“The Person I Dislike Is Myself”: How Narratives of Individualism Shape Justice-involved Youth’s Identity Construction

Personal Reflexive Statements

Dr. Daniel B. Eisen: I am an associate professor of sociology at Pacific University, whose main research focus is how individuals negotiate a Filipino identity within the social context of Hawaii. What, unexpectedly, got centered in this research is how Filipino individuals in Hawaii internalize dominant marginalizing ideologies about Filipinos and how these ideologies shape their actions. This has led me to engage in other research projects that examine the processes of internalized dominance and subordination in different settings. Recently, I examined how men enact hegemonic masculinity—something the men in the study were attempting to resist—by co-opting femininity to construct narratives that attempt to distance themselves from hegemonic masculinity. In general, I strive to uncover the insidious nature of systems of power and oppression that seep into even the most well-intentioned interactions. This is what brought me to the current project—a passion to critically examine the hegemonic nature of culture in hopes that shedding light on these social processes will help scholars, teachers, and practitioners find more equitable and just ways to engage in our work. This goal is the foundation for all of my research, teaching, and community engagement.

Dr. Taryn VanderPyl: I am an assistant professor of criminal justice sciences at Western Oregon University. My research focuses on interventions within and legislation concerning juvenile and adult corrections that affect reentry and recidivism as well as addressing social hostility toward those with justice system involvement. My earlier experiences as a high school special education teacher and consultant, as well as a foster parent, have contributed to my research and activism regarding disproportionate representations of vulnerable and marginalized populations in the criminal and juvenile justice systems. My work on affecting the outcomes of youth in the juvenile justice system has led to participation in numerous academic, behavioral, and reintegration programs in both juvenile and adult correctional facilities with a priority on emphasizing the voice of those seldom heard. I have presented on behalf of my research participants and fellow change agents at multiple national and regional criminal justice conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals across various related fields of study.

It is estimated that at least 55 percent of youth will be rearrested within one year of release from juvenile corrections facilities (Council of State Governments Justice Center 2014; Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014; Snyder and Sickmund 2006). With over 40,000 youth in custody in the United States on any given day (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2017), and knowing almost all of them will at some point be released back into the community, the prospect of a 55 percent recidivism rate is alarming. Thus, it is important for juvenile corrections organizations to adopt programs that attempt to reduce this rate by preparing youth to successfully transition back into their community (VanderPyl 2016).

Although evidence-based and promising programs have been shown to be effective at decreasing the likelihood of recidivism, research needs to examine how these programs may be infused with marginalizing dominant cultural narratives. This is important because interventions rooted in ideologies of abstract liberalism and individualism may reinforce the symbolic boundaries (Hacking 2001; Lamont and Molnár 2002) that rigidly and inaccurate separate law-abiding “good” people and delinquent “bad” people. Reinforcing this dichotomy, whether intentional or not, may be damaging to youth because reducing the complexity of human identity to two categories leads youth to believe that upon reentry, they need to actively choose between assimilating into a good person or remaining bad (Dunlap 2014).

This is particularly concerning because the vast majority (69 percent) of juveniles in residential facilities come from historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Framing the navigation of this dichotomy between good people and delinquents as an individual endeavor ignores the cultural and structural components that influence one’s path toward delinquency. This makes the structural barriers that youth will experience at the intersections of their racial background and the stigmatizing label of juvenile delinquent (Sickmund et al. 2017) invisible. In turn, individuals who are not successful may develop identities influenced by internalized subordination. Thus, critical examinations of inventions that seek to reduce recidivism rates are imperative to better understand how these interventions may reinforce dominant marginalizing ideologies and have unintended consequences on youth’s sense of self.

Abstract Liberalism and Individualism

Capitalistic conceptualizations of social mobility and success in the United States are rooted in ideologies of abstract liberalism and individualism. Individualism constructs people “as being separate, autonomous, and distinct from others [and whose focus] is toward oneself and internal attributes” (Le and Stockdale 2005:682). By ignoring the intricate relationship between agency and structure, individualism positions success as the result of an individual’s drive, choices, and actions rather than their social location.

The ideology of individualism aligns with and is supported by the colorblind frame of abstract liberalism. Bonilla-Silva (2014:76) defines abstract liberalism as “using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g., equal opportunity, the ideas that force should not be used to achieve policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters.” Abstract liberalism attempts to render the United States’ racial structure invisible by suggesting that opportunities for upward mobility are equally accessible for all. Thus, victims of structural marginalization are often blamed for lacking motivation and the work ethic that will lead to upward social mobility (Braithwaite 1989; Maruna et al. 2004; Patermoster and Iovanni 1989).

This fusion of individualism and abstract liberalism can be seen in the way that juveniles with justice system involvement, who are predominantly youth of color, are stigmatized. Youth are characterized as being lazy, interested in the wrong things, and choosing to abide by the wrong values. Centering these characterization on individualistic decisions, ignore the fact that engaging in delinquent acts is influenced by social connections (Agnew and Brezina 2001; Sutherland, Cressey, and Luckenbill 1995), social situations (Farrall and Bowling 1999; Lin 2000; Merton 1938), and the labels that are assigned to an individual (Becker 1963; Lemert 1951; Maruna et al. 2004).

Shifting the focus from the individual to a collectivist mindset can be beneficial. For example, when those with collectivist orientations experience strain because they cannot obtain a goal through institutionalized means (Agnew 1984, 1992), they are more likely to engage in help-seeking behaviors (Scott, Ciarrochi, Deane 2011). Agnew (2001:323) argued that “strain is most likely to lead to crime when individuals lack the skills and resources to cope with their strain in a legitimate manner, are low in conventional social support, are low in social control, blame their strain on others, and are disposed to crime.” Thus, fostering help-seeking behaviors through a collectivist mindset may decrease engagement in delinquent or criminal acts because it helps individuals find alternative ways to manage strain (Agnew 1992).

Downstream interventions with justice-involved youth often center on individualism rather than collectivism. Therefore, the focus is placed on reforming the individual rather than involving or building robust social supports and resources. Youth are taught to reassess their values, to commit to changing, and to make “better” decisions. Individuals are, perhaps unintentionally, encouraged to see themselves as problem that needs to be fixed, rather than as individuals whose choices are enabled and constrained by systems of power. In short, these interventions often view the youth through a deficit perspective and are designed to fill the perceived deficit. Although this approach has led to interventions that report success in reducing recidivism, the approach may also increase the likelihood of recidivism because the narrow and individualistic path to success that youth are given does not recognize the structural barriers that those from marginalized groups encounter or the social support systems needed to address the strain that arises from these barriers. When interventions do not acknowledge the nuanced relationship between individual agency and social structure, they equate assimilation into society’s dominant ideologies of upward mobility with success, rendering the fact that these dominant ideologies are often oppressive for many segments of the population invisible.

Examples of Current Programming

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018 requires transition and reentry programming and supports at all juvenile corrections facilities in the United States. This programming is frequently determined by administrative resource allocation decisions and, therefore, differs across facilities. Programming is diverse in its focus and may address anger management, drug treatment, high school credit recovery, or reentry skills (e.g., returning to their home, school, and community post incarceration). In general, the founding belief of these programs is that teaching youth about employability and social skills (i.e., “soft skills” as opposed to vocational or life skills) will ease their transition back into the community. From a critical lens, it appears that these programs hope assimilating youth into dominant cultural values and practices will decrease the likelihood of reoffending.

One example is Operation New Hope, which focuses on “basic socialization skills necessary for successful reintegration into the community” to “improve overall lifestyle choices (social, education, job training, and employment)” (CrimeSolutions.gov 2020). Power Source is another example and combines “the problem-solving and change components of [Cognitive Behavioral Therapy] with the attentional and response modification elements of [Mindfulness Training]” to shift individuals’ behavioral choices (CrimeSolutions.gov 2020). Each program focuses on helping incarcerated youth manage their emotions and behavior upon reentry so they may reenroll in their home school, gain and maintain employment, and choose to desist in delinquent behavior. Despite the value of these soft skills and the programs’ demonstrated partial effectiveness, these programs center on individualized choices to uphold middle-class practices and values rather than contextualizing choices within systems of power that enable or constrain action.

When rooted in dominant ideologies about success and colorblind frames of abstract liberalism and individualism, these approaches provide little flexibility for programs to recognize the community cultural wealth that exists in marginalized communities. Yosso (2005) defines community cultural wealth as alternative forms of capital that exist within marginalized communities and enable upward mobility but are rendered invisible by dominant conceptualizations of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984, 1986). Discussions of cultural capital that center middle-class culture create a deficit lens through which subordinate groups are assessed (Yosso 2005). Marginalized groups are thus seen as lacking the necessary skills and behaviors for upward social mobility. Reentry programs commonly employ dominant conceptualizations of cultural capital which result in youth being depicted as individuals that need to be fixed. This approach leads practitioners to believe that if the youth’s perceived deficit can be filled, they will be accepted by society and no longer choose to commit delinquent or criminal acts.

It is important to note that building youths’ capacity to secure a job, complete an education, and obtain secure housing may reduce recidivism by reducing strain and connecting youth with social networks that discourage delinquent and criminal behavior (Sutherland et al. 1995). This work, however, could be more complete by adopting an assets perspective to acknowledge the often-unrecognized skills and supports that already exist in the youth and their communities. For example, the Missouri Approach attempts to recognize community cultural wealth by prioritizing the well-being of the individual child within their own family and community (Mendel 2010). The model detains youth in small facilities close to home, provides intensive individual attention and supports, and develops educational and vocational skills alongside critical thinking and social competency skills. And most importantly, it involves family members as partners and supports youth and their families after release from incarceration (Mendel 2010). This model does not fully decenter dominant views of cultural capital, but it does attempt to support youths’ reentry by recognizing alternative forms of capital they may already exist within the youths’ family or community. In other words, the Missouri Approach provides valuable skill-based teaching while also recognizing the individual’s community context.

Negotiating Stigma through Assimilation

Although programs that uphold a middle-class path to success may have some positive affect on easing reentry and reducing recidivism rates (Dunlap 2014), the reliance on a logic that reinforces the symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Molnár 2002) between “good people” and “delinquents” is troubling. Beliefs centered in abstract liberalism (Bonilla-Silva 2014, 2015) and biased conceptualizations of cultural capital (Yosso 2005) construct “good people” as individuals who have completed an education and are gainfully employed, while delinquents choose to jeopardize these potential accomplishments by choosing to engage in delinquent behavior. Thus, individual choices determine whether one is categorized as good or bad—a belief that is foundational to constructing the stigma of “delinquent.”

The negotiation of symbolic boundaries that define different kinds of people (Hacking 2001) positions individuals in a hierarchy that afford individuals different levels of privilege. Appiah (2005) argues that the construction of social identities work to name a group of individuals, identify stereotypical characteristics of the group, and define ways that others should interact with those associated with the group. Groups that are constructed in a negative fashion are often afforded less privilege, and association with the group stigmatizes an individual (Goffman 1963). Stigmas identify how individuals deviate from what is considered acceptable and enables those considered normal to create social distance between themselves and the stigmatized.

Stigmatized individuals often develop a sense of double consciousness (Du Bois 1903), as they are able to understand themselves from their marginalized positions and the dominant group’s position. A youth with justice system involvement may attempt to maintain a positive self-concept but also has a keen understanding of how the dominant groups view them. It is not uncommon for the dominant groups’ conceptualization of subordinate groups to become the main lens through which marginalized individuals understand themselves (Feagin 2013; Pyke 2010; Williams 2011). For example, a youth with justice system involvement may stop seeing acts of delinquency as a response to navigating a difficult situation and start seeing these acts as bad choices that stem from questionable values. Employing the dominant groups’ lens to view oneself leads to the internalization of stigmas and a decreased sense of self-worth.

To manage this stigma and self-conceptualization, individuals may attempt to affiliate with a different group, create hybrid identities (Bridges and Pascoe 2014; Eisen and Yamashita 2019; Goffman 1959), and engage in defensive othering (Schwalbe et al. 2000). Each of these tactics may increase an individual’s prestige, but they do not challenge the social order that creates the group’s stigmatization. Therefore, these individuals are still harmed by the marginalizing dominant ideologies and symbolic boundaries and the structural barriers to upward social mobility, which are factors that may increase the likelihood of one committing delinquent or criminal acts (Hernandez and Mendoza 2011; Scheff 2003; Tangney, Stuewig, and Martinez 2014; Tangney et al. 2011).

Method

This study examined written narratives to gain insights into how incarcerated youth construct their identities and discuss their plans for reentry. More specifically, this research examined how youths’ descriptions of how they became justice-involved and their plans to prevent reoffending in the future were imbued with dominant ideologies of individualism and abstract liberalism. This was possible through a content analysis of writing samples from a writing program implemented in a long-term juvenile corrections facility. Borrowed Voices is a program through Pitzer College that brings undergraduate students into a nearby facility to host writing classes for youth who are incarcerated for a variety of offenses and lengths of stay. The program seeks to “create space for humanity, creativity, and self-expression” and focuses on reading, writing, performance, and speaking skills (Pitzer College 2017). It is believed that by fostering these skills, the program is able to build youth’s “confidence, self-awareness, and life-skills for success outside the correctional system” (Pitzer College 2017).

The youth who participate in this program are representative of the facility as a whole, as it takes place in each of their assigned language arts classes. The facility houses juveniles ranging in age from 13 to 18 who are committed by the courts for stays of five to seven months at a minimum. All of the youth in the facility are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged, more than one third are English-language learners (35.5 percent), nearly one quarter (24.2 percent) have diagnosed disabilities, and 9.7 percent are in the care of the foster care system (SARConline.org 2019). Further, 98.4 percent of the youth in this facility are racial minorities (72.6 percent Latino, 24.2 percent black, and 1.6 percent Filipino; SARConline.org 2019). The offenses for which youth in this facility have been adjudicated range from drug or property crimes to violent crimes and misdemeanors to felonies.

The writing samples analyzed for this study all come from this one long-term juvenile corrections facility where Borrowed Voices was implemented. The complete data set includes 1,008 writing samples from 2011 to 2015. As part of a larger research project, modified grounded theory practices (Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Strauss and Corbin 1998) were used to inductively code the writing samples to identify emergent themes. This produced 28 major themes that were used to inform second cycle coding. The findings presented in this article focus on the subset of the data that was coded as “change” (n = 211). The writings coded as change were any that made reference to the desire to prove people wrong, turn one’s life around, looking forward to the future, and going down a different path. Writing samples coded as change represent 20.9 percent of the total data set. This particular subset was chosen to answer the research questions of (1) how do incarcerated youth construct their identities and discuss their plans for reentry and (2) how did youth employed an individualistic frame to describe how they became justice-involved and how they plan to prevent reoffending in the future.

Similar to early coding practices, inductive coding was used to reexamine this sample. This round of coding focused on examining why the youth believed change was necessary and how they anticipated engaging in change. It was important to maintain inductive coding throughout the project to ensure that the themes accurately represented the youths’ voices. This has increased importance in this study because the voices of the marginalized (e.g., incarcerated youth) are often silenced, and as scholars (Gonzalez, Moll, and Amanti 2006; Solórzano and Yosso 2002; Yosso 2005) have suggested, listening to marginalized voices provides insights into social structures that are often missed by those in more dominant social positions. Each researcher coded the sample, and frequent meetings allowed the researchers to discuss coding and resolve the few differences that existed. This cycle of coding demonstrated that youth often (1) blamed themselves for being justice involved, (2) believed that being more diligent about an education and a job would facilitate change, (3) believed they needed to distance themselves from their previous life, and (4) viewed change as an individual enterprise.

Be Successful: Get an Education and a Job

Dominant ideologies about social mobility ignore structural barriers and are rooted in rugged individualism, which depicts upward social mobility as directly related to one’s willingness to earn a high school diploma and a college degree and secure a middle-class job. It is clear that many of the youth’s narratives were influenced by these dominant ideologies, as they often wrote that committing themselves to education and finding a career were key to a successful life and their ability “to start fresh.”

The writers articulated a range of educational goals. For example, Jazel wrote, “I want to start going to school more often, so I can get my education.” Benjamin and Torner each discussed going back to school and “working on getting my high school diploma.” Others had college aspirations. Angel wanted to “be able to go to UCLA and finish a bachelor’s degree in business,” while Devonte elaborated that, “when I go to college I’ll major in cinematography, and I’ll take classes such as theater [and] foreign languages, such as French, British, and German.”

Although college attendance is not impossible for these individuals, their discussions of education centered solely on increasing their own motivation to focus on school while ignoring the structural constraints that could hinder college attendance. For example, Isai wrote,

I’ll be really proud of myself if I graduate high school and get accepted into college. But I’ll still be proud of myself if I graduate from high school. I’ll achieve it by going to school and every day do all of my homework.

In general, education was framed as the ultimate solution to create change. Take Brian, for example, who wrote,

to make a big change in the city of Los Angeles and in a lot of gang infested cities in Southern California you start by providing a better education. Also, the parents of these fatherless children and drug addicted parents need support in their lives. I think one helpful way would be by playing sports and attending educational after school programs.

Consistent with dominant misconceptions about the link between education, employment, and wealth, the writers also equated educational attainment with career opportunities and economic security. Benjamin argued that he was going to, “get my high school diploma, then get my degrees. Life is hard, but that is what is expected of it…the more education you get, the more you will have in life.” An anonymous writer reflected that if he could focus and earn his high school diploma and go to college his “family would [n]ever have to worry about money.” Educational attainment, therefore, would cure an individual’s cultural deficit and provide all the necessary opportunities to become financially secure. Again, the writers depicted the main determinant of achieving these goals as their ability to decide to be fully engaged with educational opportunities. By centering on their own motivation and ignoring larger structural constraints that may limit success in educational systems, the writers place the onus to “succeed in life” on themselves rather than adaptive structures that would support these motivations.

It is important to note that not all of the writers viewed education as the only gateway to a job. Some wrote that familial connections would help them secure employment and financial security. Senesgar’s reentry plan was “to first find a good job. Probably at the old refinery where my dad works,” while Saviour’s plan was to “continue working with my dad in his painting business.” Others, like Antrell, had more entrepreneurial plans. He wrote that he would “work on my clothing line and go to LA Trade Tec to get my 60 units to become a probation officer. Then when I save the right amount of money, get my own clothing store like H&M and Hollister.”

Regardless of their plans to secure a job and earn money, the writers framed securing employment as another sign that they had “left it all behind” and committed to being a good person. As with education attainment, it was rare for writers to acknowledge the structural constraints that might prevent them from achieving their occupational goals. Victor was one of the few who noted that being in the juvenile justice system placed him in a precarious position in finding a job. He wrote,

for me the fact that with a strike in your file you can’t get a well-paying job, which means you will not have a future for your family. Justice systems don’t realize that giving strikes to minors can really hurt your future and teenage years.

The manifest function of fostering these aspiration beliefs through reentry programs is creating motivation to dream beyond one current situation. But dreaming beyond one’s current situation without a larger context can reaffirm deficit constructions of marginalized communities and individuals and reinforce oppressive social structures. Ultimately, obtaining a job or completing an educational simply becomes a reflection of one’s goals and efforts, rather than a consequence of navigating social structures that may constrain one from achieving these goals.

It’s My Fault, I Deserve to be Incarcerated

As shown above, many of the youth believed that if they chose to value education and a career, they would be successful. The inverse of this narrative, however, suggests that those who are incarcerated (e.g., not successful) have chosen to adopt the wrong values. What is often perceived as youth taking responsibility for their actions may actually be a more insidious construction of incarcerated youth as problem to be fixed. Focusing the blame for previous actions solely on the self also suggests that “turning one’s life around” is responsibility of the individual.

It was common for youth in this study to express regret about the actions that resulted in incarceration. For example, George reflected, “I wish I had not done the stuff I did before I got locked up because that’s what got me here…I know that if I would not have committed the crime I would not here at this moment.” An anonymous individual similarly wrote, “It was my fault for bringing myself here.” It is not inappropriate for these individuals to express remorse for their actions, but contextualizing the previous actions within social contexts could limit the marginalizing narratives that they internalized about themselves. This is especially important because research shows that criminal and delinquent behavior tends to be a response to systemic and social barriers that prevent individuals from achieving normative societal goals. By rendering the social context invisible, the youth view themselves as a flawed person who engaged in wrong actions rather than an individual influences by larger structures of power.

These narratives led the youth to understand and judge themselves through the eyes of the dominant group—those who are not incarcerated. Angel wrote, “The person I dislike is myself…I always told myself why did I choose this path…I got something good in my heart but there is always evil taking over….” Angel presents himself as being in a battle with evil and constantly have to choose between giving into the evil or being a good person. Matthew presents a similar problem but seems less optimistic than Angel as he writes, “I feel so bad knowing I can’t change….” In both of these cases, the youth do not see themselves as individuals “with good in [their] heart[s]” who were in a difficult situations that resulted in delinquency. Instead, they see themselves as inherently flawed people.

Reflect on the pain they have caused others heightens the regret they have about being a flawed person. Jonathan wrote, “It hurts me inside to see you cry because of all the bad I have done…. You don’t deserve all this stress I’ve caused.” The pain they experience and cause their loved ones becomes a driving force for attempting to change “who they are.”

The youth argue that upon reentry, they must become a new person by leaving behind who they once were. Although the youth often use essentialist and static language to describe identity, they also express a belief that they can create a sharp disjuncture in their identity. Thus, before or upon reentry, they can reorient their identity around being a good person. David wrote, “when I get out I won’t come out as the same person I came in at first,” while Devonte wrote, “I thought we were here to change.” James explained, “I’m incarcerated because I was doing too much on the streets and sooner or later, I wouldn’t have made it so I believe god put me in here to help me and give me another chance to get my head right.” What is concerning about these narratives is not that the youth are remorseful for their previous actions but that they accept their status as incarcerated and thank an oppressive structure (the justice system) for the opportunity to be fixed.

It’s All up to Me

Framing the justice system as an institution that is helping a flawed individual once again places the responsibility for change solely upon the youth. For example, Juan wrote, “I just got to learn now how to live that life differently,” while an anonymous writer opined, “I just hope that when I get out this time I will make better choices.” Similarly, Jazel wrote, “I want to change/Be different/So when I get out and go home this time/I won’t come back.” Based on the construction of the self as a flawed individual, change upon reentry was not limited to actions, but creating an entirely new sense of self. Preventing future incarceration was, thus, contingent upon becoming a different person.

There were both messages of optimism and despair in the writing samples regarding changing one’s self. For example, George wrote, “All I know is that when I get out I’m going to stay out there and live my life a good way.” Porfirio and Jazel looked forward to trying to change and wrote, “…let me be prepared to change. Hope it’s not too late” and “…this time I’m going to just try and do it right.” Victorious wrote, “I can be anything I want if I work hard at it/I’ll prove all my critics wrong.” It is unclear what actual change these individuals will attempt to make, but it is clear that they see become a different person upon reentry as an individual endeavor. This is particularly clear in an anonymous writer’s sense of despair as they wrote, “I’m trying to change, but it always ends up being the same…I always stay the same, knowing I need to change.” Overall, it is clear that many of the youth internalized dominant narratives of individualism, which ignore structural pathways of delinquency and deviance, and require individuals to fix themselves and their lives in order to have a successful life that does not include being incarcerated.

Conclusion

The voices of incarcerated youth presented in Borrowed Voices provide important insights about how they make sense of their actions that led to incarceration, their current sense of self, and how they envision their process of reentry. The youth often drew upon dominant cultural ideologies of individualism and abstract liberalism (Bonilla-Silva 2014) to engage in these meaning-making processes. This framed their experience of becoming justice involved and future reentry as their responsibility.

By centering the onus for change on themselves, the writers diminished the cultural conditions and structural barriers that researchers have found increase the likelihood of an individual engaging in acts that are considered delinquent or criminal (Agnew and Brezina 2001; Becker 1963; Farrall and Bowling 1999; Lin 2000; Maruna et al. 2004; Sutherland et al. 1995). Thus, the symbolic boundary (Lamont and Molnár 2002) that distinguishes “delinquents” from “good” people was reinforced. Good people are constructed as those who choose to follow a middle-class pathway for success. These individuals choose to value a college education and subsequent related career. Delinquents, on the other hand, are constructed as those who choose to reject these values and engage in harmful actions. In short, by ignoring the structural influences on individual action, the youth describe delinquency as problematic yet conscious decisions made by flawed individuals.

This reinforces dominant cultural narratives that depict delinquent acts as being committed by problem individuals that can and should be fixed. Constructing the self as a problem narrows the solutions to delinquency to individual factors. In this construction, delinquency can be solved by implementing programs that encourage youth to commit to personal change and better choices. The results of this type of programming are demonstrated in the youths’ reflections as they argue that they just need to learn to embrace the pursuit of an education. Education, thus, became the solution to fix individuals, a link that reinforces cultural narratives of incarcerated youth as operating from a cultural deficit (Yosso 2005). Although the youth wrote about committing to an education, they did not mention the many barriers that the educational system might place in front of them. Instead, the educational system was viewed through the lens of abstract liberalism and was depicted as a system that would support anyone willing to commit to it. A simple dedication to education could provide one with a direct pathway to upward mobility.

Overall, the youths’ writing suggested that it was imperative for them to consciously choose to make a clean break from their previous life. This break required them to “make better choices” and become different people upon reentry. According to the youth, if they could do this, they would stay out of trouble, integrate into their communities, and experience upward mobility. Consistent with dominant deficit narratives about incarcerated youth, the writers believed they could fix themselves by assimilating into dominant middle-class norms. They believed that doing this would transform them from a delinquent to a good person. By doing this, they would be solving the problem that they saw themselves as.

It is important to note that highlighting this trend in the youths’ writing is not an effort to blame the writers from upholding these oppressive narratives nor justifying their crimes or offenses. Instead, this analysis, as with other analyses of internalized oppression, demonstrates the power of these hegemonic cultural ideologies (Pyke 2010). These ideologies are so powerful that they can infuse themselves into the meaning-making and identity processes of those who are harmed by these ideologies. The dominance of these narratives profoundly impacts these youths’ identity and, by reinforcing symbolic boundaries that are used to stigmatize these youth, effectively reinforce the pushing of them to the margins of society. Therefore, this analysis demonstrates the power that a cultural system with ideologies of abstract liberalism and individualism has over youth who have been incarcerated.

Overall, the examination of the youths’ writing demonstrates how incarcerated youth construct their identities, make sense of their past, and envision their path away from delinquency. Although the youth should not be fatalistic in describing their current situation, it is important that they develop a sociological imagination that balances the connection between individual agency and structural constraints. Doing this would not only provide the youth with a more realistic view of change but would also work to challenge the dominant narratives of abstract liberalism and individualism that are commonly used to justify the marginalization of groups such as justice-involved youth.

Programming Implications

Although the programming used in juvenile corrections facilities is undoubtedly well-intentioned, it is a clear example of when the impact is more important than the intent. For this reason, it is essential to address the lens through which programming is created. In addition to teaching skills that will aid incarcerated youth to reenter school and find and maintain employment, it is important, and arguably more so, to help youth create a positive identity. Maruna (2001) and Nurse (2013) both argue for helping youth create new self-narratives such as, “I am not a bad person. I committed crimes because of external circumstances (like my family, economic need, etc.) but now I have control of my life and I am going to be the good person I always knew I was” (Nurse 2013:237). Such an identity helps formerly incarcerated young adults maintain a lifestyle that is significantly less likely to include any delinquent or criminal activity (Maruna 2001; Nurse 2013).

Incorporating identity-transformation support into programming is an important first step. Additionally, youth voice should be considered and included when making programming decisions. The participants are seldom asked their opinion of the programs in which they are required to participate while detained. Listening to youth voice, however, would not only help practitioners be able to prevent them from turning on themselves but also hopefully help the youth avoid damaging internal narratives altogether. Further, when youth are involved in the creation and evaluation of programs, they are likely to have more buy-in toward its success as long as it is an ongoing, dynamic process. This applies not only to the youth who participate in the creation of the program but also those who participate as it is rolled out in facilities because they will know it was created and is maintained and updated with people like them, for them, as opposed to professionals they do not trust and from whom they already feel distant.

Involving youth who have experienced or are currently involved with the juvenile justice system in the development of programs also teaches them critical thinking skills, allowing them to examine the system as a whole, identify barriers, and problem-solve techniques that may be helpful in maximizing their own community cultural wealth. Such sociological imagination (Mills 1959) with incarcerated youth has the possibility of creating change agents capable of seeing themselves as products of the system who have the ability to contribute to fixing the system. The potential empowerment and sense of self-worth is more likely to lead to desistance from delinquent behavior than any middle-class-centric checklists they are taught (Maruna 2001; Nurse 2013).

In addition to updated youth-centric programming, future research is needed to better understand how internalizing individualism creates an additional layer of strain (Agnew 2001) and how that can contribute to recidivism among youth with justice involvement (Le and Stockdale 2005). Agnew (2001) found expected failure is not necessarily linked to crime, but expected “success” is (through unattainable goals or not being prepared for barriers). By not addressing the barriers and promoting idealistic checklists toward success, current programming supports an unrealistic approach and teaches youth to internalize individualism while setting them up for failure, leading them to seeing themselves as incapable. As a result, they are less likely to try. It is essential to better understand this phenomenon in order to interrupt it.