Radical Democracy: John Dewey and Angela Y. Davis on Pluralism and Prisons

in 2013, the multiculturalism act marked its 25th anniversary; at the same time, the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) was celebrating its 40th anniversary (Elizabeth qtd. in Eng 2–3) The OCI was created in response to the prison riot in Kingston Penitentiary that occurred in 1971. Yet, 40 years after, prisons in Canada still face “overcrowding, the shortage of professional staff, programming cuts, the confinement in the institution of a number of people who did not require maximum security confinement, too much time spent in cells, a lack of adequate channels to deal with complaints” (Elizabeth qtd. in Eng 3). The “Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2019–20” (subtitled “Building a Better Canada Through Diversity”) lists four principal objectives of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act: “the retaining and fostering of identity . . . , overcoming barriers to participation . . . , promoting exchanges, and language acquisition” (Canadian Heritage 10; emphasis added). One can then see that there is a marked disconnect between the ideals of plurality and participation that Canada supposedly rests on and the practices of the systems it maintains.Drawing on John Dewey's conception of democracy and Angela Davis's critique of the prison industrial complex, I aim to show that a state cannot truly be pluralistic or participatory while continuing to engage in carceral practices. To do so, I will first explicate Dewey's conception of democracy,1 then I will lay out the contemporary problems surrounding incarceration in Canada, and, finally, I will end with a discussion of abolition as a constructive practice.Discussions of democracy often center on the mechanisms of voting. We have formed the habit of believing that democracies will carry on as long as citizens perform rote political duties (Dewey, “Creative Democracy” 225). Yet, as Dewey saw and as we continue to see, a healthy democracy cannot be maintained through rote action alone. Instead, it requires “conscious and resolute effort” because democracy is not a mere political system (“Creative Democracy” 224). Instead, as Dewey phrases it, it is a “way of life” and therefore has moral implications. A democracy cannot flourish where there is no community (Dewey, “Creative Democracy” 225). This is accomplished through dialogue and debate with others and the recognition of the transactional nature of associated living. The purpose of a state is to supply the “right conditions” so that every person can lead their life and flourish in their own capacity (Dewey, “Creative Democracy” 227).The public is composed of individuals who act and associate with each other; every individual is “subject to all kinds of social influences which determine what they can think of, plan and choose” (Dewey, The Public 115). Yet when people come together and discuss their wants and needs, new ideas are tested, and new beliefs are formed. This creates an unsettling of current modes and processes of political action (Dewey, The Public 103).2 Thus, Dewey argues that one of the main tasks required for maintaining (and reclaiming) democracy is the constant “discovering [of] means by which a scattered, mobile, and manifold public may so recognize itself as to define and express its interests” (The Public 174). For this to occur, the creation and recognition of community is central. For Dewey, community is not merely “physical and organic” (though it often is this), it is also “moral . . . emotional, [and] intellectual” (The Public 177–78). For the individual, who becomes a part of this association, democracy involves the responsibility of sharing with others the “capacity in forming and directing the activities of the groups to which one belongs and in participating according to the need in the values which the group sustains” (Dewey, The Public 175). For the group, democracy “demands liberation of the potentialities of [its] members” to flourish “in harmony with the interests and goods which are common” (Dewey, The Public 175). The flourishing of the group can only come about when we, as individuals, recognize the worth and potential of those around us and our capacity, when combined to direct the community, as a community.Thus, critique plays an important role in democracies: we must critically inquire into that which is familiar to us, so that we may take the views we previously held for granted and ameliorate them into ideas and actions that better function toward creating a more just and equal society (Dewey, Construction 141). For the group, democracy “demands liberation of the potentialities of [its] members” to flourish “in harmony with the interests and goods which are common” (Dewey, The Public 175). The flourishing of the group can only come about when we, as individuals, recognize the worth and potential of those around us and our capacity, when combined to direct the community, as a community. This participation is not limited merely to the present ability to participate, but also the potential ability to participate that may arise if a problem occurs (Rogers 34); thus, communities must focus on ensuring that those within them continue to have the ability to engage with and contribute to the community that is constantly in the process of being formed and reformed.Dewey's focus on pluralism is an incredibly radical aspect of his thought. While we, as citizens, possibly require experts to run and maintain policy, the ideas that direct those policies come from the community to which the government (or State) is there to serve. Thus, involvement and input are needed from “every human being, irrespective of race, color, sex, birth and family, or material or cultural wealth” (Dewey, “Creative Democracy” 226). The “task of a democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all contribute” (Dewey, “Creative Democracy” 230). As individuals, we are responsible for ensuring that those around us have the chance to contribute to and act within the community. In doing so, we reinforce not only our own rights and freedoms, our wishes and desires, but also those of others around us. We can only generate meaningful aims and methods in collaboration with others; we must make sure to safeguard the ability of others to contribute with us. Thus, the creation and maintenance of community is one of the central tasks that face us in ensuring a healthy and thriving democracy so that life may be rich and lead to the flourishing of all.One of the largest roadblocks we currently face in enacting a thriving, pluralistic, and deliberative democracy is our continued use of carceral practices. In her book Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present, Robyn Maynard outlines the historical and contemporary issues surrounding state violence committed against black peoples in Canada (1). Both black and Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in prisons. For example, in 2014, Indigenous peoples represented 14.8% of the population, yet made up 63% of all admissions to provincial prisons in Saskatchewan. At the same time in Ontario, the black population was 3.9% compared to 17.7% of admissions to provincial prisons (Owusu-Bempah and Wortley 293). According to Maynard, one of the main factors behind the overrepresentation of racial minority populations in Canadian prisons is the “War on Drugs” (92). Beginning in the 1980s and undertaken by then prime minister Brian Mulroney, the War on Drugs had “political utility amid the substantive rollbacks of state supports and social welfare”; instead of investing in communities by providing “social services and addiction support,” the Canadian government criminalized these communities, taking them away from what little familial and community support and solidarity they had (Maynard 93–94).Further, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government (2006–2013) also stood behind the War on Drugs. Harper gave “prison expansion fiscal priority . . . when the government enacted significant austerity measures: social investments were cut across nearly every other sector besides prisons and the military, including education, childcare, welfare, pensions, union wages, women's groups, homelessness prevention programs, HIV and Hepatitis C prevention and treatment, and community support for immigrants and Indigenous peoples” (Maynard 97). Canada's National Drug Strategy aimed most of its federal funding at policing rather than treatment support. By 2008, three-quarters of the allotted funds were put toward law enforcement. Maynard further notes that “[s]pending on federal corrections grew more than 70 percent between 2003 and 2013, and prison spending exceeded $2.75 billion in the peak spending year of 2013–2014” (97). Instead of increasing social programming, education, and addiction resources, the Conservative government took a “tough on crime stance”; not only did the funding toward prisons increase while social programming was cut, but they also introduced mandatory minimum sentences in 2012. The tough-on-crime stance has been shown to be unsuccessful in “reducing crime, and harmful toward incarceration rates of marginalized communities” (Maynard 98).3 This increase in spending toward prison expansion and the connected vilification of marginalized populations leads to a lack of political participation because they are alienated from support, community, and the ability to act.This is not to argue that prison systems are merely a problem under Conservative governments. Justin Trudeau's Liberal government banned the use of solitary confinement in 2019, yet federal prisons are still using it (Ling). Black, Indigenous, and trans prisoners face especially high rates of solitary confinement (Maynard 111). Further, it was only in 2017 that trans prisoners started to be placed in prison according to their “preference” (Harris). Previously, trans prisoners were assigned based on their “pre-operative sex,” leading to them being isolated from what little community is available within the prison and being put into solitary confinement “for their safety” (Boyer and Odeyemi 389). Importantly, the World Health Organization has noted that solitary isolation often “cause[s] and exacerbate[s] mental health problems” while also “harm[ing] the possibility of rehabilitation” (qtd. in Maynard 111). In solitary confinement, not only are prisoners kept indoors for the vast majority of the day, away from other inmates and even prison employees, but they are also further denied access to their family/support systems as they are denied access to visitation or phone calls.4 Prisons, in multiple ways, isolate inmates from their communities.Thus, we can see the practical consequences of prison systems, mandatory minimums, and the criminalization of drug usage (Maynard 97).5 In her book Are Prisons Obsolete?, Angela Y. Davis impels us to think of a world that does not include the prison. She acknowledges the difficulty of this: abolitionist projects are often thought of as idealistic or utopian, which shows “how difficult it is to envision a social order that does not rely on the threat of sequestering people in dreadful places designed to separate them from their communities and families” (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 10). Yet more than ever, the project of envisioning alternatives to the prison is essential to creating a more fruitful and diverse democracy. Prison systems divert and “devour” public funds that might otherwise go to productive social programming, education, health care, and drug programs (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 88). Linked with the diversion of public funds is the process of privatization, where programs and services previously freely available to members of a society become run for profit. Privatization occurs both within and outside of the prison: health care and education, among others, are either constantly threatened or already consumed by this process (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 93). Even though the majority of prisons in Canada are public, they are still filled with profit-driven products and services provided by private corporations. Thus, as Davis aptly notes, “the distinction [between public and private prisons] is not as meaningful as one might suspect” (Are Prisons Obsolete? 99–111). Prisons are so thoroughly enmeshed within the complex of profit, privatization, and production, and as this paper seeks to show, a government cannot place these values above the community it is tasked with caring for, without causing harm to that community.Historically, as Davis notes, the prison emerged as a reform of punishment (Are Prisons Obsolete? 27, 43). Initially, imprisonment was merely a precursor to the actual punishment; the creation of the penitentiary aimed at providing “convicts with the conditions for reflecting on their crimes and, through penitence, for reshaping their habits and even their souls” (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 26). The prison, then, is a product of reform. If we ask ourselves, “How can we make a better prison?,” we are merely sticking to the same question that has existed since the creation of the prison system. As the previous studies cited in this paper show, carceral practices contribute to rather than help resolve harms faced in marginalized communities. The prison system is tied to its earlier time—namely, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; it no longer serves us in the twenty-first century (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 43). As Erin McKenna states, the vision we have of the future helps us to organize present experiences by providing us with a goal to accomplish (85–86). Thus, it is imperative that we critically examine the means and the “ends-in-view” that we choose to engage with to accomplish our present goals (McKenna 86). The prison, with its tactics of alienation, mandatory minimums, criminalization of drug use, and the constant threat of violence is not a system that reflects Canada's supposed values of multiculturalism and respect. In fact, the prison, as an institution, actively works against a truly pluralistic and participatory democracy.What is needed then, is what Davis has called for: the imagination and enaction of a new landscape that does not include the prison, but instead contains an array of alternatives that support and sustain communities (Are Prisons Obsolete? 107). These alternatives include, but are not limited to, the “demilitarization of schools, revitalization of education at all levels, a health system that provides free physical and mental care to all, and a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation rather than retribution and vengeance” (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 107). The strengthening and implementation of these programs and institutions are helpful not only for the individuals they serve, but for society—they aid in creating and sustaining a strong democracy in which all can truly take part, not merely mechanically through voting, but also in other, more integral, forms of participation. Prison abolitionism, then, is not only a negative process merely concerned with getting rid of prisons; “it is also about building up, about creating new institutions” (Davis, Abolition 69). Prisons, no matter their form, are likely to act as roadblocks to the implementation of democratic institutions (Davis, Abolition 72). In allowing our attention to focus elsewhere, outside of the prison walls, we allocate forces and profits to strengthen universal health care, and create more accessible spaces, a cleaner planet, and education for all.While there are certain fundamental differences between Dewey's and Davis's thought,6 and Dewey has few direct references to prisons,7 there are stark similarities within their conceptions of democracy. Both question the police and the jail as legitimate guardians and representatives of social order (Dewey, “Force” 211; Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 43). Further, both believe that the purpose of democracy is to create and maintain an environment in which all can flourish (Dewey, The Public 94; Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 198).The prison, however, “relieves us of the responsibility of seriously engaging with the problems of our society, especially those produced by racism and, increasingly, global capitalism” (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 16). If Rogers's conception of Dewey's arguments about democracy is correct—that society is responsible for the values it collectively creates—then, the values that we live by and “the creative potential of a democratic community is fundamentally connected to debate as the community revises and develops its institutional structures and values” (Rogers 5). We must seriously take up the task of envisioning and creating a society in which all can participate. Arguably, this includes a systematic dismantling of the prison system. Abolitionists and activists within and outside of the prison have taken on this work. Groups such as Toronto Prisoners’ Rights Project, the Native Woman's Association of Canada, West Coast Prison Justice Society, the John Howard Society of Alberta, among others, have to conditions within prisons as they toward problems we face as a society and our and create a for us to toward their (Rogers According to Dewey, “the of all political institutions and industrial be the they make to the of every of (Dewey, If this is the I argue that both Dewey and Davis state that the prison has in its task to citizens or in crime and Instead, prisons actively harm Further, the to prisons strengthen and new programming and support that aid the communities that are currently by as Davis “the task of democracy is forever that of creation of a freer and more humane experience in which all share and to which all we must take up the task of and an array of alternatives that will require radical of of our (Are Prisons Obsolete? This is an incredibly For Dewey, democracy is a a of life that If these institutions then we must envision and create new forms of democracy so that people within diverse can flourish (McKenna Prisons may have as a means toward and a away from and forms of but as and Davis's show, the prison is a of institution, one that people from their community and political participation. If we continue to the prison as a and institution, then we Dewey's about “political the only constant of is to care for its citizens, to merely to or is to put the institution above those it is supposed to (Dewey, The Public We not to as we must them against current to see if they are still and if they are we must create new in their place (Dewey, The Public as the current abolitionist also place on the of current systems, so that new alternatives can come into This includes strengthening health care, the of and a justice system that itself on reparation rather than retribution (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? 107). The prison, as it currently is not an isolated Prisons are enmeshed in processes of privatization, the criminalization of communities, and policing practices (Davis, Are Prisons Obsolete? While envisioning new alternatives may be unsettling to the beliefs we take for it is that we outside the prison to see we can better support, and to for people to engage and with their communities (Dewey, The Public We as individuals, as a community, and as a society, continue to question the institutions that we must that we are connected to those in prison, in both direct and and we must continue to debate and the government into more to education, social programs, addiction resources, and We can only truly to have a democracy when it is one that is it can only be pluralistic if all can participate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.