Imagine yourself walking in the middle of the night, and suddenly, a person approaches you with a gun and threatens to rob you of all your possessions. Take a moment to focus on the robber’s physical appearance, what does the robber look like? Regardless of what the robber looks like, the physical characteristics of him or her have no actual significance. The purpose of this scenario is to show how visualizing and defining a criminal based on physical features is a form of active participation within the system of mass incarceration.
The appearance of the theoretical robber was formed from egemony and preconceived notions of what a robber, or any criminal, looks like. Similarly, during the War on Drugs from the 1980s to the early 2000s, law enforcement sought out possible drug offenders based on hegemonic beliefs of race and class that have developed over time. Consequently, this led to the disproportional incarceration of minority groups, especially African Americans, to the point where they represented over 80 to 90 percent of all arrested drug offenders (Alexander 64).
In her work The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander discusses the contradictions within the justice system that resulted the ystemic and disproportional incarceration of minorities during the War on Drugs. With a clear understanding of systems and their significance within society, it is evident that bias within the justice system contributed to the perpetuation of historical racial formations and hegemony, inevitably causing the unprecedented rate of mass incarcerations in the United States.
Furthermore, by taking paths of least resistance, individuals, law enforcement, and even the Supreme Court allowed for the continued existence of such a problematic system. Michelle Alexander delves into the War on Drugs with ncredible detail, allowing for a better understanding of the justice system’s role in the unequal incarceration of African Americans. Alexander’s leading argument is that “in the drug war, the enemy is racially defined”, contradicting the narrative that “the enemy in the war is a thing-drugs” (64).
She suggests that this disproportional rates of African American incarceration in comparison to whites is largely due to the “media imagery [people] are fed daily and the racial composition of our prisons and jails”; however, the reality is that a large population of drug sers and dealers were whites (Alexander 65). Alexander analyzes the racial formations of African Americans, where structure, such as the government and the media, and representation, the widespread dominant ideologies and hegemony that the media and people spread, inevitably racialized African Americans as the main enemy of the drug war.
These racial formations have historical roots from earlier period of history in America. Although the War on Drugs is a relatively recent series of events, the racialization of minority groups has been a major theme in the history of the United States. These historical racial formations significantly influence the disproportional incarcerations of minorities, particularly African Americans, in the system of mass incarcerations. Participants in the system of mass incarceration often claim that African Americans “have much higher rates of violent crime; that’s why so many of them are locked in prisons” (Alexander 66).
This statement reveals a contradiction, for only a small portion of convicted African Americans are a result of violent crimes. The belief of this claim is largely due to historical racial formations of African Americans that date back to the era of slavery, where African Americans were considered savages, inhuman, and uncivilized. These arguments and as well as scientific racism, the belief that African Americans were inferior because of biological differences, were used as justification by American settlers to force African Americans into slavery.
Although such racist ideologies are not actively enforced during the drug war, these hegemonic and unconscious beliefs of African Americans are present and widespread, as seen through government and media propaganda. Furthermore, the racialization of the drug war has its roots in historical instances where the United States racialized other minorities as drug criminals. For example, the justification for the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was that the Chinese were smuggling vast amounts of Opium into the United States.
However, this was a contradiction for the real reason was that many white Americans feared the economic advances that many Chinese immigrants made (Gagnon, 01. 25. 17). ilarly, this application of racial formation permeates throughout the system of mass incarceration, targeting African Americans as the main enemy of the drug war. Combined with how a system functions, these historical racial formations and hegemonic beliefs regarding African Americans contributed immensely to their high rates of incarceration for drug crimes.
The system of mass incarceration is highly complex in its ability to normalize the drastic racial disparities of drug-related arrests through its influence on people. In his essay “Patriarchy, The System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us,” Allan Johnson describes social systems as ways in which people define themselves and relate to others based on their individual ositions within society; people create social systems, and their participation contributes largely to how they are ideologically shaped (25).
For example, law enforcement officials participated within this system when they were given “discretion regarding whom to stop, search, arrest, and charge for drug offenses;” the system of mass incarceration, through government and the media, propagandized the image of African Americans as the enemy of the drug war, thus “conscious and unconscious racial beliefs and stereotypes [were] given free reign “(Alexander 67).
Law enforcement were inevitably influenced ideologically by these racial formations and hegemonic beliefs because of their active participation within the system. These ideologies stem from racism and discrimination; however, the system’s enforcement of racially colorblind ideology makes it impossible for law enforcement to realize their perpetuation of such ideologies. Moreover, the system justifies the disproportional incarceration of African Americans through its distinction of the public good.
For law enforcement, to defend the public good was to essentially seek out potential African American drug ffenders, because they were whom the system targeted as the enemy. The system’s ability to ideologically shape people was also present among ordinary people. For example, explicit and implicit bias tests show that many people, including African Americans, are more hostile and condemning when exposed to suggestions or images of drug crimes committed by African Americans (Alexander 69).
People participated within this system, whether they knew it or not, when they witnessed these racial formations and dominant ideologies spread throughout society. Similar to law enforcement, people’s perceptions of the ublic good were shaped ideologically by their participation system. Thus, even people who claimed to be non- discriminatory were subconsciously biased to the hegemonic belief that African Americans were the enemy of the drug war. Nonetheless, individuals influence social systems as much as social systems influence individuals.
However, many individuals choose to take paths of least resistance instead, whether consciously or unconsciously, allowing the growth of a failing system. As individuals participate in social systems, they take paths of least resistance that lead to serious contradictions and tensions. Taking the path of least resistance is essentially making both conscious and unconscious decisions that allow the major problems of a system to remain unchallenged (Johnson 29).
Although taking paths of least resistance exacerbate the growth of a problematic system, there are major incentives that influence people to take them. For example, The media is the largest participant in taking the path of least resistance. Its use of false narratives and over exaggerated crime, as seen in its disproportional coverage of homicide convictions and the mass publication of African American cocaine users, resulted in the idespread hegemony of African Americans as criminals and drug offenders.
The system claims to be non-discriminatory, justifying its actions in the false narratives that transformed African Americans into the main enemy of the drug war. Furthermore, law enforcement officials and individuals within society took paths of least resistance as well, for they actively related African Americans to drug crimes whether consciously or unconsciously. Taking paths of least resistance allows for a problematic system to thrive, leading to contradictions and tensions.
