警察权力的视野:废除政治研讨会

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Polity Pub Date : 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1086/726390
Jaeyoon Park
{"title":"警察权力的视野:废除政治研讨会","authors":"Jaeyoon Park","doi":"10.1086/726390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This symposium grew from an observation. As advocacy of police abolition became increasingly prominent in the national press and in daily discourse following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, a latent tension within abolitionism became clear. On the one hand, public advocates of abolitionism drew a sharp distinction between abolition of police and withdrawal from social regulation, in order to counter those critics who cast police abolition as a step toward anarchy. In her widely read call for abolition, published in The New York Times in June 2020, Mariame Kaba makes the defense this way: “But don’t get me wrong. We are not just abandoning our communities to violence.We don’t want to just close police departments . . .We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society.” Or consider Angela Davis, in an interview on abolitionism given that same month: “Abolition is not primarily a negative strategy. It’s not primarily about dismantling, getting rid of—but it’s about re-envisioning, building anew.” On police defunding in particular, Davis clarified, “Defunding the police is not simply withdrawing funding for law enforcement and doing nothing else . . . It’s about shifting public funds to new services and new institutions,” to “mental health . . . to housing, to education, to recreation.” On the other hand, as abolitionism gained momentum in the course of 2020, no longer just the police but a whole range of institutions and agencies responsible for social regulation were cast as targets for abolition, as these were found to resemble","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Visions of Police Power: A Symposium on Abolition Politics\",\"authors\":\"Jaeyoon Park\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/726390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This symposium grew from an observation. As advocacy of police abolition became increasingly prominent in the national press and in daily discourse following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, a latent tension within abolitionism became clear. On the one hand, public advocates of abolitionism drew a sharp distinction between abolition of police and withdrawal from social regulation, in order to counter those critics who cast police abolition as a step toward anarchy. In her widely read call for abolition, published in The New York Times in June 2020, Mariame Kaba makes the defense this way: “But don’t get me wrong. We are not just abandoning our communities to violence.We don’t want to just close police departments . . .We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society.” Or consider Angela Davis, in an interview on abolitionism given that same month: “Abolition is not primarily a negative strategy. It’s not primarily about dismantling, getting rid of—but it’s about re-envisioning, building anew.” On police defunding in particular, Davis clarified, “Defunding the police is not simply withdrawing funding for law enforcement and doing nothing else . . . It’s about shifting public funds to new services and new institutions,” to “mental health . . . to housing, to education, to recreation.” On the other hand, as abolitionism gained momentum in the course of 2020, no longer just the police but a whole range of institutions and agencies responsible for social regulation were cast as targets for abolition, as these were found to resemble\",\"PeriodicalId\":46912,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/726390\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polity","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726390","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这次研讨会源于一次观察。在2020年5月乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被谋杀后,随着废除警察的主张在全国媒体和日常话语中变得越来越突出,废奴主义内部的潜在紧张变得清晰起来。一方面,废除派为了反驳把废除警察说成是走向无政府状态的批评,把废除警察和退出社会规制区分得很清楚。Mariame Kaba于2020年6月在《纽约时报》上发表了一篇广受欢迎的废囚呼吁,她这样为自己辩护:“但不要误解我的意思。我们不仅仅是将我们的社区抛弃于暴力之中。我们不想只是关闭警察部门……我们可以建立其他方式来应对我们社会中的危害。”或者想想安吉拉·戴维斯(Angela Davis)在同一个月接受关于废奴主义的采访时说:“废奴主要不是一种消极的策略。这主要不是要拆除、摆脱——而是要重新设想、重新建设。”特别是在警察撤资问题上,戴维斯澄清说:“撤资警察不是简单地撤回对执法部门的资金,而不做其他事情……这是关于将公共资金转移到新的服务和新的机构,”转向“心理健康……住房,教育,娱乐。”另一方面,随着废除主义在2020年的势头增强,不再只是警察,而是一系列负责社会监管的机构和机构都被视为废除的目标,因为这些机构和机构被发现很相似
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Visions of Police Power: A Symposium on Abolition Politics
This symposium grew from an observation. As advocacy of police abolition became increasingly prominent in the national press and in daily discourse following the murder of George Floyd in May 2020, a latent tension within abolitionism became clear. On the one hand, public advocates of abolitionism drew a sharp distinction between abolition of police and withdrawal from social regulation, in order to counter those critics who cast police abolition as a step toward anarchy. In her widely read call for abolition, published in The New York Times in June 2020, Mariame Kaba makes the defense this way: “But don’t get me wrong. We are not just abandoning our communities to violence.We don’t want to just close police departments . . .We can build other ways of responding to harms in our society.” Or consider Angela Davis, in an interview on abolitionism given that same month: “Abolition is not primarily a negative strategy. It’s not primarily about dismantling, getting rid of—but it’s about re-envisioning, building anew.” On police defunding in particular, Davis clarified, “Defunding the police is not simply withdrawing funding for law enforcement and doing nothing else . . . It’s about shifting public funds to new services and new institutions,” to “mental health . . . to housing, to education, to recreation.” On the other hand, as abolitionism gained momentum in the course of 2020, no longer just the police but a whole range of institutions and agencies responsible for social regulation were cast as targets for abolition, as these were found to resemble
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polity
Polity POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Since its inception in 1968, Polity has been committed to the publication of scholarship reflecting the full variety of approaches to the study of politics. As journals have become more specialized and less accessible to many within the discipline of political science, Polity has remained ecumenical. The editor and editorial board welcome articles intended to be of interest to an entire field (e.g., political theory or international politics) within political science, to the discipline as a whole, and to scholars in related disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. Scholarship of this type promises to be highly "productive" - that is, to stimulate other scholars to ask fresh questions and reconsider conventional assumptions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信