them as people. That's not the environment that encourages that kind of evolution of self, that kind of evolution of thought. When Derecka says, "We must focus on reducing police power more than humanizing ourselves," that blew me away.
Danielle:
Yeah. I feel like the theme throughout this entire book, the idea of, again, a constellation of alternatives. I keep going back to Angela Davis' quote from "Are Prisons Obsolete?" because we are not focusing on the alternatives. We are not focusing on what else is available other than simply calling 911. We don't teach that to children.
Ashley:
Nope.
Danielle:
We don't teach that to adults. We certainly aren't sharing it widely with those who are incarcerated. I wholeheartedly agree with you that messaging somewhere has become about humanizing versus recognizing. I know humans wear uniforms. I know humans commit crimes. I know humans are assaulted. Humans can be victims. I know all of that. I know humans are the activists who are trying to help make the changes. I don't need somebody to tell me that, and I don't know where that came from. It’s part of where we're getting the messaging of, "Well, we can't abolish the police. Where would the rapists go?" I don't think that's the right question. It's, "What does abolishment look like so that people who commit rape can be held accountable?"
Ashley:
Being able to ask the question that way requires an understanding of analysis. It requires some understanding of being in practice and conversation with yourself, analyzing what comes in, what's going out. And, not over-analyzing, obviously, but when you have a moment thinking deeply about what you believe, why you believe it, and what that's based on.
Danielle:
I was going to say that the last part to me is the most important. What it's based on, where did the idea come from. You and I have talked for years about this idea of messing up people's narratives. Messing up how people feel about their story, the way they’ve told their story, or how somebody has told them their story their whole life. And then, they get in a discussion with somebody whose values or experiences do not align with their story, and they get angry. That's the part, I think, with analysis that has to shift. We have to stop being angry when someone challenges where our notions come from. My point being, I, too, used to get angry.
I think maybe you did. I know a lot of people who are very calm now while being challenged. I want to know when someone's challenging me what information I can give them to share my perspective. I don't necessarily need to change their mind, not at that moment. And I think she talks about that with analysis. She talks about how the need to analyze perspectives, outcomes, and origins is not contingent on the need for change in that exact moment. It's a process. It's slow. It's, "Plant a tree not because you want to enjoy the shade, but because you know the next generation will."
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
I think she does a wonderful job of explaining how that’s a confrontation she faces all the time, even still. Analysis is the key, but it's not easy, so it gets people stuck sometimes.
Ashley:
It has to be a practice. Sometimes we are reluctant to be in the practice of something and not just being. Practice requires some intention. People want to be kind, but you know what, it's hard to be kind 24/7, and I don't think any human can do it. I don't think any human can be kind 24/7, but I think every human could be in the practice of being kind every day, and that would be enough.
Danielle:
Abolition curiosity is being curious for change. It is not saying, "Get rid of everything and just let people be." It's saying, "How can we be more supportive? What needs to change for outcomes to actually be better?"
Ashley:
For more people.
Danielle:
There's a part in the book later on in the book... I don't want to read the whole piece, but it says, "In 1967 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice explained..." and then it goes on, in 1967, "that the criminal justice system has a great potential for dealing with individual instances of crime, but it's not designed to eliminate the conditions in which most crime breeds." So, full circle with the placebo. Why do we expect that those people, humans, are equipped to deal with it all? And when they don't, and when they fall short, we don't want to admit they have limitations.
Ashley:
Yes, and that is the only way we will acknowledge their limitations is in defense of them, and not when holding them accountable.
We only have a few more minutes and I really want to talk about the last part of the book. I'm going to list out the ideas, but obviously this is just a list. Going into these concepts, even just reading what she wrote about these concepts is so, so important. But, some of the things she mentioned were councils, childcare, art, meditation, and conflict resolution, health clinics, and green teams. I've got to tell you, I'm going to leave green teams vague, because I want you to read about the green teams, because that's something that actually really excited me and I thought was really cool. Give me some of your thoughts on the idea of councils.
Danielle:
Some people, their first exposure to a council is student council, right?
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
And the schools. If you think about and you take the purity of what they could be, it's, "What do the people want and how do we mobilize to make that happen?" Break it down to the most elementary basic form, student council. What do the students want? The kids who are there sitting around the table talk about it. They talk to the people, and then they come together and say, "Okay, what can we do? What can't we do? And on the 'what can't we do,' what compromises can we find?" Pretty basic. Pretty elementary level, right?
Her concept is similar in that, "Why do we not do that more within our communities?" The local level is where change is most made. This concept of councils, to me, is so beautiful because you're distributing the literature, you're talking about what the needs are locally, and then sharing best practices with others by talking to other councils. That's where time and money and practice should be spent dreaming about these changes.
And, it's sad because most people just don't have time for them. Or, they're so heavily politicized, they're so heavily seen as a status symbol that some people count themselves out because they don't feel they have enough followers or clout or, "Who am I to say what should happen?" And her point is the councils should turn over.
Ashley:
I read it and I enjoyed it. At the end of that piece, at the end of that section, I don't know why, but I felt this wild amount of weird hope. I felt like this doesn't seem... even what's just laid out here... I know that it's more than just what's laid out there in steps. But, it also sounds so attainable. It sounds so doable.
Danielle:
I love this section at the end and the conclusion. I want people to read the entire book, but if you're not going to read the entire book, or you need a place to begin to see, "Should I read the entire book?" Ironically, at least start with the conclusion, because she does such a great job of saying what it looks like to actually be an abolitionist, and it's not violent. It's productive.
---
*Hope you've enjoyed reading and chatting about Becoming Abolitionists by Derecka Purnell with us! Our next book will be How The Word is Passed by Dr. Clint Smith!"
