The diversity officer: Police officers' and black women civilians' epistemologies of race and racism in policing

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI:10.1111/lasr.12623
Shannon Malone Gonzalez, Samantha J. Simon, Katie Kaufman Rogers
{"title":"The diversity officer: Police officers' and black women civilians' epistemologies of race and racism in policing","authors":"Shannon Malone Gonzalez,&nbsp;Samantha J. Simon,&nbsp;Katie Kaufman Rogers","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Diversifying police forces has been suggested to improve “police-minority relations” amidst national uprisings against police violence. Yet, little research investigates how police and black civilians—two groups invoked in discourse on “police-minority relations”—understand the function of diversity interventions. We draw on 100 in-depth interviews with 60 black women civilians and 40 police from various racial and ethnic backgrounds to explore how they understand the function of racial diversity in policing. Findings highlight discrepancies in how these two groups frame the utility of racial diversity in policing, revealing conflicting epistemologies of race and racism. Police draw on an <i>epistemology of racial ignorance</i> (Mills 1997, 2007, 2015) to selectively accommodate race-conscious critique while denying the history and power dynamics between the institution and minority communities. Conversely, black women civilians, grounded in a <i>standpoint epistemology</i> (Collins, 1986, 2009), emphasize the historical roots of policing, along with collective memories, and lived experiences to understand the relationship between the institution and minority communities. Through a comparative analysis of these frames, we theorize dominant/state-sponsored discourse on diversity and police-minority relations as form of <i>racecraft</i> (Fields &amp; Fields 2012, 2014) that serves to legitimize negligible institutional change to policing in an era of renewed scrutiny of police racism.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":"56 3","pages":"477-499"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12623","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Diversifying police forces has been suggested to improve “police-minority relations” amidst national uprisings against police violence. Yet, little research investigates how police and black civilians—two groups invoked in discourse on “police-minority relations”—understand the function of diversity interventions. We draw on 100 in-depth interviews with 60 black women civilians and 40 police from various racial and ethnic backgrounds to explore how they understand the function of racial diversity in policing. Findings highlight discrepancies in how these two groups frame the utility of racial diversity in policing, revealing conflicting epistemologies of race and racism. Police draw on an epistemology of racial ignorance (Mills 1997, 2007, 2015) to selectively accommodate race-conscious critique while denying the history and power dynamics between the institution and minority communities. Conversely, black women civilians, grounded in a standpoint epistemology (Collins, 1986, 2009), emphasize the historical roots of policing, along with collective memories, and lived experiences to understand the relationship between the institution and minority communities. Through a comparative analysis of these frames, we theorize dominant/state-sponsored discourse on diversity and police-minority relations as form of racecraft (Fields & Fields 2012, 2014) that serves to legitimize negligible institutional change to policing in an era of renewed scrutiny of police racism.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多样性官员:警察和黑人女平民对警务中种族和种族主义的认识论。
在反对警察暴力的全国起义中,有人建议警察部队多样化,以改善“警察与少数民族的关系”。然而,很少有研究调查警察和黑人平民这两个群体在“警察与少数群体关系”的讨论中是如何理解多样性干预的功能的。我们对来自不同种族和族裔背景的60名黑人女性平民和40名警察进行了100次深入采访,以探讨他们如何理解种族多样性在警务中的作用。调查结果突显了这两个群体在界定种族多样性在警务中的效用方面的差异,揭示了种族和种族主义的相互矛盾的认识论。警方利用种族无知的认识论(Mills 199720072015)来选择性地容纳有种族意识的批判,同时否认该机构与少数族裔社区之间的历史和权力动态。相反,基于立场认识论(Collins 19862009),黑人女性平民强调警务的历史根源,以及集体记忆和生活经历,以理解该机构与少数族裔社区之间的关系。通过对这些框架的比较分析,我们将主导/国家支持的关于多样性和警察与少数群体关系的话语理论化为赛马的形式(Fields and Fields 20122014),这有助于在重新审视警察种族主义的时代,使微不足道的警务制度变革合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Founded in 1966, Law & Society Review (LSR) is regarded by sociolegal scholars worldwide as a leading journal in the field. LSR is a peer-reviewed publication for work bearing on the relationship between society and the legal process, including: - articles or notes of interest to the research community in general - new theoretical developments - results of empirical studies - and reviews and comments on the field or its methods of inquiry Broadly interdisciplinary, Law & Society Review welcomes work from any tradition of scholarship concerned with the cultural, economic, political, psychological, or social aspects of law and legal systems.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The end of family court: How abolishing the court brings justice to children and families. By Jane M. Spinak. New York: New York University Press, 2023. 384 pp. $35.00 hardcover Data and democracy at work: Advanced information technologies, labor law and the new working class. By Brishen Rogers. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2023. 288 pp. $50.00 paperback Reflections on South Africa's first Black Chief Justice, Ismail Mahomed The life and death of constitutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1