{"title":"The Bureaucratic Violence of Alternative Justice","authors":"A. Reinke","doi":"10.3167/ARCS.2018.040111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alternative justice—conflict resolution outside formal law—seeks to alleviate\npervasive social issues, such as the school-to-prison pipeline. Alternative justice\npractitioners increasingly seek to transform the legal system and the violence it perpetuates\nfrom within by implementing programs and processes in collaboration with\nformal law and legal actors. However, this collaborative approach requires practitioners\nto create bureaucratic processes and procedures such as memoranda of understanding,\ncomplex filing systems, and data tracking. Multisited ethnographic research in\nthe United States (2014–2017) reveals that there is little consensus among these practitioners\nas to whether this bureaucratization will benefit or harm their work. The\nbureaucracy of processing case work, implementing standardized procedures, extending\ntraining requirements, and cost barriers are viewed positively insofar as they gain\nlegitimacy for the field. Is bureaucratization necessary to achieve legitimacy, or does\nit restrict practitioners’ ability to fulfill client needs and the principles of their justice\nparadigm?","PeriodicalId":36783,"journal":{"name":"Conflict and Society","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/ARCS.2018.040111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Alternative justice—conflict resolution outside formal law—seeks to alleviate
pervasive social issues, such as the school-to-prison pipeline. Alternative justice
practitioners increasingly seek to transform the legal system and the violence it perpetuates
from within by implementing programs and processes in collaboration with
formal law and legal actors. However, this collaborative approach requires practitioners
to create bureaucratic processes and procedures such as memoranda of understanding,
complex filing systems, and data tracking. Multisited ethnographic research in
the United States (2014–2017) reveals that there is little consensus among these practitioners
as to whether this bureaucratization will benefit or harm their work. The
bureaucracy of processing case work, implementing standardized procedures, extending
training requirements, and cost barriers are viewed positively insofar as they gain
legitimacy for the field. Is bureaucratization necessary to achieve legitimacy, or does
it restrict practitioners’ ability to fulfill client needs and the principles of their justice
paradigm?