 Thank you very much for coming to this, our 18th subversive good seminar that we're still very excited about. We're really pleased today to be able to welcome our colleagues. Evan Anonopoulos is going to stand in for Nicky Padfield, who couldn't make it at the last minute. I'm just going to start, because Nicky made me promise that I would do this. Here's what I would have said. She had to be somewhere else urgently. Her concern with the extremism agenda is that the prevent agenda may have got the balance wrong ..y gael ei ddweud cyfal hynny, y gweithgaf, os yw'r hunain cyflwyganiad yn y gwir yng Nghymru. Mae hwn yn b Growing Police, os ydych chi'n gyflawni'n gwir. A ddaeth y gweithgaf eich cyflwynos ac mae'r cyflwyganiad hefyd yn demolwg牙 mwy. Mae'n c tas iawn. Mae'n cwylaeth wedi gael ei gweithgaf, canid yn gyflawni'n gweithgaf, oherwydd oedd cofn amser fi'n storfyn ni. Y cyflwyno fydd yn unig weithio'n gweithgaf, a'u cyflwyno fydd yn gweithio. Mae'r cyfnodd yma ei fod yn dda, ond mae'n gweithio'r gydeithasol yn ei ddweud o'r llaw, o'r llymud o'r llaw a o'r glwyddyn o'r llaw o'r llaw. Mae'n ddiweddio'n ymddur o'r llaw o'r llaw oedd yn ffaswn i'r cyfnodd o'r llaw. Mae'n ddweud o'r hynny, nid i fynd yw dyfodol yn ymddur. Mae'n ddigwydd ar y cysylltu'r digwydd, mae'n ddweud o'r llaw o'r llaw. Fy hoffi'r ymddur eich sefydliad ymddur o'r llaw. mae'n rhaid i'r農wr i'r cefnodaeth o'r cymdwoid i'r iawn Professor Gelsbawd ni wedi'u gweithio'r llwyddiad ac amherwydd am Ymnu. Rydym ni'n nesaf Aberchmedi Gulluddion? Rydym ni'n mynd ei'n dweud i'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gwirio ac yn ymgwrdd yn ein teimlo yn Rhian Gwrein, a penderfyn i'n Gweithio'n Rhian Gwrein. Yn hynny, mae'n gweithio i'r newid i'r cyfnodd o'r cyfnodd, yn ddiddordeb maes i chyferol am y peth yn ddyddol. Mae'r ffordd, ond mae eisiau eich cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd, ond mae'n ddiddordeb am y cyfnodd, mae'n rhaid i'n gweithio i'r cyfnodd. Fy enw i ddim ddim i ddim i'r cyfnodd i'n ddiddordeb am y cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd. Ac yna i weld i chi'n andyddeueth i fy mwyaf yng ngosreddau, felly iddyn nhw'n mynd i gyd-weld i wneud o'ch amser. Dwi wedi'i golygu o amser popm láuu ac r clapping i'w ffordd. A gyd-weld i chi fwyaf. Rwy'n meddwl eich hun fel yng ngosreddau sy'n meddwl yng Ngosreddau? Fydw i chi'n meddw i'r sporth ar gyfer. Ond yn yn iawn ei ddatblygu meddwl i'w ffordd. A dwi'n meddwl i chi'n meddwl mynd i chi, yr ydi Mae'nnydd i amsgrifeth a ddweud o'r dnant ei fod yn gwahanol. Rwy'n dechrau y bydd i chi, dwi'n gweithio i'ch gynnig, ocho pa wedi'u fan y blaenau o'r obniadau fel pob am ffath ym mhobb. Ac rwy'n dechrau i chi'n mynd i chi amser i chi? Felly, mae yna ei wneud gwybodaeth alw. ac rwy'n dechrau i chi fod yn iawn i ddim gwestiynau wrth fynd i chi'n gwneud y cwmig sy'n gwneud â gwybod. Ond y gallwn gwiswch yn dda i gael ei wneud eich gwirio, nid i gael ei gweithiol bydwyd a'u gallwch i ddyneud. felly Gallwch i ddim yn ni'n iddynt doedd, sy'n mynd i ddweud hynny'n gwneud, ond roeddfyn pob iawn yn yrwyddiodol oedd yna'r ddiwy Doorbond o'r gwneud cyntaf yn hyd ar y grwp. Gallwch i ddim yn ni'n gweithio meddwl ydw i ddwy'r ysgol, if you changed your style of dress or personal appearance to record with that group? I if people who have sat down to do it maybe you could put your hands up if you agree with any of the next statements as well. I'd like you to think if your day-to-day behaviour became increasingly centred around what ever it was you were doing either with that ideology or that group of people. I'd like you to think about whether actually you moved your interests in terms of your friend groups to spend time with people who were more involved with those activities. I'd like to think if you perhaps possessed some things, some materials, some items that were associated with that group or those interests. I'd like to think if you ever talked to your friends and told them how brilliant what you were up to was and whether they might also enjoy it. I'd like to ask you whether or not communications with others in your general communications might have suggested that you were actually involved with that group of people or those kinds of thoughts or beliefs. So I think all of you actually might have been coming within some of the channel guidements and whether you were engaged with a group cause or ideology which might have brought you, depending on what your group was, under the view of the prevent strategy. Ever is going to stand up and is going to tell us a little bit more about that prevent strategy, its legal framework, the guidelines around it and the kinds of things we might want to be thinking about in this seminar soon. Thank you, I mean I'll be very very brief it's not I'm not replacing Mickey Patfield even in my dreams actually so let's not yeah so just I mean we thought about the social experiment yesterday I'm sure most of you will know since 2015 the counter terrorism act 2015 introduces a legal duty which is imposed on probably most institutions engage in one of a number of core public functions such as prisons, hospitals, universities, schools, nurseries, DNHS all of those different institutions. The duty reads exactly duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. Now terrorism under the law has of course tremendously expanded over the years but that is really not on point either because the real risk comes from the guidelines to that particular legal duty and the guidelines to that duty draw a link between extremist ideology and the commission of terrorist offences. Extremist ideology since 2011 is no longer restricted to violent ideology it includes all non-violent forms of extremist ideology so violence is no longer a criterion. The other thing is that extremist is defined again a quote directly as the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy the rule of law individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. These kind of indicators or examples that Ruth just gave you are examples that institutions such as this one will need to have due regard to in order to determine why the particular people are vulnerable to being drawn into extremist ideologies. This is a sort of thing we all might be caught up on to undertake and that many of you will be subject to from now on. The sort of the importance prevent has existed since 2007 it's not new although back then it only applied to violent form of extremism. The non-violence has only been introduced since 2011. The enshrinement of prevent into the law is fundamentally important for it will create a bureaucratic structure within core institutions that are essential absolutely essential to social life and as a result of which those core public functions risks being alienated. So if our fundamental for example duty is to our students to freedom of expression to academic freedom to the exchange of ideas and if this the enshrinement of this duty into the law and and the bureaucratic structure that will attach to it risks alienating some of those fundamental functions. That's all. Thank you. Thank you all for coming and I can't believe you could say that so calmly. Well done. You're very well composed. So today I want to offer some reflection on the themes of resistance and agency and I want to do so with attention to Islamic piety in maximum security prisons. So this research seems to have been too far forward. So what I'm going to be speaking about today is drawn from this study. It was an 18 month study into maximum security prisons. Two of my colleagues are here and so it's great to be with them as well. I've been in Calgary for a year and a half and it was warmer there than here but anyways it's good to be back. So I want to explore Islamic piety, resistance and agency and I don't know if you follow the media or give it any do but if you've watched anything on prisons and Islam the story is somewhat tilted and so you hear lots about Muslim gangs, you hear lots about radicalization but what you don't hear about is Islamic piety. So I hope today to explore some of the contours of Islamic piety in the brief time that I have and so what does it look like in a maximum security prison? Less about should we be worried but just more about describing what it's like and so I want to focus on the features of becoming good and doing good as aspects of Islamic piety and I want to look at how those aspects of Islamic piety relate to structures of authority in prison and so some of the broad questions that I'm interested in, the first one I think is the most tantalising, when are acts of kindness subversive? So I'll be looking at that through sharing of food. What forms of religious expression conflict with structures of authority and what are the consequences and also what are the assumptions about religion and how do these colour our evaluations of what's risky and dangerous and as I go throughout I also want to challenge some dichotomies that are frequently thrown about, ones between public religion and private religion between the self and other and between resistance and submission. I don't think these categories are that great and I'll try to interrogate them as I go through but let's look at a concrete example from this book from 1977 this was written by Jacobs very foundational prison sociology study and this is how he describes the collectivity among Muslims he says for the Muslims organizing was not simply a means to achieve certain advantages in the prisons it was an end in itself while Muslim leaders wrote frequently to the warden that their religion demanded their obedience to authority their organizational activities and desire for communion necessarily brought them into conflict with traditional system of authority on the recreational yards the Muslims clustered in defiance of the prison's rules in most cases they dispersed when ordered to do so but confrontations were not uncommon in his reports to the warden the disciplinary captain described a pattern of defiance ranging from refusing orders to cursing to spitting at and striking at guards now this is a seminal text because it describes the way that in the 1960s and 70s the prison experienced moved from being a very individual thing to being a collective experience among Muslims and as I understand that this was sort of the turning point where all of a sudden prison became a collective experience and so it challenged the traditional relationship between the keeper and the kept now I think that this category of resistance alone doesn't do very good social scientific description I don't think it quite provides us with a deep understanding of Islamic piety so I want to challenge how deep this understanding of Islam in prisons today can get through the category of resistance. I'm drawing a lot on the work of Sabah Mahmood here and her criticism of agency and the examples that I'm going to give is is through the agency exercise through giving food and sharing food so this is a very everyday example in maximum security prisons I don't know if you know but they're able to cook prisoners are able to cook their own food they can share it with other people if they want but this has taken on some unique had some unique consequences and so here is her interviewee Sayid who is telling us about how cooking for others is good he says so cooking for others is nice because it makes the prisoners bond sometimes you see from the officers they're kind of like oh what's going on here why is everybody eating and he says I don't know if it's jealousy or what maybe they think they want us to be crying or hitting our heads against the walls and fighting each other I don't know for sure but they kind of give us funny looks as if oh what's the motive behind this why are they feeding each other you know it's just being good to each other you know what's wrong with that just being good to each other another prisoner says I've been approached by three governors and two wing managers and told you're not allowed to do this anymore and I told them why and they said it's too much everybody eating and he says but people come together they start talking and it's they get in this room and they start talking for the first time and you know what's wrong with that and so you can see that the staff is very much looking at this as though it's it's a form of resistance and from their perspective they're saying well what's wrong with it I'm just sharing food and we can see the depth at which this act of kindness and sharing comes into play with a fig who says I am a kind person and I want to give things to other people my religion teaches me to give gifts or if you have food you share that with other people it's part of my religion if somebody comes or I need to look after someone that's part of my religion I want to do that it's it's my duty so sharing food is incumbent upon him and it's intertwined with the cultivation of the self and formula formation of a moral community as well and whale also describes this in terms of being human so he says prisoners who would come into the wings you'd often cook for them until their supplies came and he's he's sort of refused to buy into this idea that he's what he says a gang leader or sort of a radicalizer he was very much aware of the impressions that were put upon him and he says well no it's a fundamental it's a way of being human he says and he said I'm going to conduct myself in a way that is kind and I will cook for people and so it's not merely part of his culture and his faith but it's a part of his everyday life it's part of being human and so this form of Islamic piety and of course there's different expressions of Islamic piety I'm focusing on one sort of slice here which I think is is a very interesting slice doing good was a means of becoming good and it served as a mode of the cultivation of the self but it also had social implications it's not just an individual piety it's not going in and praying alone it's not reading it's not doing yoga it's a very non-western non-secular form of of piety and that it's completely relational isn't it um and I like uh Paul Anderson's formulation of this he follows the work of Saddam Ammoud and Charles Hirschkind and he describes his form of Islamic piety as a pious sociality so it's working towards forming an ethical community and so micro interactions involve just being good to one another and this contributes to the construction of an ethical community in prison um among his handful of interviewees and I think that this is this starting from Islamic piety tells a completely different story than starting from the standpoint of resistance because we understand then the impetus behind this don't we we see that it's about the construction of the self about the formulation of an ethical community about doing good it's not just about it's not defining yourself in terms of resistance against resisting an external authority an agency comes up here in ways that are refused by the category of resistance um in conclusion I'm assuming you haven't read this this book here but this is a fascinating text in Egypt you wonder why it's even at all relevant to a prison work but his he has this word called Islamic counterpublics which takes a bit of unpacking he's merely stating or his main mode of analysis is to look at cassette cassette sermons which were very popular in the 80s and 90s in Egypt and what he explored through his ethnographic study was how it is that the act of listening to a sermon can actually help cultivate the self and that was part of the religious practice but more than this the act of listening to a cassette sermon is a relational act because you would swap cassette sermons with other friends so it would be relational and he asks the question of what happens when the individual act of piety and its relational effects are done throughout society when it's done in cafes when it's done in restaurants and on the street you hear taxi drivers listening to these sermons you hear them in cafes when you're there and so he's making this argument that that's contributed to the re-islamisation of Egyptian society and it's all through what seems to be a very individual act and so I think it's a it's a very interesting work to read this question of Islamic piety through and so we're able to see from Syed's perspective from Salim's perspective that it's not merely an individual act of piety but it has social effects and I think this description is a lot better than looking at it merely through the lens of resistance and so collectivity arises through transactions of kindness being good to one another and doing good was a means of becoming good that was another theme in these acts of cultivating the self created and strengthened social bonds and they constituted a moral community and today as in Stateville this collectivity was perceived as threatening to prison authorities however the genesis I think is deeper than the category of resistance allows and it needs to account for identity, self-formation and this pious sociality so I hope that that's that's helpful and enough information but of course I've had to go rather quickly and I do leave it open for questions as well at the end but thank you oh wait I do want to end on this it reinforces this view of of doing good and the importance of becoming good so there's this deeply ethical character so you quoted Marcus Aurelius verbatim he says don't live as though you are going to live a myriad year fate is hanging over your head while you have life while you may become good I think Lorraine is going to tell us now about other ways in which sometimes forms of law that are supposed to support the good can actually correspond okay thank you very much I want to focus on women's imprisonment which has been a very long-standing problem even though it's widely known that women commit less serious crime very few serious crimes overall most crimes are property related many of them shoplifting many of them theft and handling and I should say when it's shoplifting it tends to be foodstuffs closed for children uh so on and so forth there are relatively few persistent offenders too yet there have been huge increases in the use of imprisonment for women particularly during the years 1992 to 2002 there was a turn down in the number of women in prison in about 2006 no obvious reason why there should have been such a huge increase no evidence of increased seriousness of offences no obvious evidence of more women being brought into the criminal justice system some evidence of the court being harsher but not just to women to everyone indeed one has to remember that in the mid 1990s Michael Howard as justice secretary announced that prisons work and that affected the whole culture sure there have been increases in drugs offenses for women the drug offences involve possession of drugs rather than importing and selling and the increase has been no greater for women than it has for men and there have been some increases in violence too for women monks women but when we drill down into the nature of those offenses we realise that most of the violence relates to relatively minor violence around pubs and clubs where young women are getting lippy with police officers and it could be a smarter changing response to the young women as to increases in violence maybe it's a mixture of both things at the same time now i'm familiar machine i'm trying to move this on thank you at the same time there have been particular concerns about the courts being harsher towards women especially when they offend against the gender role stereotype and once in prison and once in prison women have been subject to harsh regimes certainly high security i think we've gone on one one too many thank you uh subject to harsh regimes high security even though the last escape from of a woman from a prison was from an open prison 17 years ago stripped searching of women continued until 2010 at the same time there's been evidence of women uh being shackled even when in labour and about to give birth in some there seems to be relatively little serious crime amongst women but very high and complex needs amongst them and those complex needs have had major impact on women's lives compounded by the experience of imprisonment there have been various measures to improve regimes in prisons and one of those developments has been the creation of mother and baby units they emerged in the 1980s and they were thought to be a jolly good thing certainly it was an intention thank you Ruth it was in the intention was to do good by ensuring that the children of women could be close to them remain close to them uh at least for the first few months of their lives anything between nine months up to 18 months interestingly even David Cameron has woken up to prison policy and mothers in custody and the deleterious impact on children so there were good intentions in creating the mother and baby units but disastrous consequences actually right from the beginning because one of the early studies in 1991 of the mother and baby unit in Holloway prison remembering that it was a fairly new prison it had been rebuilt at that time one of the research findings was that the children had had to be strapped into high chairs in the mother and baby unit because of the cockroaches on the floor and that had an impact on the children's uh motor sensory development motor development so they had very little mobility when they left the prison either to be taken into care or to be looked after by friends and relatives various researchers have pointed to the deleterious effects of mothers imprisonment Farrington David Farrington Joe Murray numerous others but as I say even David Cameron has woken up to some of the concerns he's called for an urgent rethink of the way the prison system in England and Wales treats pregnant women and mothers with babies various campaigning groups have responded to David Cameron's quest to give greater attention and we can we can think of that quest as getting women out of prison if prisons and mother of baby units are disastrous for those children then the best thing to do is to get women out of prison and some of the arguments in the last week or so have very much been to do with motherhood as mitigation so there was an intent there was an aim to prevent harm in terms of separating mothers and babies in prison but actually the development of mother and baby units has caused it one of the responses is very much to do with looking for alternatives for mothers but I want to be subversive and say why stop at mothers why suggest that only mothers count what about fathers and if part of the argument is that people commit relatively low serious crimes then why do they have to be in prison in the first place lots of women get very short sentences of imprisonment lots of men get very short sentences of imprisonment too so I want to suggest that by focusing exclusively on mothers there is discrimination against fathers but altogether we might think about alternatives for all so the challenge in a way is to do with how to address the the issues of the impact of imprisonment on parents not just mothers but without introducing new forms of discrimination either against fathers or others who have primary responsibility for children or indeed how to avoid discrimination against those who do not have children okay thank you so finally I would like to invite Amy who I think very nicely might talk to um I think was some of the links coming out between those presentations were to do with when you focus as um legal policy or laws specifically on one group risk discriminating against that group and also against others and I wonder what might happen when we focus on issues um that transcend and try to bring in legal frameworks in order to support or deal with those issues to reduce our rather than on particular groups and Amy might talk a little bit more about and lower level viewing consequences of higher level laws if I can find my way behave that that's what I need where are you uh legal harms unless you want to learn about literature reviews can I have that thing you certainly can I can use it right um okay so what I'm going to talk about is more theoretical I guess we'll be stepping back a bit from more specific research but I I also took to heart this big ideas big questions thing so it's it might be a little disjointed but I hope to pose a few questions that we can think about in the discussion so my research looks at how states can affect social order very broadly uh so it's a huge area of criminology probably the core of criminology how do states control crime obviously but my research looks at it a little bit differently how can state actions or lack of state actions actually cause crime or make things worse what sorts of negative effects uh might come of this and I focus specifically on violence I thought I would start with a bit of an example uh from one of my more recent uh bits of research that sort of illustrates these theoretical tenants that I will be talking about this is a Facebook page for a vigilante group in Mexico that has 47 000 likes so a lot of people are supporting uh extra legal violence and my question was why what what are the explanations for people using extra legal violence or supporting people who do use extra legal violence and it's I thought this was a great page because it's sort of uh has the answer or at least a couple answers right in the page so the bottom one is uh something that most people think of when they or the biggest explanation when people think of when they try to explain vigilantism and that is that the state is absent the state is not doing something it's not providing the service that it should provide security and justice so this says unless something like you cares truly nothing will ever improve which is a quote from the Lorax from Dr Seuss so I guess they are on a certain reading level um and the second one uh the banner I can't read what the other one is but the banner says the responsibility of a country is not in the hands of a privileged few so it gets at ideas of inequalities or power differentials and it has essentially two grievances with the state one is that they're not doing what they're supposed to do they're not providing security and justice and so therefore they must take up the law into their own hands and the second is that they the acts that they are doing the actions that uh the state is participating in especially in relation to criminal justice but also more broadly uh social institutions uh there's something unequal about it they're not doing it in the right way this might be a lack of legitimacy so did I click it no okay this is very uh okay okay so uh this is essentially the thesis of my work so a lot of people would not argue with the idea that the state you know works to combat crime uh but it's a little bit uh more of a challenge to think about the theoretical mechanisms that link state actions and crime more directly the kind of negative actions of state so I argue that certain state actions and under certain conditions can actually lead to more crimes so they can generate more violence and the opposite effect and I propose that there are two social mechanisms that link state actions and crime outcomes specifically I focus on violence but it could be applied more broadly to crime one is that delegitimisation so essentially these first two steps are the same that state actions lead to people delegitimising state there's people's reactions they think the state is lacking legitimacy they don't trust it uh there's something unequal about it and I'll give more examples of this in a second so once this occurs uh this is the second mechanism so ignore the rest of that people will withdraw their commitment to social institutions and this can lead to a breakdown in all kinds of social control and based on uh and thus lead to crime now the second one and the one that I'm particularly interested in the one that relates to vigilantism more directly is that people will reject the state's claim to the monopoly of force and thus seek out their own um extra legal conflict resolution or justice and thus in this case vigilantism or violent self-help as uh one sociologist calls it so what does this look like rather unfortunately there are a lot of American examples of uh delegitimisation of the police in the past year so we have some key terms of what uh these sort of state actions look like that lead to these individual reactions or delegitimisation unequal provision of public goods that was highlighted in the uh facebook page illegality violent repression this is being linked to police brutality in the US uh unaccountability also a huge issue so that's what this picture demonstrates and a lack of shared norms a belief that the state or the criminal justice system doesn't have their interests um or doesn't share uh their same interests or goals okay i'll also briefly go over a little bit of evidence that in fact some state actions in the delegitimisation mechanism does in fact lead to at least the self-help mechanism this is the part that I've been more um involved in studying uh the first three are from uh other studies but they essentially highlight uh that these two mechanisms one a lack of justice uh leads people to have to get justice another one highlights the uh delegitimisation mechanism so corruption on injustice racially uh biased police officers uh a tool of state repression leads to these young men in inner city uh relying on self-help to solve their problems so one thing I want to point out here is that there are intersections it's not just about a lack of state legitimacy that there are social um aspects here too and I think the one from Bolivia highlights this uh quite well there's no justice in Bolivia at least for the poor there isn't uh so you have to have money to get justice so we have some social issues here as well okay so now I want to pose some big questions and watch a little video uh I also think the uh or at least this video kind of brings back to what do we do now so if the state it has these negative consequences yeah if I think it's pulled up on youtube already yeah how do we solve this issue is it just uh should we just focus on criminal justice problems and state problems or are these or should we think bigger and think about social harms as well and where do these uh legal and social harms intersect and although this is very challenging what do we do about it so this is a conversation on PBS between okay maybe you can start from the beginning and they'll introduce everyone it's a little bit long but it talks about the recent actions uh police broken police relations in the US and has perspectives on what we do about it what should we how do we actually solve this problem and you can and I thought it was a good clip to illustrate the huge challenges so we will watch this video and then I will ask our speakers to come and we'll give you some chairs at the front and we can have a chat about the themes that are while the force is driving it the Tawhati pose natural correspondent for the Atlantic lester spanth professor of political science and african studies at Johns Hopkins University and Lori Robertson the coach here at the White House task force on 21st century policing and professor of criminology at George Mason University. Tawhati coach, it's a really interesting piece for the Atlantic in which you talked about growing up in Baltimore the fact that your mother was raised in the public marketing projects where Freddie Gray was actually killed and I wonder whether you think that things have changed now in the time that you were growing up you're attitude toward the east end and now I'm not sure that attitude toward the police has changed much I mean you know the general situation in some of the african americans has certainly changed around the edges certainly on the achievement possibility of the individual african americans are you know much greater than the way you are with my mother's time as evidenced by the president of the united states but this feeling uh the african americans have this skepticism towards the police and the skepticism that the police shows towards african americans is actually quite old and I may be one of the most adorable aspects of the relationship between black people in that country really our history it goes back to slavery I've been doing it through slavery in New York today in the 2015 pretty much deal on the same thing. Let's discuss what is the appropriate response first of all do you agree with Tawhati on this and what is the appropriate response to this? Uh yeah I agree uh I mean so here's the way to think about it. I don't think I would be a professor at Johns Hopkins University where Tawhati's mom was living in a public housing project. I mean but yet at the same time you're talking about a dynamic where I mean Freddie Gray wasn't the first person to have his spine basically broken by police. You've had approximately 110 Baltimoreian skills and police custody I think the vast majority of them being african americans uh there's been a sense of black among black Baltimoreians in general that the police are basically illegitimate now reason to think that way. So what did the response be? We've seen uh silent peaceful protest and seen violent protest. Are you? What sympathy? What yeah well it's important to know that people have been organizing uh to make police being more humane in Baltimore for since I've been here so approximately 10 years um and there's been a lot of push to make police in uh in Baltimore and the state in general and state of Maryland be more responsive and be more accountable to their citizens. So I'm hoping that given that what's happened there'll be a lot more support for that type of legislation but as far as the economic barn is concerned that's the important piece to consider there's also been people organizing about that issue. So hopefully we'll get more traction for people who are working on that. Lori Robinson, you recently gave the president a report on these issues post-Percasin post everything else and you gave him almost 60 recommendations about what how does the nation nationally should be responding to things like this. Your answer to the new attorney general said today you know Baltimore is not just a symbol or it's all it's just a city. It's more than that. First of all is that the approach? Is that the common reaction to look at this as a natural issue? Or is this Baltimore specific? No, our report has a set of 59 recommendations and we believe that there are a number of things that individual police departments should be doing. For example adopting a culture of fair, impartial and respectful policing. Adopting what we call a mindset of guardian mindset, not a warrior mindset when you're going in and effectively appearing to occupy communities. We also think there should be a culture of transparency so that the policies of the department are very clear and that the departments are working with communities to co-produce public safety. That they're really collaborating with the communities that they're working for. These all seem to be common sense on the day but they also don't seem to be happening everywhere. They are happening in some communities but not in very many communities. Tynahasi quotes, you wrote that calls for nonviolence are the right answer to the wrong question. Tell me what you meant by that. Well I think like the way we know that approach to this is like what would we like to see? And we all would like to see a process that you know, I think everybody can agree with that. I think everybody can say that when they see a CVS burning there on any sort of violence one. None of us are joyous about that. But the response of people on the street is not an independent driver. It does not exist independently of the actions of other forces. The fact of that is the violence in Baltimore did not begin with the process that was on Tuesday. The action is less than this outline in terms of people trying to get some attention. Pay attention to the actions of the police. In Baltimore did not begin with the process. The violence started with the actual police. Freddie Gray was not the first person. He said that the cameras suddenly arrived when the CVS started burning down. And that's where we begin the narrative. And what I'm trying to say is that you know, he has to adopt a long view of history. You know, we have to give you these sort of blanket condemnations of people in the street and say, but why is this happening? How can it be that we're almost two weeks after Freddie Gray was taken in the country? And we still don't know how he died. How can that be? I mean is that just unsearchable? Well, let me ask you about that, Lester Spence, because you just heard what Robinson talked about the way it ought to be. You've heard a time how these posts talk about the way it is. Where is the action and where is the reaction? Where is the appropriate place? Oh, so there are people organizing right now to get the Maryland State Assembly to pass legislation to kind of roll back some of the police officers have kind of like a bill of rights. We're working on peeling that back. And I think that's a great place to start. They didn't have a lot of movement in the Maryland State Assembly this past session, but we think that this is the perfect moment to generate support for the next time. And again, this is not just about police violence. It's about economic violence, right? So that's the track that Freddie Gray, Freddie Gray lived in, spent $47 million in conquering his residence. That money is basically, that money is going to be spent in so many different ways and generates a condition in which this is the stock that's basically like a police state. I mean, nobody's going to want that. What about Robinson? Is a policy that's lacking here, or is a policing that's lacking, which is R&D related? One of our overarching recommendations in the report plan was that the administration needs to look beyond policing, certainly needs to look at policing, but also needs to look at economic policy, at health and education. And very poitably at poverty. But you heard the President say yesterday, I'm proposing these things and I'll, if you didn't celebrate after this, any of this happened. Well, what we said is that the criminal justice system alone, policing alone, changes in policing cannot solve these problems. What do you think, Tom? I suppose we're at the bottom of this. I mean, this is a good point to come to for us to say we have the next light of shock to another to say that we identify the solutions. Maybe that's our job, a big task. So if I could invite our speakers up to the front, if there is enough room here, attack of the culture, I don't know how do you know about the front. I sometimes get it by just going to the police. No, that one's for you. That's yours, that's yours, that's yours. Oh, go for it, go for it. It's a push-wick, it does that. Time to have it, but I'm not sure. Sorry. We have your caption, Amy, and you're going, no. So thank you very much. I think we heard quite a lot about some of the difficulties of legitimate state power and the consequences of how you legislate to avoid harm. Perhaps what we could think about is that question that we ended on in the videos is where we might go to be able to use our laws in ways that might be reductive of social goods rather than social damage. So I don't know if anyone has burning questions for our speakers. One's a very common. I'll just seek your comments. Half the problems that a lot of the, obviously we're out of particular, prevent legislation is the product of a political reaction which is driven by a kind of mainstream, othering, fear kind of agenda, which makes it quite difficult then to use law for social good, because that law is itself a product of a system that maybe doesn't know quite what the good looks like, or is it good for a certain narrow perspective? Is that just one comment that I was pondering? What does the good look like? Does anyone want to speak back to what the good looks like from these contexts? I think just to connect some of the dots from my presentation, obviously. I heard other people's presentations about that. A few more dots, but just to do that. One of the reasons why I set it up with the 1977 state bill thing was that a lot of the responses to Muslim collectivity in prison was basically reaction against threat. So they would clamp down on the leadership, they would put them in solitary confinement, they would break them up at every instance, and it turns out that it succeeded, but there was only about 100 of them out of a population of about 3,000. So that was the state response coming in, breaking them up. Nowadays they're doing the same responses. They're trying to disperse, break them up, they put them in solitary confinement, they label them as dangerous and risky, the label of radicalisation is now being imposed, not just a concern over order and control in prisons, it's also risks around extremism, very nebulous risks, and the state response, or the prison responses, to be very heavy handed. But what I tried to then observe was that, actually that's misunderstanding the risk, because we don't understand the problem, and I think that that's often what happens when we don't understand the problem, and so we misdiagnos it and misreact it, I think. It was a sort of general point about resistance without resistance within, because I think when you were talking, I was very much getting a sense of resistance within, but obviously new attacks in a way, new aggression to counteract the resistance within. In terms of prevent, I mean what I've heard about within academic institutions, for example, is the way in which we prevent a gender, we prevent training of being subverted to be more general racism awareness training, so it's being co-opted, reinterpreted, so the letter of the law is met, but there is a different spirit within. Within women's prisons, one certainly comes across prison governance and prison style, who will do what they can to resist the worst excesses of edicts from thick carpet land in the Ministry of Justice. One of my favourite, most recent favourite story is prison governors telling me that Chris Grayling, when Secretary of Justice, I've issued an edict that no women were to wear black trousers in prisons. When asked why, he said, well it's because prison officers wear black trousers and women may make violence against the prison officers and escape because they're wearing black trousers. When I expressed concern about this, the prison governors, with whom I happen to be, said, don't worry, Lorraine, we've just agreed that if Chris Grayling comes to our prison, we'll just tell the women not to wear black trousers that day. In terms of policing, I think there is some resistance within when one looks at the motivations that people become police officers, not necessarily in the USA, but elsewhere. It's very often because they want to do good. Many of them think that police work is actually essential. One does come across instances of even police officers doing great kindnesses, whether it's taking somebody who's really worse for wear taking them home, or taking people to hospital. I know these are very small things, but they do give one hope in dropping the ocean, kind of hope, but against the world of oppression. Please stay. When my legal and operational frameworks provide spaces for kindness, I guess is an interesting question, and how could kindness come into the implementation of the prevent agenda? It's a very hopeful way of looking at things, Lorraine. I don't know if you might want to speak to that. I haven't really thought very much about these things yet, but I think Amy is touching on some, you know, a crucial paradox of that, and this goes back, I think, perhaps for you, research links more to theories of the state. I mean, you can't really... The fetishism of the law as a sort of way out of what is seemingly a violent state of affairs is not going... I don't think it's going to get you anywhere, because the state is at the core of the dilemma which is being created, so the state cannot be at once the sort of pacifier around the sub, so I don't think legally there's much. And in that sense, I think the law does sort of prevent duty from a legal standpoint, actually, is illustrative of this big paradox, because if you're a lawyer, I don't know what you think of this duty, but it's a duty that is legally very far remote from what you expect of the law. It's not clear. The terms are undefined. We're not entirely sure about what exactly it is that we're legally required to do. Much of the crunch of the policies in guidelines, which again, from a legal standpoint, not on your part, but just legally, the legal stages is unclear. We don't know exactly whether they're going to bite or not, but obviously the appeal to the law is having a tremendous effect on the institution, because it's the law now, and it's not just merely a strategy. But I think it's interesting that in terms of if we think of what the legal form usually does, the prevent duty legally doesn't apply by any of these standards, so it's really sort of... I don't think he's telling, but listen to all of you. I find quite concerning is that and the authoring against Conciery is that, I mean, as far as I know from the many philosophers that have discussed theories of the state as sort of, you know, discipline and maintaining an ideological social compact, and so far at least it seems that the modern state has managed to do that in much more covered ways, and now suddenly this is all in the outing where the sort of confrontations are out, but also the state has become much more explicit through things like prevent about othering and about singling out, and this is, I think, a significance that one needs to take on board and to realise, and it's not because the state has a monopoly of violence is not surprising that people have resolved to resistance of violence to sort of... because there is... I don't think it's even a sort of participation, I think is the state is monopolising means of decision making means of organising, means of participation and hence to have a more radical change the ways for that are outside the state, the power to say, not within it as far as I can... Which is an interesting link to the points about co-production that were made within a resolution to legitimate states power, but as you were speaking I was thinking Amy of wanting to bring you in to say that if you were thinking about the potential the ways that we've talked about preventing its construction and its potential implementation because we don't really know about it yet what would your theory suggest if you think about how state actions can cause harm or make things worse or make them better? I think it plays very well on this possible negative reaction but one thing I've gone up as well is the social interaction with this so it may not have a blanket effect on everything coming of everyone going out to come in violence directly but interacts with particularly those who are alienated from also wider social institutions and this may produce It does make sense, yes but more comments and questions Yes, please, we have one, two, three if we start here and then go to Thank you everybody for these wonderful talks it's really fascinating I just wanted to ask a little bit just to give some comments on our place in Cambridge as an institution today because we can talk so much about policies that the government is doing but you were mentioning the covert ways that the state operates I think very much Cambridge is an agent of that I mean just look at this room look at how many people of color are in this room look at how many professors of color I think there's only one black correct me if I'm wrong there's only one black professor and then two black lecturers it's very we're still having critical conversations good conversations but it's different when you have people of color who are also engaging and giving their own insight and their own experiences to this kind of scholarship and then even looking at for example the way that the education the specialization of knowledge happens at this university where if you do humanities or you do sciences and you're not usually required to do that much in humanities so for example there was a study recently saying that jihadists are more often to be trained as scientists because they're not engaging their critical minds and then if you look at the Islamic society here they're critical, they're great but they've been explicitly told that at least subliminally they've sort of agreed not to be that political and that's something I've seen directly promoted by the university in terms of the kinds of speakers they allow to their events for example this week at Explore Explore Islamic and I don't want to go into too much detail we can always delete some bits of it but there's something institutional about our place I'd just be interested in it seems like very obvious stuff to me but no one is they should be at the tips of our tongue this should be the first thing we talk about but it's not either in academic circles or in any of the administration in the colleges so I'd just be interested in some thoughts does anybody want to respond to that or should we take the other two questions and then come back and have all three together to do that sort of Catalina do you have yes for Amy I was thinking Amy when you actually showed the framework and you said like eruption and just things like that but have you explored also the relationship between welfare and violence because it's also a kind of harm providing social protection and the relationship with violence and also I know that you have done some research on inequality and I've never seen when you actually look at the relationship you always like see like macro like little files like an ingenio whatever employment quality and violence but have you seen anything about perceived inequality if the citizens like the way in which they perceive is there life experiences associations is there any relationship between violence so if I ask you to just hold those questions and think about them and we'll go to ask them I'm in the same territory I really liked the idea of thinking about our theory of the state but I guess as soon as anyone says the words the state has a monopoly of violence because it doesn't because of privatisation and violence is now contracted out and very very explicitly and so I think the state is delegitimated by the way in which it's letting go of the monopoly of violence and sharing it with very underpaid and under experienced professionals in a way that's very delegitimated so I guess our theory of the state needs to be empirically informed so I'm thinking both about all of that going on before our very eyes so violence contracted out badly and cheaply meanwhile I can't help but be curious about the people who are anti all of this legal behaviour and that those communities exist and they have strong feelings about how many people disagree with the prevent strategy those people need to be visible in our theory of the state because they're not state crafting but they should be and want to be so they're the two missing sort of voices in our theory of the state but I think they're quite important ones I think this is really important territory so those points actually do link in really nicely which is that politics of exclusion it's not on the tips of our terminals would be a great point crime and inequality and whether perceived inequality has been measured specifically to you and then points about the theory of the state which actually when we were having a chat yesterday we were discussing about private prisons and why their prevent duties come into it so it's far more important what our questions were whether we get any answers or not but to do with both the voice of the private companies what that does for our monopoly of state violence and then also the communities are quite so visible when we're thinking about what our theory of the state is so I don't know if you want to maybe Amy if you have a direct answer to your question okay throw it to one of you don't like to come back any other questions to me in response to your question I was just going to say agreed from my personal vantage point I think that any sort of voice of opposition towards injustice practices or discrimination of a group is needed to come through and I do give that voice and I speak to Muslim associations from the Calgary right now and here and the message I think comes unfortunately the message needs to come across from different sectors of society often if it just comes from the Muslim community then that oh well they're just being sensitive or something like this very dismissive and so personally I feel that my role is to give a voice to those who are disempowering and unfortunately it is listened to with a bit more authority than if it comes from elsewhere and it's the state of things and it's really unfortunate thank you I also wanted to respond to that and say yes very much agreed I'm certainly not an apologist for the university and critic but there are some developments of course we know that developments in Cambridge are official but there is an agenda a university agenda in relation to equality and diversity but we're talking about widening participation of whether we're talking about members of staff or race champions or disability champions and so on and so forth and that's becoming more visible the vice chancellor has spoken out about the prevent agenda has visited the home office at least on four occasions that I know about to protest about the devastating effects on academic institutions and other institutions too your point about the separation of sciences and humanities it's an interesting one and I thought that for a meeting in relation to this I'm involved in a bid from the university to the ESRC to create 50 new scholarships per year for the next five years and it's all about interdisciplinarity and my last count 37 multidisciplinary centres research groups and so on and so forth maybe they're not visible enough but there is some resistance with it but I think the vision is there to change things but not the voice the voice needs to catch up with the vision Have you had enough thinking time now? I don't know I would say that I have looked at it personally the provision of other public goods in relation to violence but what I find is that they go together the provision of goods in relation to security and justice or the lack of tend to correlate with the lack of provision of other social goods from the state the study that I did in Latin America used a very compound indicator of trust in institutions and it wasn't just about criminal justice institutions it was also about parliaments and other forms of state institutions and all of that correlates well together there's lack of trust in one and this was highly related to support for violence in British America so in that sense I would say theoretically yes I think it would have the same effect and empirically maybe hopefully in relation to perceived inequality I unfortunately you're right that most of these studies are all macro level and it's a great relationship on the macro level and it's easy to point to and say yes the higher inequality higher violence but unfortunately there's not a lot that I know of in relation to violence that has unpacked this multi level mechanism so if theoretically it's about perceived inequality and so if someone perceives the income inequality to be legitimate then it would likely not be to the sorts of negative primary outcomes that are proposed but if it perceives the income inequality to be very illegitimate then this can create frustration and aggression according to the theory of negative outcomes and I think you weren't quite a problem Ever can I land on you maybe to tell us I mean again as the others I agree and I think actually the key to your point is not only also the presence of diversifying the universe in terms of individuals I think the key is also in as much of the university's concept is the whole politics and the making of knowledge and how we produce and we produce knowledge and I think in that respect I would actually not really engage with this and not buy into this divide between the sciences and the humanities because I think the problem is compounded in both of these areas the way we produce knowledge and what sort of text are we putting out there what sort of thought, what sort of ideas we are producing is I think extremely important and in that respect I think it is going to cause some difficulties because if it is based on precisely this idea or sort of ideological compact and uniformity it prevents the sort of thing that precisely could lead us to genuine diversification which is not just the diversification of people but also sort of promoting ideas which are very very different from all around so I think you are right and I think as any other university should play a crucial role in sort of doing that because I am concerned I think from what I have heard this year there is also some students very student groups that call for the decolonisation of the various curriculum I think these kind of initiatives are absolutely fantastic and absolutely crucial to sort of diversifying the space on your point I think you are right I think what is interesting again about the event and that is what we were discussing the other day is not just the question of privatising public functions but that prevent funding has considerably has been considerably reduced and I think this denotes a shift in our theories of the state which is not just privatisation it is increasing reliance on private and other actors to fulfil what are essentially very core public functions and the completely but I think in terms of what theory of the state we want to fit into there is a paradox between a very strong state because it prevents the fact that it is now trying in law is the testimony of the fact that the state is taking a much more robust line towards that but again much less state and as much as you are right all of these functions are being contracted out, privatised and so on and so forth so some will say so I think there is a lot of writing again on your neoliberal state and its main characteristics I think privatisation is one of them and that is a fact that many people have talked about and the increasingly security state in the sense that the problem to me and I think that this sort of thing I would want to be looking at when I am interested in prevent is that it is not only that you are privatised but when you are privatised as responsible for performing a particular publing function a function which is quite different from the one that we are intended to be co-opting existing functions so that they will gradually either disappear or at least being co-opted in a sense that publing functions will not only be privatised but will also be side-light as a result of this privatisation that has occurred because of course if I have to sort of perform this preventive as a repressive function a visiting function and also a university freedom function I don't see how this is going to sort of happen without alienating what the state is supposedly about as well Yeah, well I think that's a perhaps a really interesting point to end on, if there are thirdly questions we can probably one more we definitely have to be out by pie too I don't want to miss anybody out but it's a really interesting place to end that I think what we've come to is or I've come to is some understanding of the role of the state in being more overt in some of its legal powers but also more covert in the ways that they're being carried out and the mechanisms through which they are which I think in light of Amy's theory is very troubling and then in light of things that Ryan told us about the prospect for subversive kindness to actually come through and shape our society those kinds of combination of overt and covert mechanisms together uniquely maybe exclude the kinds of other voices that Alison talked about that we would want to have present within these theories of the state so that's not the most hopeful note to end on but at least for myself it's meant that I have a bit more clarity of thinking around the situation and perhaps how it is or what it is that we must do to be able to bring those voices of subversive kindness to the poor so I shall leave you with that and we'll ponder on it until two weeks time and we'll see you back here I hope thank you ever so much to our speakers for today