*Before you get started, check out the intro to this Book Talk HERE*
Ashley:
I really, really liked this book, and I think part of the reason why I liked this book so much is because every time I had a question like, "Well, what does that mean?" Or, "Well, what does that actually infer? What does it lead to?" Purnell was really good at turning the explanation of a process into a story that I could understand and relate to her, not just personally, but also generally. That made me think of this word used almost immediately in the book that I loved when she called people abolition-curious. And I was like, "This book is perfect for people who are abolition-curious." Did you feel the same way?
Danielle:
Absolutely. I'm going to echo what you said about Derecka, she does a really great job of bringing you into her thought process. I feel like when you read her bio it could be easy to get intimidated by how much of a scholar she is, but then if you pull it back and you recognize who her audience typically is, it is people. She's trying to mobilize and help people understand how to become more abolition-curious. So, I absolutely agree that I feel like this book does a really good job of walking you through the steps I've been through as I went from thinking, "Abolition's radical" to, "Well, yeah. It's radical because it needs to be, and radical isn't necessarily a term that's bad in the context of being abolition curious." Then she walks you through her story and how she became interested in learning more and turning her own beliefs on their head.
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
And then going from there, she walks you through how abolition needs to be radical, but not in the sense everybody feels.
Ashley:
Right. It took you through what somebody who is as educated as she is and who understands these concepts as deeply as she does goes through to get there, and, she just did a phenomenal job of walking you through the idea as if you were a person who had maybe heard the word, but had done very light research, had a very thin or just unfulfilled understanding of the concept. I think what really hit home for me was when she started to talk about the police as placebo.
Danielle:
Yes.
Ashley:
Because not only did that make me think of all of the times I can think of that people have been hurt or harmed that I know personally, and the police did not do anything and expressed very clearly that they couldn't in a lot of cases do anything, that they weren't even going to try to do anything. I live in a neighborhood where every once in a while there's some police activity. Since I've been here, both times that's happened, I have felt like, "What are they doing?" I know that police work is something I don't necessarily understand fully, but it is just wild to me how many police will show up to a location and do nothing. Literally catch no one, ask very few questions, and just seem to sort of be standing around talking to each other. That's not all police, but that's a lot of what I've seen. And I've been like, "Wow, what is happening?"
Not to mention the fact that there was just this subway attack in New York City, and the more I read about it... At first, I was reading to make sure... I have friends and people I love in New York City. I wanted to make sure nobody was involved, but eventually I'm like, "What's going on with the investigation? What's happening here?" And when you pay attention to what's being written and what you're hearing from the police, you're realizing that the police didn't catch this guy because of police work or good detective work. He essentially attempted to turn himself in twice before they caught him.
Danielle:
Yeah. Well, and he was caught not where they believed he would be, but just out in his community.
Ashley:
Those are just a few examples, but it made that concept of police as placebo instantly recognizable to me, and instantly understandable because I saw and see the evidence of it. There's no other organization I can think of that is supposed to make people feel safe, that's their primary job, that spends this much time screaming about how unsafe we all are.
Danielle:
I thought it was a really great way of describing law and order. I've heard it before, but this was a great reminder, "Law is what is written. Order typically comes as what the police believe it should be."
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
And I don't want to villainize the concept of people keeping peace, because I think there's a big difference between policing and then people keeping peace. When I say keeping peace, I mean people seriously peacefully going in and trying to determine, "What's wrong? How can I help? Where are my talents going to be best utilized?" And sometimes they have a uniform on and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the activists are the peacekeepers. So, I don't want to cross that boundary.
What I'm talking about is policing, this concept of, "I'm called to a situation, and I get to determine what the course of action is based on how I'm feeling about it."
And sometimes, to your point, there's very little curiosity. There's a lot of assumptions being made. For instance, you mentioned like neighborhoods like, "This neighborhood's a violent neighborhood. This neighborhood's scary, so I'm just going to assume the person who called me into this neighborhood is as well." And when all of those human-like red flags are already up, but you know you have certain protections based on... you don't really need to filter through those red flags of just regulations, what is your motivation, then, to keep the peace and to really be curious and to seek more information? Because you already feel you're in danger before you begin.
I'm not just wanting to say, "Only police officers have these types of feelings," however, I'm very excited about how Derecka put together the idea of the placebo, like you were saying because sometimes we call the police and it's like, "Did we really need them?"
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
"Was that really the support we needed?"
Ashley:
Right. I think that context next the way we understand it, the way we feel about it in general, is informed by our political education, by our ability to analyze, by our ability to not only be open to, but to interrogate, new concepts and new ideas. I feel like Derecka did a really, really awesome thing by noting the lack of political education that so many people who want to see things change in politics have. And how that's not really their fault. We don't get a good political education in this country, but it's also necessary to do the kind of work that she's laying out here.
Danielle:
Yes, and even the resistance that she met within her own activist community... A really big turning point for her... and, I don't want to ruin it, but she took a trip out of the country. Let's just put it that way. She met with activists in other parts of the world and learned how basically the change that came for them was educating themselves on the political process and gaining access to people within politics, whether that be the actual elected officials or the people who were lobbying them to become part of their community as well. When I was reading that particular section of the book it reminded me of the question: what's productive and what is busy? And I don't want to say that people who are really passionate about these social changes aren't being productive, but I love how she had the self-awareness to ask herself that question, "Am I being productive, or am I being busy?" And she didn't ask that directly, but you know what I mean.
Ashley:
Right.
Danielle:
It was the sentiment. I thought that was really important, and I was just curious how you felt about that part of the book, too.
Ashley:
It's so funny that you say that because I literally had it next up to talk about. I really wanted to talk about that trip she took out of the country, and how it affected her perspective and what I would call a shift in praxis.
Danielle:
Yes.
Ashley:
I think this happens for everybody, where when we have a good idea and we see the world in a certain way, we see the potential of the world, we get really excited and we want to do something about it. And, there's nothing wrong with that. I think she even really points that out, that there's nothing wrong with starting in that place. It's just that a lot of these ideas, to see them to fruition requires a near-constant evolution for the individual in terms of being able to shift their perspective and shift their praxis.
She goes to this place and she sees the issues that people on the ground are dealing with, and how they're dealing with them. I think what she really found, ultimately, was that her vision for what could be her idea of freedom even and what it took wasn't necessarily warped by being in America. But, it was certainly underdeveloped because she did not yet understand, I think, the true impact of the changes that she wanted to make, the changes that she wanted to see in the country, the changes that she wanted to see in society among people. It's not that what she was doing wasn't moving us toward that or helping us get there. It honestly seems like her imagination for what could be and how deep the roots could go was a little bit stunted, and she had to break out of here in order to see that clearly.
Danielle:
I absolutely agree that she expanded her imagination of abolition. Again, one of my favorite parts of this book is her vulnerability to tell us, which I think is really important, that she didn't know what she didn't know, and as she learned more she had to shift her way of thinking. And, it didn't negate any of her efforts previously. It didn't stop her in her tracks or cause some sort of, I think, imposter syndrome. What it caused was, like you said, a shift in her praxis. The, "Why am I doing what I'm doing? And, for what outcome am I passionate?"
Ashley:
Yes.
Danielle:
If you read this book, this is the part I hope people talk about the most. This idea that it's okay to change how we think about abolition. It's okay to change about how we feel about certain words like the word radical. Often radical gives us this tone of crazy. I hate to use that word, but that is what I feel most people to it. "Oh, radical." "Off the rails." That's like an example that pops into people's heads. Or, "Radical. They're against peace." You know, "Radical. This is somebody who wants disruption and craves chaos.”
Now, those are the types of images I believe we are taught as a society. And like you said, she had to leave the country to remind herself that every term has its equal opposite. And radical does, too. And radical might be slowing down movement to understand how to plan for your next step rather than just taking it. And that's where I really hope when people read this book, they come away with this knowledge that radical might not be... or, abolition, excuse me, might not be such a terrible thing if you expand your imagination like she has done. And even to the point, Derecka did the shift from, "I was wanting to lock up the police, too."
Ashley:
Yep.
Danielle:
But, what was that going to solve, really? It's reform, that's all. And reform has not ever led to an outcome of change that was better for The People. She addressed that in the same section with this idea that the systems, prisons, policing, courts delivering sentencing, they're doing exactly what they were designed to do.
*All questions and discussions are encouraged in the comments below. Part Two of this conversation will be available tomorrow. See you then!*
