The Intersectional Alternative: Explaining Female Criminality PDF

445304 2445304BernardFeminist Criminology FCX8110.1177/155708511 Feminist Criminology...

445304 2445304BernardFeminist Criminology FCX8110.1177/155708511 Feminist Criminology The Intersectional 8(1) 3­–19 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: Alternative: Explaining Sagepub.com/journalspermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1557085112445304 Female Criminality fcx.sagepub.com April Bernard1 Abstract Using an intersectional approach, this analysis seeks to provide an explanation of female criminality that is grounded in an intimate understanding of the multiplicative, overlapping, and cumulative effects of the simultaneous intersections of systems of oppression emanating from power structures that uniquely shape their life experiences. The concept of doing identity is introduced to describe the unique attempts of individuals, particularly marginalized women, to navigate through power structures and multiple systems of oppression that shape their life experiences. A case study exploring factors contributing to one woman’s decision to engage in criminal activity as a means of doing identity is also presented. Keywords feminist criminology, intersectionality, matrix of domination, doing identity Introduction Female criminality has been explained from a variety of feminist perspectives; mar- ginalization from conventional institutions, disrupted family and personal relation- ships, and institutionalized racism, sexism, and economic disadvantage have all been explored as explanations for the involvement of women in crime (Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Chesney-Lind, 1986, 1997; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988; Owen, 1998; Ritchie, 2004). Marginalized women involved in crimes tend to be young, poor, non-white, high school dropouts, unmarried mothers, un-/under-employed and educated, with a history of drug problems, family violence, and sexual abuse. The vulnerabilities that 1 The University of the West Indies–Cave Hill, Bridgetown, Barbados, West Indies Corresponding Author: April Bernard, The University of the West Indies–Cave Hill, Faculty of Social Sciences, Bridgetown, 00000, Barbados, West Indies. Email: [email protected] 4 Feminist Criminology 8(1) color the lives of marginalized women can be difficult to measure due to the overlap- ping influence or intersectionality of multiple forms of subjugation such as ingrained racism, sexism, economic disadvantage, abuse, exploitation, and the historical under- valuation of women in society (Collins, 2000; Kelly, 1994). The need for grounding theorizing about women’s criminality in an understanding of intersecting identities that emerge from cross-cutting systems of oppression has been emphasized in Black and multiracial feminist and criminology analyses (Baca Zinn & Thornton Dill, 1996; Barak, 1998; Beale, 1995; Belknap, 2001; Britton, 2004; Brown, 2010; Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Collins, 2000; Daly & Stephens, 1995; Gordon, 1987; King, 1988; Potter, 2006; Ritchie, 1996; Wing, 2003). Collins describes this intersectionality as functioning within matrices of domination that represent amalga- mations of micro- through macro-level power structures and interrelated systems of oppression. The historically and socially specific ways in which these power struc- tures are constructed and systems of oppression are blended create different kinds of social realities, identities, and experiences. This analysis uses an intersectional approach to provide an explanation of women’s criminality in that it seeks to be grounded in an intimate understanding of the multiplicative, overlapping, and cumula- tive effects of the simultaneous intersections of oppressions that affect women’s deci- sions to engage in crime. This article begins by challenging aspects of male-stream theorizing on crime that fail to capture the multiple forces that serve to construct gender realities (Carlen, 1985; Dekeseredy & Perry, 2006; Maidment, 2006). The significance of the intersectional approach is discussed as a viable alternative paradigm that recognizes the influence of multiple constraining factors on women’s criminality. The concept of doing identity is then introduced to describe the unique attempts of individuals, particularly marginal- ized women, to navigate through power structures and multiple systems of oppression that shape their life experiences. A case study consisting of an exploration of factors contributing to one woman’s decision to engage in criminal activity as a means of doing identity is presented. The importance of this intersectional model for feminist criminology is underscored through a discussion of implications and recommenda- tions for theoretical praxis, policy, and programmatic provisions. Alternative Theorizing: Strained or Constrained Realities The primary tenet underlying this alternative approach is that counter to malestream perspectives on crime, women’s criminality may be best understood as an adverse response to a lack of legitimate means for women to demonstrate an authentic and efficacious identity that is unfettered by the constraining effects of intersecting sys- tems of oppression. Although my critique seeks to offer an alternative to the mal- estreaming of mainstream criminal justice research in general, the intention is not to diminish the significance of any of these contributions. Bernard 5 This work should be understood as an attempt to encourage the extension of mal- estream theorizing on crime by acknowledging the potential of the intersectional approach to encompass the complexities of the realities that are faced by marginalized women. In this vein, an analysis of Merton’s strain theory using an alternative inter- sectional perspective is provided as one, but not the only, example of the limitations of malestream theorizing in general on women’s criminality. This application of an inter- sectional perspective on Merton’s strain theory is one demonstration of the need for more in-depth analyses of the underlying causes and complexities that influence women’s decisions to engage in crime that hopefully will encourage further intersectional analy- ses of this and other theories in the future. According to Merton (1968) deviance is an adaptive response to a lack of legitimate means to achieve shared cultural goals. A commitment to the cultural goals and insti- tutionalized means for success results in conformity, yet when access to the institution- alized means for success is strained or limited (typically due to differences in class), innovative attempts to achieve and retain shared cultural goals are forwarded. Deviance and crime increase in society when the option to conform is not accepted and this innovation results in illegitimate means to achieve success. Merton viewed the rejection of cultural goals and/or institutional means as an inno- vative or adaptive response that occurs within an anomic context in which incongru- ence between shared cultural goals and institutional means for success exists. Strain, frustration, and stress result where goals exceed means. The alternative intersectional paradigm suggests that women’s criminality may be more an expression of constrained rather than strained realities. This alternative approach de-emphasizes individual frus- trations and pathologies and instead stresses the ways in which power structures and systems of oppression work to circumscribe the life experiences of persons socially located at the intersections of multiple vulnerabilities. The proposed alternative framework also suggests that although there may exist agreement on the general nature of the cultural goals that are shared among the popula- tion in a society (such as obtaining an education, a job, a house, and a car in Westernized capitalist societies) as described by Merton, the specifics of each individual’s desired goals and opportunities may differ in regard to quality and quantity. The intersections that shape unique experiences of privilege/oppression in turn foster the development of multiple realities in which one person’s specific goals and opportunities to obtain a particular type of house, number of cars, or quality of education may be very distinct in comparison to another’s. Having an understanding of an individual’s specific desired goals and opportunities is therefore suggested as taking precedence over hav- ing knowledge of shared cultural goals and institutionalized means for success in explaining decisions to engage in criminal activity. This alternative framework also reconstructs Merton’s concept of a class differen- tial and suggests that the disparities that influence access to opportunities and life outcomes represent the cumulative impact of the intersections of multiple inequalities/ privileges including (but not limited to) race, class, and gender on the life experiences 6 Feminist Criminology 8(1) of individuals. The differential advantage some have over others is less a reflection of their individual merit and propensity toward conformity than of differences in power. The social, economic, and political place and space individuals hold within society relative to the legitimate means, resources, and opportunities for achieving some mea- sure of success may be more or less constrained depending on the ways in which they affect and are affected by existing power structures and systems of oppression. Embedded within the concept of a matrix of domination is the recognition that to achieve the ideals of social justice and equality would require the reduction of the dif- ferential advantage of some over others through the restructuring of the domains of power (law, bureaucracy, culture and relationships/interactions) and the dismantling and eradication of their interconnections that function to maintain (and are maintained by) ideologies and systems of oppression that foster multiple and overlapping inequal- ities, including, but not limited to, race, class, and gender. What affects an individual’s access to legitimate means for success is not just about social capital, social networks, or other class indicators, but encompasses the micro- through macro-level social, sexual, national, economic, political, and other socially inherited and ascribed histories, norms, and social spaces an individual represents and encounters (Collins, 2000; Harding, 2004). This intersectional approach claims that social location, or the combination of micro- though macro-level social identities and social roles and relationships, is a primary contributing factor to decisions about crimi- nality. The decision to engage in crime is influenced by the unique combination of factors that represent a particular social location regardless of an individual or group’s relationship to income-generating resources and assets or differences in class as pos- tulated by Merton. Social location can be described as the cumulative impact of inter- sections of oppression/privilege and represents the intercorrelation of multiple factors and conditions that are unique to each individual that influence his or her experiences, opportunities, and choices. The significance of Merton’s concept of institutionalized means is minimized in this alternative framework due to its ambiguity and the pejorative implications for developing policies that respond to the variety of social and economic conditions affecting marginalized populations. From this alternative perspective, the belief in the existence of omnipresent functional, normal, stable, fixed, and solid social structures, institutions, communities, families, opportunities, or institutional means (to which individuals can choose to conform, accept, or reject) requires rethinking to acknowl- edge the particular matrix of domination and systems of oppression and the fluidity of associated factors that characterize an individual’s social and economic condition. The fluidity of relationships, norms, cultures, and institutions in global and modern societ- ies has been identified as a key contributor to the growing sense of social isolation, decay, risk, and insecurity that depict the challenges of late modernity (Bauman, 2000; Beck, 1992). Instead of institutionalized means, emphasis in the proposed paradigm is placed on the acknowledgment of existing social contradictions (the limitations of capitalist ideology and the erosion of the American Dream), risk (the potential for victimization, exploitation, subjugation) and uncertainty (various forms of insecurity) Bernard 7 within contemporary society that function to further disadvantage members of vulner- able populations. This alternative theoretical framework challenges the assumption that the social contradictions, risk, and uncertainty that are evident in late modernity can be effec- tively managed through equal opportunity and antidiscrimination legislation, social control, and punitive reforms. The assumption that the impact of these factors on the ability of all individuals to cope with the challenge of navigating through the complex- ity of their vulnerabilities and inequalities toward achieving success can be mitigated through obedience to the law and conformity to dominant social norms is also chal- lenged. This alternative framework acknowledges the relativity of deviance and rejects paradigms built upon the premise that deviance and conformity are dichotomous states rather than overlapping spheres of potential responses that can be differentially inter- preted depending on the circumstances or context (Curra, 2000). What is deemed devi- ant in one community (fighting among youth, for example) may be viewed as good common sense in another. Not all marginalized women resort to crime, and some affluent women seek illegiti- mate means to achieve their goals. Conformity in an intersectional context can be defined as individuals actively engaged in the process of constantly assessing and reas- sessing their goals and resigning themselves to accept those that can be achieved given their social location in relation to opportunities (means) amidst multiple inequalities, risks, and uncertainty that exist in society. For marginalized women, if the consequences of conformity may require an acceptance of a life that is less than their goals prescribe then crime may become an innovative response. What may distinguish the affluent female criminal from another of less wealth is that though both choose an illegitimate response to their circumstances, their opportunities and agency to commit crimes differ in regard to quality and consequences (Reiman, 2003). When combined, the concepts of individual (rather than shared) goals for success, social location (as opposed to a class differential), and societal contradictions, insecu- rity, and risk (instead of institutionalized means) result in a differential means for “doing” identity (navigating through multiple inequalities to achieve a particular or individual-specific measure of success), which leads to an adaptive response that is more or less legitimate depending on the context. Doing identity can be described as a process of producing unique biographical solutions to systemic contradictions (Beck, 1992). This concept of “doing” identity is based on the work conducted by Carlen (1988) and Messerschmidt (1993) and their perspectives on crime for marginalized populations as an adaptive response to societal circumstances. Pat Carlen (1988) addresses the issues of conformity, identity, and criminality among underclass women. Based on her study of 39 convicted women between the ages of 15 and 46, Carlen suggests that the cultural goals for success that govern the lives of women are influenced by two social compromises or deals related to gender and class. The class deal stipulates that women’s conformity is motivated by the opportunity for them to earn their own wages and ultimately achieve financial success, or the “good life” as defined by the society, through their work in the public domain. 8 Feminist Criminology 8(1) The gender deal is motivated by the promise of a happy and fulfilling family life that is to result from the woman’s labor for and love of a man who is the primary breadwin- ner. The gender deal breaks down when women are unable to obtain or maintain suc- cessful relationships with a male breadwinner, are abused, and/or socially isolated, and the class deal is compromised when women are unable to achieve financial success through work. Carlen’s thesis is that women resort to crime when the class and/or gender deals breakdown. Although Carlen’s thesis is convincing, the question remains whether class and gender are the only socially relevant aspects of women’s existence upon which deals can be made and whether there are other aspects of women’s identities or social loca- tions that significantly factor into their responses to adversity and potential criminal- ity. The following analysis will also seek to reveal additional factors as well as consider Carlen’s description of the class and gender deals as significant factors that influence women’s adaptive responses to risk and contradictions in society. Messerschmidt (1993) provides a gendered approach to the development of crimi- nological theory to describe the relationship between masculinity and crime. Messerschmidt suggests that to understand male behavior, including crime, one must begin by acknowledging the historical and social structural conditions that construct hegemonic masculine ideologies and social actions. He argues, “Hegemonic mascu- linity emphasizes practices toward authority, control, competitive individualism, inde- pendence, aggressiveness, and the capacity for violence” (p. 82). Crime, he observes, may be one way of “doing gender” or demonstrating one’s masculinity, when legiti- mate means of demonstrating one’s identity are stifled. Messerschmidt’s thesis is that crime as a means of “doing gender” becomes a form of social action or a practical response to structured opportunities and constraints in society that are related to class, race, and gender relationships. Although Messerschmidt’s analysis does not involve women and emphasizes the construct of masculinity, I argue that it is not simply “doing masculinity” or “doing femininity” or “doing race” that is the issue, but rather “doing identity.” How one navigates through multiple oppressions to achieve his or her desired goals and ultimately find space and place for self in con- temporary capitalist society is a complex process of which an individual’s sex, age, gender, sexual identity, race, nationality, class, level of education, and a host of other factors are significant components. This alternative paradigm suggests that the issue of crime and women (and perhaps men) with multiple vulnerabilities can be explained based on an understanding of the process of doing identity or the process of becoming somebody (self-defined) while navigating through multiple social contradictions and inequalities. Becoming some- body requires individuals to draw upon complex and advanced decision-making capa- bilities that can be employed at life’s perpetual crossroads to assess the vulnerabilities of their social location amidst the solid and liquid aspects of their reality. Here at the crossroads individuals are challenged with the task of identifying among the plethora of ends the ones that are reasonable and feasible given their social location, circum- stances, and context (Bauman, 2000). Establishing priorities in a world that appears to Bernard 9 be full of possibilities adds complexity to the challenge, and the uncertainty of life’s comparative objectives is all the more perplexing to persons facing multiple vulnera- bilities in the process of doing identity. Method The primary aim of the methodology was to utilize a feminist and interpretive approach to the data collection, interpretation, and analysis of the life stories and reflections of incarcerated women who have committed drug-related crimes (Denzin, 1989; Lynch, 1996; Oakley, 1981). Rather than seeking results that can be generalized to broader populations, the purpose of the methodology is to ground the findings in the standpoint of the women interviewed, and ultimately, to demystify and humanize their lived expe- riences and perspectives while providing a range of practical explanations of the choices and behavior of women involved in drug-related crimes. This preliminary analysis focuses on the life story of one young Afro-Caribbean woman who was incar- cerated in 2010 due to a drug-related crime. This analysis begins with this single case of one woman as an intentional means of avoiding conundrums inherent in (a) positiv- ists’ research that tends to quantify experiences rather than validating nuances, differ- ence, and the production of knowledge based on a single case, and (b) androcentric approaches that reinforce the “malestream” nature of criminology that often omit or misrepresent the experiences of women due to an emphasis on male crime (Belknap, 2001). The intention of this article is not to ignore men or avoid the rigors of scientific study involving multiple cases (both will be considered in future analysis), but simply to begin with the experiences of women, and in this case, one woman as the unit of analysis. The single case that was selected for this analysis is of a Jamaican female in her early 20s serving 2 years for attempting to transport marijuana from Jamaica to St. Maarten with the hope of earning US$900. For the purpose of telling her story, the pseudonym Angelique will be used when referring to the respondent. The use of a single case as the unit of analysis also provides an opportunity to explore the unique ways in which the conceptual categories that make up the theoreti- cal framework fit the particular case and allows the researcher to assess whether the constructs need further refinement before being applied to a broader set of cases. This process is purposefully iterative in nature and intends to reveal and refine conceptual categories that can be used to further feminist theorizing on the topic of women (and perhaps men) and crime. In writing this analysis, a difficult methodological consideration I had to make was whether or not to point to a specific theory as an example of malestream criminologi- cal theorizing. I was initially uncomfortable with using Merton’s strain theory directly as a means to demonstrate the significance of the intersectional approach for examin- ing women’s criminality, and I tried to avoid doing so by looking at “Strain Theories” in general, but the distractions were apparent. I then considered focusing on a single aspect of one strain theory, but that did not allow me to demonstrate the potential breadth and depth of the intersectional analytical approach. To more accurately 10 Feminist Criminology 8(1) describe Angelique’s circumstances as constrained rather than strained, I felt strongly that I wanted to compare and contrast the intersectional approach with an existing theoretical framework as a means to develop salient alternative concepts in relation to the findings. With this as my motivation, I felt compelled to maintain a focus on Merton’s strain theory, not as a critique of the significance of the theory, but as a means to encourage continued articulation and solidification of the intersectional approach as something distinct from, yet useful within existing theoretical traditions.The following analysis briefly describes one woman’s process of navigating through multiple oppres- sions within a high-risk context and incorporates the concepts of (a) individual goals for success; (b) social location; (c) social contradictions, risk, and uncertainty; and (d) adap- tive responses that include legitimate (legally sanctioned by dominant culture) versus illegitimate (illegal, yet sanctioned by subculture) means to achieve desired success. Together these concepts will be used to describe a unique attempt at doing identity. Findings: There Is No Safe Place A safe space, prison is not, but a correction facility may be the only environment where the extent to which inequality, deprivation, and the randomness of uncertainty that affect the lives of marginalized women is to some degree leveled, controlled, or restricted. In prison, there exists no class or gender deal that requires work or marriage to be successful, social location within the dominant social structure has limited sig- nificance, and the cultural goals for success are redefined to fit a new (although typi- cally temporary) reality. Angelique’s story will be discussed without a particular beginning or ending, using the concepts from the theoretical framework as a guide to explaining her journey toward crime. Goals Angelique states that she had her aspirations set on achieving her dream of “the good life,” which for her meant “becoming somebody” and consisted of obtaining an edu- cation, a job, a house, and a future for her children: I wanted to better my life. I wanted to give my sons a future, a good life, an education—something I never get. I wanted to own a business—be a hair dresser and own a house. I had the dream. I went to cosmetology school and got a certificate. If my sister no die we would finish school together, save our money together and open a [beauty] parlor and buy a house together. Angelique shared the socially sanctioned belief that all are entitled to seek an array of possibilities toward achieving the good life. She believed in the class deal that if she Bernard 11 could only find a job and work hard that she could obtain financial prosperity. Her specific goals for success included becoming a hairdresser and working in collaboration with her sister to combine the resources necessary to start a business and buy a house. Although her goals seemed reasonable and feasible, Angelique’s dream of owning a salon and a home was formally disrupted when her sister died. In time her commitment to finding legitimate means to achieve her dream of becoming somebody began to wane. She describes how she began to lose faith in her ability achieve her goals: When I started college my sister died [her sister was killed by a distant relative]. From that time my life went down. We went to the same school, we were very close. After she died I lived care free. Social Location Unfortunately, Angelique’s unique combination of social factors and conditions that influenced her reality included a history of sexual and physical abuse, family disrup- tion, and marginalization from social, educational, and economic resources and sup- port. Her environment was imbued with images that included men who distributed guns to young boys, young girls that danced at strip clubs, and adults and children struggling to survive by selling chicken on the roadside while others were selling drugs. She states, “In my area, people do what they can to survive.” For Angelique these were the only examples and opportunities that were available, and it was within this limited and restricted reality that Angelique sought to achieve success. Angelique’s reality contradicted with her dream of becoming somebody. As a vic- tim of ongoing abuse by her mother and her mother’s boyfriend, Angelique found it difficult to reconcile to the fate she seemed to have inherited. Her attempts to try to find a solution to her circumstances were met with disdain; repeatedly, she was silenced or ignored: I lived with mother, my mother’s boyfriend and six siblings in one bedroom house. My mother beat me all the while. I had to wash for she, her man, and my brothers and sisters. One time after she gave me lunch money, I put it down and her boyfriend took my lunch money and gone. So I asked someone in my yard (a neighbor) for lunch money and my mom chopped me with a knife. The worst of the abuse was at night. I slept on the ground and my mom, she boyfriend and my brother and sister slept in the bed. Him (the boyfriend) come down and abuse me every night. Me tell her and she never believe me. She love him more than me. He come on the ground and force my foot open every night. The first time I was 9 and this continued until I was 12. I continued to tell my mother what happened. One time she threw hot porridge on me to burn me and I ran. Then I start to runaway. 12 Feminist Criminology 8(1) Compiled upon her experience of being repeatedly silenced at home was her feel- ing of being socially excluded at school. Angelique describes the first time she con- templated suicide: I felt like I was not human. Me don’t feel like me loved. I tried to commit sui- cide when I was 10. My mom abuse me, he abuse me. I felt left out at school. My friends had a good life, and me no have none. She was at work and I tried to do it, then I say why kill myself. I said I will reach my goal and show my mother I can be somebody. Angelique was not a good student academically and often got into fights at school. She stated she often felt angry at school due to her inability to discuss the victimization she experienced at home. She responded to her feelings of being excluded in school by dropping out and seeking the type of wage-paying employment that was available to young undereducated women in her neighborhood: I dropped out of school at age 16 and started to dance at a strip club. I made $600 JA [Jamaican dollars] a night plus tips, and I danced every day. I was able to pay some of my school fees and got in contact with my father and he helped pay my fees for me to start college [to become a hair dresser]. I danced naked freelance to make money. I had to take care of my children. Angelique’s early introduction into adulthood was void of legitimate opportunities to demonstrate the identity she sought to achieve. The abuse she suffered, the death of her sister, and the social exclusion she faced at school were a harsh introduction into the reality of the combined effects of multiple oppressions that shaped her social loca- tion and their unique impact on her ability to achieve her goals. Contradiction and Risk As a young adult, the only guides through the maze of uncertainty available to Angelique were the local examples of success that she befriended and others to whom she was related. All of them were engaged in socially deviant behavior. Angelique’s first child was born when she was 15, and she describes the child’s father as worthless because, as she states, “him no want work, I don’t want that life so I move out.” Angelique’s observation of the father of her first child suggests that she initially sought to conform to the gender deal, by seeking a male primary breadwinner to assist her in achieving her desired reality, yet he was unable to fulfill her expectations and hope of achieving her ideal of the “good life,” and therefore, the relationship ended. A subsequent boyfriend was a drug dealer. This boyfriend offered Angelique an alter- native means to achieve the good life and an opportunity to achieve her dreams. Life with this boyfriend meant that Angelique would have to relinquish her desire to conform to the promises of the class deal through her notion of legitimate institutionalized means Bernard 13 and adapt to an environment in which the rules that sanctioned behavior deviated from those of the dominant society. Angelique’s new reality included the indulgence in drugs, and although this boyfriend could function as the primary breadwinner, his methods for achieving wealth required her to engage in crime: My friends set me up with a youth who was a bad man. They had money and things. They would drink, do drugs and gamble for fun. They would rob too. If they want me to carry a gun I say I would do it, for him. With my friends I felt happy, stress free. When I smoke, things just gone. They were kind of like a family. I prefer to be with them than my own. I always felt burdened when I came home [to my mother], but I never felt like that with them. I would rob, but mainly with my boyfriend. For Angelique, her new family allowed her the freedom to combine the class and gender deals, albeit through illegitimate means, and to adopt an acceptable (if not desired) reality (identity). Unfortunately, this new reality did not free Angelique from risk, as the abuse she suffered from her mother was replaced by exploitation. [When I went to England to live with my boyfriend] I had to send money two times a week to my mother because she was taking care of my children. My mother cravin’ [is greedy]. She wanted to carry it [drugs] up [from Jamaica to England]. I told her she was not ready, but she neva stop. She wanted to come to England. So we gave her ganja [marijuana] in a tin and some coke [cocaine]. She get catch [arrested] in Jamaica. I flew down and my boyfriend too. She was in jail and we had to put $100,000 [Jamaican dollars to post bond]. Adaptive Response Disruption in Angelique’s life continued as her boyfriend was also arrested after returning to England. With her primary source of income gone, Angelique adapted to this change by relying on her own income-earning abilities to obtain the means to maintain her mother’s now abandoned children as well as her own. With the bulk of her experience, networks, and opportunities concentrated around her boyfriend’s illegal endeavors, Angelique inherited his business and began to engage in the trans- portation of drugs: My boyfriend got 17 years. He got caught with drugs and guns in the house. I had to start to carry drugs to small islands in a suitcase. The drugs were built into the suitcase. I traveled every week carrying ganja from Jamaica [to England] and coke [from England] back to Jamaica, Grenada, St. Maarten and Panama. With 3-4 pounds of weed I could make $800 US and with 1 kilo of coke, $900 US for myself. My boss would send money to immigration to clear my way and collect the money, but I don’t know his name. 14 Feminist Criminology 8(1) Upon reflection, Angelique says she realizes that she could have made better choices. She stated that she could have obviously continued to go to school to be a hairdresser and potential salon owner after her sister died as an example, yet with an understanding of her social location and history of risks and contradictions, she may have had little faith that her conformity to the class deal would have resulted in the trappings of the good life she imagined. In Angelique’s quest to become somebody, the lack of available legitimate examples, means, and opportunities to help augment her ability to navigate through the complexities of multiple subjugations, uncertainties, risks, and contradictions she encountered was compensated by adaptive responses characterized by increasing levels of deviance. As an ex-offender, upon her release, Angelique may find her options for access to education and the formal labor market further restricted. When pressed to specify the choices she plans to make in the future upon her release from prison, as if acknowledg- ing the high degree of uncertainty she will face given the addition of the label of “ex- offender” to the other vulnerabilities that characterize her social location, Angelique spoke with ambiguity and then with resolve: I want to get a job and go to [cosmetology] school in England, but me don’t know what me may do [when I get out of prison]. I don’t know my situation. I may go back into it [carrying drugs]. For Angelique, the American Dream has been replaced by a reality that reflects her limitations and the constraints, circumscription, and contradictions within society. For Angelique and other vulnerable men and women the process of doing identity is wrought with constraints and barriers that place their reach just short of their aspira- tions. Angelique attempts to define herself, achieve her dreams, and possibly benefit from the class and gender deals ascribed for women in society, yet her attempts are met with a dearth of feasible and legitimate options that are compensated by illicit ones. A life of crime, for Angelique, becomes the practical solution to social and economic conditions that are ripe with uncertainty and contradictions. Angelique’s profile of vulnerabilities and inequalities fits those of other women who may turn to crime as a solution to life’s limitations. She is young, poor, non-white, a high school dropout, an unmarried mother, and unemployed and has a history of fam- ily violence, sexual abuse, and some drug use. Throughout her life, the impact of the combination of these factors remained virtually ignored by all but one social institu- tion (the prison) and the “family of friends” that she adopted as a refuge and escape from her own. Her new family provided her with an example of how to obtain the tokens and semblance of the good life that could be acquired through illegal means. Due to the random and incremental accumulation of loss and lack in addition to the deprived conditions she inherited, in time Angelique became removed from her vision of being somebody and achieving her goals through legitimate means and decided to join her new family in search of some remnant of a dream. Eventually she ends up in Bernard 15 prison, with little hope of finding alternative means to navigate through the inequali- ties and social contradictions that face her upon release. One of the unanticipated findings this analysis revealed is the extent to which moth- erhood factors into women’s decisions to commit crime or continue to pursue their dreams through legitimate means while confronting adversity. Angelique described how her children were the source of her motivation for achieving her goals and her sole inspiration in difficult times; here she states how her children give her the will to live despite continued abuse and challenges: I tried to commit suicide again. A girl told me what to buy, and I tried to kill myself. I drink some, but not enough, and then I vomit, vomit, vomit. I got weak, and pale and my mother took me to the hospital. During the drive to the hospital my mother told me I was wicked. I spent weeks in the hospital. In the hospital I was thinking about my son. He so bad loves me, and I said I would never do that again. When I came out, I got involved with a youth [a young boy] and got pregnant again. My children give me the strength to move, they make me want to live. For Angelique, like many mothers, her children function as a tremendous source of encouragement in the midst of uncertainty. Despite the option to forfeit parental responsibilities due to strained social and economic conditions, many mothers con- tinue to try to care for their children. Perhaps this phenomenon of commitment despite uncertainty can be described as another deal that can be added to Carlen’s class and gender deals. The mother deal can be found at the intersection between the class and gender deals where the belief that the good life (as defined in noneconomic and more affective terms) results from a mother’s dedication to her children. Crime results when illegitimate options for mothers to meet the needs of their children as well as their own are more readily available than those that are legitimate. Tapping into this bond between some mothers and their children as a way to guide and nurture their progress toward the achievement of their goals through legitimate means may lead to innova- tive policy and programmatic responses to female criminality. Conclusion: Policy Implications Although Adler (1975) contends that women’s liberation resulted in increasing levels of women’s willful criminality, her thesis fails to explain the higher likelihood of young, poor, non-white, high school dropouts, unmarried mothers, un-/under-employed or educated, with a history of drug problems, family violence, and sexual abuse, to be represented among incarcerated women. If a correlation between women’s liberation and an increase in women’s criminality exists perhaps this is due to the increased vulnerability of marginalized women to being criminalized as a result of punitive polices that blame them for the same conditions that constrain their progress. 16 Feminist Criminology 8(1) The State through its promotion of policy, norms, and ideology contributes to the illusion that the financial prosperity of the affluent is somehow justified due to their hard work, integrity, and good choices. The consequence of upholding this belief is that it supports the claim that a life of less for others is often attributed to their own individual pathologies, deficiencies, and lack of conformity, and therefore, should the less affluent become deviant, they should be removed from society and punished. To effectively remove the constraints that limit access to legitimate options for the vulner- able to achieve an equitable reality would mean breaking the illusion of justified posi- tion or class in society and creating a new ideology, norms, institutions (safe places), and social policies that have the notions of interdependency and collective responsibil- ity at the core. Rather than advocating the need for a revolution to combat crime, Left Realist would recommend, and I agree, that the focus of policy and interventions must be on creating communities of care that rebuild neighborhoods and encourage social responsibility and community cohesion as strategies to mitigate against the relative depravation that affects the life outcomes of vulnerable individuals. Left Realist crimi- nologists are critical of conservative policies that seek to build more prisons and lengthen sentences to deal with crime and are supportive of realistic solutions that fit within the existing social framework (Young, 1997). The increasing incarceration rate for women due to drug-related crimes suggests a need to revisit short-sighted legisla- tive policies and to develop opportunities to prevent women’s criminality through intervention at the micro (individual and family) and mezzo (groups and community) levels of society. One example of an innovative intervention that seeks to reduce social isolation and capitalizes on the potential bond between mothers and their children is the creation of women-centered kinship networks consisting of a community of fictive and biological mothers, aunts, grandmothers, and nonparents, some of whom may be education and social service providers who can function as a sources of support, exam- ples, guidance, and communal childcare for young mothers who may be at risk of dropping out of school, engaging in crime, or other forms of deviance (Collins, 2000; Mullins, 1997; White, 1985). Nonresponsive policies and programs have resulted from a lack of understanding of the complex influence of multiple forms of oppression on women’s lives and have rendered many marginalized women virtually invisible (Belknap, 2001). Addressing the problem of women and crime requires society to be willing to confront its failures, including its core ideologies, institutions, norms, and policies that justify a war on marginalized women (and men) under the guise of a war on drugs (Chesney-Lind, 1991). The challenge is for theorizing on female criminality to complicate malestream perspectives on women’s criminality by including more empirical studies that seek to deconstruct one-dimensional and essentialist understandings of women’s lives while intentionally exploring the interconnected, constraining, and multiple, yet unique, manifestations of power and oppression. The praxis of feminist criminology serves as a reminder that alternative theorizing, policy, and programmatic provisions in support of innovative interventions designed to nurture the development of each member of society are needed. An intersectional approach to feminist criminology functions to Bernard 17 confront the collective culpability of all members of society in perpetuating oppressive ideologies and structures that favor the progress of the elite over those who, like Angelique, have limited means to escape the margins. Acknowledgments I would like to sincerely thank all reviewers for their insightful comments and constructive consideration that contributed tremendously to clarifying the concepts and argument presented in this article. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Baca Zinn, M., & Thornton Dill, B. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321-331. Barak, G. (1998). Integrating criminologies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Beale, F. (1995). Double jeopardy: To be Black and female. In B. Guy-Sheftall (Ed.), Words of fire: An anthology of African-American feminist thought (pp. 146-155). New York, NY: New Press. (Original work published 1970) Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi, India: Sage. Belknap, J. (2001). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Britton, D. M. (2004). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the outlaw. In P. J. Schram & B. Koons-Witt (Eds.), Gendered (in)justice: Theory and practice in feminist criminology (pp. 49-67). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(3), 275-306. Brown, G. (2010). The intersectionality of race, gender, and reentry: Challenges for African- American women (Issue Brief: 1-18). Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 24-47. Carlen, P. (1985). Criminal woman. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Carlen, P. (1988). Women, crime and poverty. London: Open University Press. Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Women and crime: The female offender. Signs, 12(1), 78-96. Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). Patriarchy, prisons and jails: A critical look at trends in women’s incarceration. The Prison Journal, 51(11), 51-67. 18 Feminist Criminology 8(1) Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Curra, J. (2000). The relativity of deviance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497-535. Daly, K., & Stephens, D. J. (1995). The “dark figure” of criminology: Towards a Black and multi-ethnic feminist agenda for theory and research. In N. Hahn Rafter & F. Heidensohn (Eds.), International feminist perspectives in criminology: Engendering a discipline (pp. 189- 215). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Dekeseredy, W., & Perry, B. (2006). Advancing critical criminology: Theory and application. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gordon, V. V. (1987). Black women, feminism and Black liberation: Which way? Chicago, IL: Third World Press. Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader. London: Routledge. Kelly, M. (1994). Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Boston: MIT Press. King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of Black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 42-72. Lynch, M. J. (1996). Class, race, gender and criminology: Structured choices and the life course. In D. Milovanovic & M. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Race, gender, and class in criminology: The intersections (pp. 3-28). New York, NY: Garland. Maidment, M. (2006). Transgressing boundaries: Feminist perspectives in criminology. In W. DeKeseredy & B. Perry (Eds.), Advancing critical criminology: Theory and application (pp. 43-62). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure, enlarged edition. New York, NY: Free Press. Messerschmidt, J. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lantham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Mullins, L. (1997). On our own terms: Race, class and gender in the lives of African American women. New York, NY: Routledge. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In H. Roberts (Ed.), Doing feminist research (pp. 30-62). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Owen, B. (1998). “In the mix”: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Potter, H. (2006). An argument for Black feminist criminology: Understanding African American women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse using an integrated approach. Feminist Criminology, 1(2), 106-124. Reiman, J. (2003) The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ritchie, B. E. (1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered Black women. New York, NY: Routledge. Bernard 19 Ritchie, B. E. (2004). Feminist ethnographies of women in prison. Feminist Studies, 30(2), 438-450. White, D. (1985). Ar’n’t I a woman? Female slaves in the Plantation South. New York, NY: Norton. Wing, A. K. (Ed.). (2003). Critical race feminism: A reader (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press. Young, J. (1997). Left realist criminology: Radical in its analysis, realist in its policy. In M. Maguire (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 473-498). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Bio April Bernard is a lecturer in sociology at the University of the West Indies–Cave Hill Campus in Barbados where she teaches courses in social policy, theory and gender and development. She obtained her master’s degree in sociology from the University of Illinois at Chicago and her doctorate from Northwestern University in social policy. She has published in the areas of feminist theory, poverty eradication strategies, and human services reform.