Pub Date : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8742
Gwendoline M. Alphonso
The Article argues that at the core of the American neoliberal policy regime, of which child welfare is a critical part, lies an enduring raced family policy logic of two racially stratified standards: a punitive Black economic utility family standard and a supportive white domestic affection family standard, whose policy roots and practices trace back to slavery in the antebellum South. Historically and contemporaneously, state regulation of poor Black families has been shaped by, and in turn perpetuates, the Black economic utility standard that normalizes and places political value above all else on the promotion of labor by Black mothers outside of their homes in service of a racially-discriminatory market order. By doing so, the state devalues the affective, nurturing labor that Black mothers perform within their households and towards their children. Long followed in Southern local policy practices and led by the efforts of congressmen from the South, the Black economic utility standard is shown to have been formalized nationally within the neoliberal policy regime through a repurposing of overtly racial ideas into behavioral values of work and self-sufficiency that are enshrined in social and child welfare reforms. The Article suggests that the deployment of the Black economic utility standard by the neoliberal policy regime pathologizes poor Black women’s childbearing and motherhood as economically irresponsible, obscures centuries-long structural inequalities and racial family coercion, and serves to perpetuate and justify Black family disruptions in colorblind ways.
{"title":"Political-Economic Roots of Coercion","authors":"Gwendoline M. Alphonso","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8742","url":null,"abstract":"The Article argues that at the core of the American neoliberal policy regime, of which child welfare is a critical part, lies an enduring raced family policy logic of two racially stratified standards: a punitive Black economic utility family standard and a supportive white domestic affection family standard, whose policy roots and practices trace back to slavery in the antebellum South. Historically and contemporaneously, state regulation of poor Black families has been shaped by, and in turn perpetuates, the Black economic utility standard that normalizes and places political value above all else on the promotion of labor by Black mothers outside of their homes in service of a racially-discriminatory market order. By doing so, the state devalues the affective, nurturing labor that Black mothers perform within their households and towards their children. Long followed in Southern local policy practices and led by the efforts of congressmen from the South, the Black economic utility standard is shown to have been formalized nationally within the neoliberal policy regime through a repurposing of overtly racial ideas into behavioral values of work and self-sufficiency that are enshrined in social and child welfare reforms. The Article suggests that the deployment of the Black economic utility standard by the neoliberal policy regime pathologizes poor Black women’s childbearing and motherhood as economically irresponsible, obscures centuries-long structural inequalities and racial family coercion, and serves to perpetuate and justify Black family disruptions in colorblind ways.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125919642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-01DOI: 10.52214/cjrl.v11i2.8739
Alexis Hoag
On November 20–21, 2020, the Columbia Journal of Race and Law hosted a virtual two-day symposium entitled How the Law Underdeveloped Racial Minorities in the United States. Broadly, the theory of underdevelopment looks at the standard of life in a nation as a measure of that country’s economic conditions. The application of this theory in the context of the law and as a measure of the quality of life of racial minorities stems from Professor Manning Marable’s work on capitalism and the economic and social conditions of Black Americans. In her Closing Remarks, Professor Alexis Hoag provided context for the contemporary application of Professor Marable’s theory in light of current events, exploring the Coronavirus pandemic, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the 2020 Presidential Election. She then introduced carceral abolition as a theoretical and practical framework to understand the law’s underdevelopment of Black people and to help address the criminal legal system’s disparate impact on racial minorities.
{"title":"Closing Remarks","authors":"Alexis Hoag","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v11i2.8739","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v11i2.8739","url":null,"abstract":"On November 20–21, 2020, the Columbia Journal of Race and Law hosted a virtual two-day symposium entitled How the Law Underdeveloped Racial Minorities in the United States. Broadly, the theory of underdevelopment looks at the standard of life in a nation as a measure of that country’s economic conditions. The application of this theory in the context of the law and as a measure of the quality of life of racial minorities stems from Professor Manning Marable’s work on capitalism and the economic and social conditions of Black Americans. \u0000In her Closing Remarks, Professor Alexis Hoag provided context for the contemporary application of Professor Marable’s theory in light of current events, exploring the Coronavirus pandemic, the Black Lives Matter Movement, and the 2020 Presidential Election. She then introduced carceral abolition as a theoretical and practical framework to understand the law’s underdevelopment of Black people and to help address the criminal legal system’s disparate impact on racial minorities.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114661366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：