Abstract
It is relatively uncommon, at least in the field of criminology, for a book to challenge criminologists to think critically and reflexively about how we shape the direction of the discipline and the broader domain of criminal justice. In this book, Claire Spivakovsky does just that, encouraging us, as criminologists, to step back and reconsider our scholarship, our teaching and how we organize symposia and conferences. In simple terms, this book asks criminologists to consider a question that is not often asked of us: how do we produce criminology?
Spivakovsky examines this question through a focus on criminology’s treatment of race and racialization. In doing so, she presents a solid critique of the ways in which criminologists and the field of criminology have approached the topic, and in particular, the issue of the ‘over-representation’ of racialized groups within criminal justice systems. Spivakovsky argues that criminology has treated race ‘as if it was the offal of the discipline’ (p. 3), as evinced through race being expunged from broader discussions of key topics (e.g. policing, courts, corrections) and relegated to the sidelines, as if issues of race and racialization have no relevance to ‘mainstream’ criminological thought or practice. Although race and racialization have received attention within criminology, Spivakovsky takes issue with much of this academic engagement. She contends that criminology needs to deconstruct how it problematizes race rather than offering more of the same analyses of, and solutions to, the ‘problems’ between racialized peoples and the criminal justice system, as if these issues are ‘special topics’ rather than integral to the discipline itself. In particular, she uses dominant criminological understandings of over-representation as an example through which to argue for a different approach to race, one that moves beyond the binary explanations of over-representation (in which the problem is either caused by western society or by racialized peoples themselves because of their ‘difference’) and engages with this over-representation in a new way. Racialized Correctional Governance thus offers criminologists a set of Foucauldian methodological and theoretical tools to approach race, criminal justice and criminology as mutually constructed.
By arguing that race and criminal justice are mutually constructed, Spivakovsky means that ‘racialized notions of nationhood are fundamental to the formation and orientation of criminal justice; and criminal justice tools, technologies and logics propagate specific racialized identities in society’ (p. 151). The book weaves together empirical research (document analysis and interview data) with a strong theoretical and methodological orientation to explore the interconnectedness of race and criminal justice in the field of correctional governance. Spivakovsky draws on Foucault’s notion of ‘proper dispersion’ to think through the relationship between criminology and race, considering ‘what has largely been absent in criminology’ (p. 6) and ‘how criminology can remedy this problem’ (p. 7). Yet she develops and builds on Foucault’s constructs by addressing the limitations when examining race and its deconstruction. Although not all criminologists will agree with the book’s Foucauldian theoretical and methodological orientation, to this reader, Spivakovsky convincingly shows its value for unpacking criminology’s treatment of race.
Racialized Correctional Governance consists of three sections. In the first section, Spivakovsky traces the role criminology has played in constructing race and criminal justice and then offers a ‘set of rules of engagement’ for criminology to approach these issues in a ‘different way’ (p. 11). Readers interested in offender rehabilitation should note that Chapter 1 provides a critical examination of the evolution of the Risk Need Responsivity Model (RNRM) and its production as the ‘infallible science’ of offending behaviour. This chapter makes an important contribution to the literature on rehabilitation and correctional practice by thinking through the genesis of the RNRM and the excision of race from this approach.
The second section focuses on the application of Chapter 2’s ‘rules of engagement’ to three jurisdiction-specific case studies related to punishment and correctional practice for indigenous peoples. Drawing on interview data, Chapter 3 examines the interconnections between criminal justice, national identity and racialized subjectivity in the postcolonial Australian state of Victoria through a specific focus on Aboriginal staff members’ negotiations of their roles working in institutions responsible for Aboriginal offenders. With a similar conceptual and methodological approach yet focused on New Zealand, Chapter 4 considers the ways in which constructions of nation and racialized identity have formed the country’s Department of Corrections. Spivakovsky traces the negotiations of biculturalism, of the two ‘Worlds’ of the Māori and the white population, that have shaped the mutual constructions of race and criminal justice in this country. In Chapter 5, the focus shifts to an exploration of penal logics and technologies used in the practice of responsivity. As with Chapter 2, this chapter advances the correctional literature by taking a step back from the principle of responsivity as an infallible ‘science of offending behaviour’ (p. 152) to show how racialized identity and criminal justice are constructed through this principle as part of an ongoing, negotiated process.
The final section of the book, comprised of the conclusion, proposes a methodological approach for criminologists to utilize when producing work on issues of race and criminal justice. Spivakovsky outlines several insights she hopes will kickstart criminology to accept the challenge of considering the mutual constructions of race and criminal justice in their ‘proper dispersion’. Stepping back from convenient criminological ‘truths’ can, this book contends, set a new path for criminology.
Spivakovsky should be commended for providing a thought-provoking critique of criminology’s treatment of race and criminal justice, and for proposing a set of tools for the discipline to move forward. Ideally, this book should be read by all criminologists, including those in training (undergraduate and graduate students), so as not to repeat the cycle of sidelining issues of race that is identified in the book. Indeed, it would be a shame – and a telling one at that – if readers take one look at the book’s title, Racialized Correctional Governance, and pass this book by. It is important as scholars and students of criminology to reflect critically and reflexively on our work and the ways of knowing and doing that we, as criminologists, produce through our scholarship.