discussion, reading, social justice, journal

Journal of Pastoral Theology, 25. 2, 932015 ,106־

CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAL THEOLOGY OF INCARCERATION

James Higginbotham

Earlbam School of Religion, Richmond, IK

In the C0nnt٩ with the highest incarceration rate intbe world, atbick understanding of the dynamics that make the II.s. a prison society 1؟ needed In order to develop an adequate pastoral theological response. This paper examines how socioeconomic oppressive forces - particularly; race and class, distortions of the need for safety and Images of justice, and psyjcbosocial processes of otbering and scapegoating undergird mass Incaiceiatlon. The anthoi offeis suggestions foi fwthei theological leflectlon about the laclst, Impeilal foundations of the justice system.

This project began in November 2013 at a Religion and the Social Sciences Section of the American Academy of Religion (AAR) on mass incarceration. I was nodding along empathetically with a panel of academics and activists, appreciative of the practical approach, when the discussion took an unexpected turn. A pastor started talking about how the Church largely ignores this issue and wondered how that could change. My mind went to the Society of Pastoral Theology (SPT) - we had to be the best scholars to help churches. Then my jaw literally dropped. In 16 years at the SPT, I could not remember a single paper or workshop on prisons, prison ministry or even prison chaplaincy, nor at any other practical theol- ogy meeting. I could recall only one mention of incarceration as an issue. I felt sud- denly convicted and told the AAR group that I was worried that racism was a major factor in this omission, but I would commit to doing research during my upcoming sabbatical.

Before returning home, I confirmed that there were no references to prison or incarceration in the Journal of Pastoral Theology (JPT). In fact, there are less than a dozen articles on this topic in any pastoral care journal in the last 20 years, almost all of which are about prison chaplaincy, with several written by Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE) students. Books on prison chaplaincy are meager and there are no extensive discussions in pastoral care or pastoral theology books about ministry to this population. Few mainline white churches seem to have prison ministries؛ I suspect they may be more common among Evangelical and African-American faith communities.

Why is there such paucity of research on this important aspect of our society by pastoral theologians like myself? Clearly, these matters pertain to our field: the harm

DOI 10.1179/10649867152.00000000011© Society for Pastoral Theology 20r5

HIGGINBOTHAM94 .ل

to families and the suffering of victims and offenders, part of the ministry to which Jesus called his followers. This question cannot be answered fully here: there is only space to begin to understand this deficiency. I will provide a broad overview of the issue of incarceration and examine a few of the psychosocial dynamics involved before developing a précis to the theological dimension.

Ideally, a paper like this should be well grounded in praxis. I recently spent 24 hours in a prison as a participant with a dozen inmates in a program on alterna- tives to violence. I have been in one penal facility at each of the local, state, and federal levels. As a community mental health worker and a chaplain at a state mental hospital, I counseled and ministered to many persons who had been incarcerated or were currently detained. Thus, I have familiarity with some of the challenges of incarceration and post-imprisonment, but none in prison min- istry or many other practical aspects of the ‘justice’ system. In fact, as an upper- middle-class white male, I have no personal experience in the criminal justice system — having never been arrested or detained by police — and I have no close relatives that have been imprisoned. Despite my disconnect and ignorance, I hope that this preliminary examination of the theological dimensions of incar- ceration facilitates further exploration of the pastoral and political issues involved.!

Incarceration Demographics

The United States not only incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, we also imprison a much higher percentage than all other countries, includ- ing those often criticized by our government for their injustice. The current American rates of incarceration were last seen in forced labor camps during World War II in the middle of the 20th century in Europe and Asia.

International Rates of Incarceration 2012/2013 1000ألالذ00لالآل700

000 PeoplImprisonment Rate Per 100

Source: Walndey.R- (213נ). WorldPrkonPoiH List

US Rwanda

Russia Brazil Spain

Australia China

Canada Austria France

Germany Denmark Sweden

India

95CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAT THEOTOGY OF INCARCERATION

2012: 1,570,400

TRENDS IN U S. CORRECTIONS U.S. state and Federal Priso״ Population, 19252012

I 800,000 600,000

400,000 —

200.Μ0

As one can see from this chart drawn from Bureau of Justice prison population reports (Sentencing Project, 2012), incarceration in prisons has exploded over a 25-year period. These figures do not include jails or immigration facilities. Due to some new sentencing rules, the u.s. has seen a recent drop in incarceration, but not for minorities. Almost 50% of admissions to federal prison are now immigra- tion-related (Human Rights Watch, 2014).

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

The upsurge in the prison population is significantly due to a more than 12-fold increase in the imprisonment of drug users and dealers (chart above: Sentencing Project, 2012). The ‘War on Drugs’ also has racial dimensions, as will be discussed later.

و6 ل . HIGGINBOTHAM

Incarceration is not the onJy way in which persons are under the control of the penal system. Seven million people are either behind bars or subject to parole or pro- bationary regulations. I describe it as a system of control not just because of restric- tions on movement and other behavior. People accused and convicted of crimes face a daunting economic and social quagmire.

Persons who are simply accused of crimes are charged large fees for participating in the justice system (Shapiro, 2014): application and reimbursement fees for a public defender؛ fees for room, board, and healthcare in jails and prisons؛ jury fees؛ prosecution reimbursement fees؛ surcharges؛ restitution fees for court adminis- trative costs؛ and fees for designated funds (e.g., libraries, prison construction, etc.). After serving time, the fees include: probation and parole supervision fees؛ drug testing fees؛ vehicle interlock device fees (for DUIs); rental of electronic monitoring devices؛ and mandatory treatment, therapy, and class fees.

Each step of the justice process can cost hundreds of dollars, even for a constitu- tionally guaranteed public defender: someone earning as little as $3000/year might be required to hire their own lawyer (Shapiro, 2014). The economically disadvan- taged, including the innocent, are at further risk of losing public housing or food stamps for not paying fines and interest.

Those on probation and parole are often put back behind bars for not paying monthly fees for parole officers and court-mandated treatments totaling hundreds of dollars per month. This economic Catch-22 effectively snares people in the penal system, supporting both the governmental and private institutions that ‘serve’ the public good. As detailed in the recent Justice Department (US DOJ Civil Rights Division, 2015) report on Ferguson, Missouri, local governments can profit from these oppressive and typically racially biased systems: “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs” (p. 2). The prison-industrial complex often is guaranteed certain population levels when contracted to operate correctional facilities for county, state, and federal governments.

The racial inequities of the system have been well documented: about 70% of those incarcerated are persons of color (Taylor, 2014). Stop and frisk laws, profiling, and disproportionate punishments (e.g., between crack and powder cocaine) have ensured that black males are the most common casualties in the ‘War on Drugs’, but other minorities are also disproportionately arrested. This is despite the fact that people of all races and ethnicities use and deal in illegal drugs at similar rates. Some studies show that white youths are more likely to engage in drug crime than their counterparts (Alexander, 2012). In several states, African-American males are incarcerated on drug charges at 20-50 times the rate of white males؛ country-wide, the rate is ten-times higher (Alexander, 2012). In fact, a typical African-American serves almost as much prison time for a drug offense as a white person does for a violent crime, both at around 60 months (Sentencing Project, 2012).

Drug crimes actually were declining when the drug war was declared in 182و. Crack emerged in 1985, but with hyped publicity, such as the misattribution of famous overdoses of sports figures, such as Len Bias and Don Rogers, to crack. Severe penalties for small amounts of drugs and billions in incentive-based funds to state and local governments fed the burgeoning system, which has swept large percentages of persons of color into prison. As a result, there are now more

97CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAL THEOIOGY OF INCARCERATION

African-Americans under the control of the criminal justice system than there were slaves at any point in u.s. history. No wonder mass incarceration has been called “the new Jim Crow” (Alexander, 2012).

This racial bias is particularly heinous with regard to the death penalty. Blacks who are convicted of killing whites are proportionately the most likely persons to be sent to death row, particularly in certain parts of the country (Sentencing Project, 2012). The fairness of many such trials is questionable given that half of death row inmates convicted in the South had all-white or all-but-one-white person juries (Death Penalty Information Center, 2014).

Mental illness is another important aspect of incarceration. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH, 2014), at least half of those who are incarcerated would qualify for a diagnosis of mental illness. More than ten times as many persons with mental illness reside in state prisons and county jails as in state hospitals (Insel, 2014). Substance-related disorders are the most common cat- egory, but mood disorders occur in more than a quarter of all inmates, and psychotic disorders are almost as common. Although many receive consistent psychotropic treatment behind bars, recidivism is extremely common in part because medications are too expensive and proper professional support is lacking when they complete their sentence.

One last area to consider is how youths are ushered into the criminal justice system. The American practice of charging minors with adult crimes is nearly unmatched anywhere in the world. The number of youths incarcerated with adults is staggering, reaching a peak of nearly 15,000 in the mid-1990s, and now standing at more than 6,000 (Sentencing Project, 2014). Many experts believe that the under-resourced, harshly ruled, and prison-like environments of schools sig- nificantly contribute to incarceration rates in the poorest, most ghettoized neighbor- hoods, forming a ‘school-to-prison pipeline’, especially for racial minorities who are suspended from schools at higher rates (Advancement Project, n.d.).

This brief overview of the demographics and contributing factors of incarceration demonstrates hegemonic qualities related to race and class in the justice system. A more in-depth understanding of the particular cultural manifestations of the human condition is needed to create a fitting basis for theological reflection. Therefore, I examine some of the psychosocial dynamics that explain why this racist, economically exploitative situation of mass incarceration exists.

Safety

The average person in the u.s. would likely say that we need prisons in order to have safe communities. This is understandable, even though more than half of those in prison have not committed violent crimes (Sentencing Project, 2012). Moreover, evi- dence indicates that prison has little if any deterrence effect: those who go to prison often commit worse crimes after release and prison may not prevent criminal activity at all (Clear, 2007).

As Maslow (1943) and many others have argued, safety is a principal need of humans. Perceptions of law, order, security, and stability are among our strongest motivators. Less commonly named are the unconscious and systemic dynamics

و8 ل . HIGGINBOTHAM

behind these perceptions and wishes. Individuals and groups often act automatically to create an apparent stable environment. As with all unconscious, strong motiva- tors, the identity of an individual or group becomes linked to the need and its related perceptions. For safety, the desire for law and order is attributed to morals. Qualities of good and bad develop as essential in the identity of self and others for assessing the safeness of circumstances. Since many of these judgments are unconscious, we easily fall prey to moral superiority, separating ourselves from others (Erikson, 1 و6و ).

On the conscious level, a popular argument is that a minority of immoral individ- uals commits crimes. The laws and legal structures of the majority are both fair and generally effective, since a large preponderance obeys them and there is a basically stable social order. This believed effectiveness and democratic consent provides legitimacy to the legal system and further reinforces its just nature, when one assumes that nonconformity of criminals is the greatest internal threat to security, harsh judicial sentences may be necessary and appropriate to control them. Therefore, in keeping with this logic, the problem is not how society is structured, nor its values, but rather is those individuals who choose to ignore the agreed norms of society. In light of the evidence above, I assert that this is scapegoating or othering, an extremely common human response to the vicissitudes of life to which even compassionate professionals are susceptible.

James Waller (2002), a professor of psychology who has written extensively on prejudice, racism and genocide, offers a multilayered explanation for scapegoating. Waller describes three common mechanisms that are used to legitimate seeing the ‘other’ as a threat or less valuable, serving to victimize them: 1) ‘us’ versus ‘them’ thinking2 ؛) blaming the victims؛ and 3) dehumanizing victims.

‘Us’ VERSUS ‘Them’

Humans seem to categorize persons naturally, perhaps as an evolutionary survival strategy, creating social classifications like groups (race, gender, etc.), roles, and occupations (Waller, 2002). These are used, for example, to organize and systema- tize the social world, to make sense of strangers, as handles for interpersonal relations, and to help in creating identity.

These categories and their related psychosocial functions are influential in estab- lishing social order. Groups develop boundaries as a part of their identity, resulting in comparisons with other individuals and groups: we are insiders, they are outsi- ders. Significantly, strict boundaries of US versus them may arise even if the members of the group have no common history, direct contact, or other natural bond. This has been shown in numerous studies of strangers who actually or vir- tually create groups. For instance, people tend to form a shared view of outsiders as undesirable outcasts without ever meeting one of them, simply from a description of behaviors (Waller, 2002).

Research also shows that social categorization significantly influences perception of outsiders and insiders (Waller, 2002). There is a strong belief in three related assessments that separate US from them: 1) the in-group considers itself homo- geneous regarding the perceived determining factors, even when there is actually

CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAT THEOIOGY OF INCARCERATIONوو

great diversity2 ؛) there is a parallel belief in an out-group homogeneity, which con- tains a powerful negative bias؛ and 3) the distinctions between them and US are heavily accentuated. Consequently, in studies of simulated groups, members consist- ently overestimate differences from the outsiders and maintain a bias of superiority within the inner circle (Waller, 2002). In these ways, social exclusion, prejudice, and even hostility can develop without a significant history or relationship with the sea- pegoated groups. Given the history of slavery and Jim Crow, Waller’s research would seem to support Michelle Alexander’s (2012) claim of a racial caste system in the u.s. These dynamics also help to explain why “White Americans overestimate the proportion of crime committed by people of color, and associate people of color with criminality” (Sentencing Project, 2014, p. 3).

Possible motivations for such partiality include the increased self-esteem that is derived from being an insider and the need to justify the values of the in-group (Waller, 2002). This latter impulse is partially the basis for dichotomous categoriz- ations, such as good/bad and normal/abnormal, which is a common element of these processes. Social norms also are maintained by such differentiation on a broad cultural scale, reinforcing power differences. These concepts help to maintain the status quo, including sexist, racist, and classist advantages in economic and other cultural institutions. Perhaps further reinforcing this otherness is research indicating that persons with more power have less empathy for those with less power (Inzlicht and Obhi, 2014). I have often heard persons who have been imprisoned describe the trap of the oppressive personal and institutional system around them as feeling like an ‘other.’ Thus, on a wide-ranging scale, the dynamic of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ in the definition of what is normal and good may serve a hegemonic purpose that is reinforced by the next mechanism of scapegoating.

Blaming THE Victims

When social stressors such as a perceived threat to safety are added, there is a ten- dency to blame victims as the source of the distress. Group pressure or a sense of rivalry is not necessary for one to attribute the cause of real or potential suffering to ‘outsiders.’ Bias and favoritism tend to lose their benign characters when people are faced with personal or collective distress. This may be reflected in a recent report (Sentencing Project, 2014) about race and criminality: “Whites are more punitive than blacks and Hispanics even though they experience less crime” (p. 3).

Waller (2002) asserts that one of the origins of blaming victims is moral reason- ing. In an attempt to give meaning to suffering, the conclusion is drawn that some must deserve it and others do not. This attribution is not always dualistic - those who suffer are bad and the more fortunate are good people - but culpability is largely removed from the group making the judgment so as to preserve a sense of a just world (Girard, 1986).

Empirical research bears out the importance of moral justification of suffering, particularly when there is chaos or ambiguity. One study (Waller, 2002) showed that female college students, who think they are seeing their peers receive painful shocks, negatively judge the supposed victims when the observers feel they have

HIGGINBOTHAM .ل

no contro) of the situation. In contrast, students who thought they had permitted some pain in the experiment did not denigrate their ‘victims.’ Waher (2002) reports the researchers’ conclusion that “those who believed that the suffering was unstoppable denigrated the victim so that they could justify what they had seen” (p. 251). People frequently seem to make sense of suffering by attributing it to moral inferiority.

Such studies reflect a critical aspect of the human condition: people have a deep- seated desire for reasons for the suffering they see and experience. This yearning for order to the universe is so strong that people will scapegoat others to create logic, sometimes even if they are culpable. Scapegoats do not necessarily have to do any- thing to be given the role؛ they only have to be different, vulnerable, and a direct or indirect victim of the suffering. This second mechanism of scapegoating is very com- monly applied when harm is clearly evident. Bystanders, perpetrators, and victims all use such logic to construe events so that people are believed to get what they deserve, regardless of the validity of the reasoning.

René Girard (11986 ,77و), the famous social and literary theorist, describes sea- pegoating as a safety valve for built-up resentments and violent impulses that are constituent to society. The desire for the same things and equal or greater power to that of others creates conflict and violence. The identification and sacrifice of a surrogate is a cathartic event that becomes salvific. The violence does not boil over into anarchy, but is directed toward the scapegoat. Girard does not emphasize a crucial point here: given that there are limited resources and a short supply of power, contests for these are inevitable.

History repeatedly shows that dominant cultural groups would rather blame a few than disturb a false social harmony. Blame is particularly common when a sea- pegoated group violates accepted norms, even when the deck is stacked such that their ‘deviant acts’ are for survival. Girard (1986) is also undoubtedly correct that while we easily recognize others’ surrogate victims, we are usually blind to scape- goats in our own cultural context. We assume that those we judge abnormal or evil are legitimately deviant.

Denial is one of the powerful self-protective aspects of scapegoating. By blaming a victim, we are able to perceive the world as more ordered, we have an outlet for our frustrations, and perhaps we have less reason to feel guilty. As Waller (2002) observes, displacing our anxiety and anger toward a victim allows US to deny our vulnerability and create an “illusion of understanding and control that arises from identifying the ‘cause’ of one’s problem” (p. 256). This would seem to be particu- larly relevant to a sense of security. Girard (1986) argues that some hiddenness is necessary for the effective social cohesiveness of scapegoating. Myths and rituals not only give order and meaning to complex cultural forces؛ they also serve as pro- tections against questions that might challenge important social institutions. Thus, the inscrutable aspects of culture, which abound in the criminal justice system, facili- tate scapegoating.

Theologian Mark Lewis Taylor (2001) notes that Christianity has helped perpe- tuate scapegoating, particularly the notion of punishment and execution. Paul, the Gospels, and especially later Christian writers portray Jesus’ death as a necessary sacrifice to save humanity. The Hebrew Bible is read such that Jesus is a scapegoat onto whom the world’s sins are sacrificed. Yet these interpretations are not the only possible meanings of atonement and salvation. The scriptures are filled with anti-

CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAL THEOIOGY OF INCARCERATION IOI

imperia) viewpoints that Jament prisons and consider ‘release of the captives’ as a sign of God’s activity. Liberation - freedom from bondage - is core to the theologies of these traditions and potentially offers a more complete pastoral theology of incarceration.

Dehumanizing Victims

Waller (2002) references Erik Erikson’s concept of pseudospeciation as the basis for the concept of dehumanization. Waller correctly captures Erikson’s (1 و68, 1و6و ) hypothesis that humans naturally divide people into groups as the basis for psycho- social identity and that these groupings are designed to create a sense of superiority in order to maintain their identity. As a result, there is a significant tendency to make others into something far less than we are: a kind of ‘pseudo’-species. Waller observes, following Erikson, that modern examples of this denigration are accom- plished linguistically through propaganda, such as racial stereotypes, slurs, or, for example, the ‘Willie’ Horton advertisement of the 188و Presidential campaign.٤

Waller (2002) does not highlight two relevant aspects to Erikson’s (1 و68, 1و6و ) description of this process. The first is that an essential force in the process of con- struing others as a lesser species is a perceived challenge to the basic social order. When people think that their identity or safety is threatened, they commonly react with exaggerated fear, hatred, and/or dehumanization (Erikson, 1 و6و ). Numerous recent news stories underscore these dynamics. Dark-skinned boys are perceived as menacing, much larger adults by the public and police. The shooting of unarmed black men and abandonment of their bodies, even before death, are atrocious examples of ‘threatening’ people being considered disposable.

A second contribution of Erikson helps explain the experience of menace from persons who are ‘other.’ For Erikson (168و), a psychosocial identity is embodied by a set of ideologies that people tend to ‘absolutize’ in order to maintain a perceived superiority. Ln creating value supremacy, often there is an oppressive and sometimes violent defense against alternative views, usually directed toward minorities in a social group. Erikson (1969) goes on to explain that this aggressive defensiveness becomes incorporated in identity, making ideologies increasingly exclusive. The result is the majority’s perception of a threat from minorities, and a latent antagon- ism within the marginalized toward those in power؛ each side will demonize the other.

Girard (186و) confirms Erikson’s position that majorities and minorities tend to set themselves in opposition to one another through stereotypic characterizations. The demand for conformity creates inflexibility and a corresponding lack of toler- ance for diversity. Girard (186و) asserts that if a small difference is seen as foreign, it then becomes ‘terrifying’ since the system’s relativity and fragility are revealed. Psychologist Phillip Cushman (15وو) points to tendencies within u.s. American culture that exacerbate such harsh prejudice:

There are many complex political and economic reasons for the hegemony of discrimi- nation based on race and gender, but none of them would have attained sufficient power in American society if it weren’t for the characteristic American process of

HIGGINBOTHAM .ل

constructing a psychological identity by projecting that which is considered bad - and thus disavowed - onto ‘the other.’ (p. 345)

Taylor (2001) explicates the dehumanizing practices of the prison system, such as how a culture of rape is used to subjugate the population. “Guards and supervisors connive with a thriving ‘sex chattel’ system in which many men are made ‘female’ sexual slaves, ‘punks’ to other men” (pp. ئ8-وئ ). Prison employees also use their power for their own sexual gratification, especially male guards supervising females. Here, sexism and prison life converge: confined bodies subjugated for plea- sure and amusement.

Therefore, Waller and others theorists demonstrate the prevalence and power of the mechanisms of othering and scapegoating and their connections to racism and other oppressive systems, when combined with the concern for safety, these pro- cesses are key to understanding the psychosocial dimensions of mass incarceration. They are exemplified by a belief that incarcerating or eliminating a few antisocial persons would hold crime in check and create a safer society. This conviction vali- dates the basic morality, stability, and legitimacy of a social order in which deviants are labeled for behavior that is quantitatively, but not categorically different from many in power. Identifying an element in the population as the problem — in this case, largely African-American males, though increasingly other persons of color — diverts attention from potential systemic issues, such as the significant relationship between crime and economic status.

Pastoral Theotogy for an American Context

Whether or not othering and scapegoating dynamics are more common in the u.s. than in other societies, there are insidious aspects to the American experience. I concur with Mark Lewis Taylor (2001) and others who argue that racial subjuga- tion, including its current form of mass incarceration, maintains the hegemony of American capitalism and imperialism. Sacrifice of what Taylor (2001) calls ‘surplus’ people through isolation, intimidation, and execution not only maintains public order, but also keeps broad numbers of ‘others’ complacent. The u.s. has a long history of this oppression: from the ‘Indian wars,’ to slave trade, to the mili- tary-industrial complex (Pax Americana), to the prison-industrial complex, to current economic disparity. Taylor (2001) uses provocative language asserting that Gulag America — the entire legal and criminal justice system — guards the U.S. economic system, especially the elite. Noticeable examples include laws that cater to white shoppers and commuters by preventing panhandling, public feeding, or ‘squeegee men’ from washing your car window.

The concept of American imperialism provides a useful entry point for under- standing the theological underpinnings of the criminal justice system. Every empire has religious narratives that he at the heart of its hegemony, u.s. hegemony in part grew out of manifest destiny exemplified in American exceptionalism: when articulated, this destiny was claimed as a divine calling, a God-ordained right. Since Americans do not like to think of themselves as an empire, these religious foun- dations are generally concealed in other patriotic discourse.

Ryan LaMothe (2007) examines the hidden discourse of u.s. imperiahsm, demonstrating that characteristic American values and what he cahs ‘theo-pohticaJ narratives’ shape American consciousness and reinforce empirica) pohcies and prac- tices. He shows how the ‘sins’ of American imperiahsm — pride, sJoth, greed, and idolatry — are uncritically internalized as positive, even patriotic qualities and reinforce American hegemony.

Likewise, in an ethical examination of the criminal justice system, T. Richard Snyder (2001) asserts that such hegemony is grounded in the view that humanity is above nature and permitted to control and even to exploit it. Scriptural and theo- logical justifications for group superiority are common, generally couched in terms of personal choice — we all choose our lot in life — or that God created everything for a purpose؛ both justifications essentially eliminate systemic evil.

Snyder’s contention that the hegemony of the justice system is undergirded by hubris and guiltless explanations for evil fits well with my contention that scapegoat- ing is grounded in a denial of and a way to cope with the tragic nature of human existence. Our finite life is structured such that human attempts to create fulfilling lives also unintentionally lead to suffering. Complete safety is impossible؛ in fact, our tragically flawed efforts to make life safer for some will make it less safe for others. Without recognition of these complexities and limitations of the human con- dition, scapegoating predominates. Societies, especially the U.S., attempt to deny that they are hegemonically designed to best meet the needs of the powerful, and instead identify a small number of people as the source of most problems.

L believe that a cosmological crisis fundamentally drives othering processes, including that of the justice system. Humanity’s desire for an ordered existence means that people feel reassured when there are good or understandable reasons for the problems they face: the universe is well thought-out or at least predictable. The quest for certitude - moral and otherwise - is part of the fabric of all cultures. Perhaps the most shrouded of these issues is the fairness of life, and the related ques- tion of how responsible we are for the suffering we see around US.

Caught in a dilemma between choice and destiny, cultures develop religious and ideological worldviews to explain suffering and prosperity. These belief systems usually favor one half of a dilemma (e.g., freedom over fate) and partially deny the other. Ln the U.S., there is a denial that our tragically structured life is full of ambiguous situations and incommensurable values. We do not want to believe that life is unfair, limited, and unpredictable, since that would challenge the belief in boundless individual free choice.

Recent studies (Parens, 2014) demonstrate how important the belief in radical freedom is for the justice system. Persons who begin to question the concept of free will are less supportive of the idea that criminals deserve to be punished harshly. Our culture generally assumes that people can control enough of the day- to-day matters to create a good life, despite hardships and without harming others. This ‘American dream’ is a reflection of expressive individualism and self- reliance, which indirectly reinforce the power of the elite.

Furthermore, regarding empires, L assert that they often expand their sphere of influence based on two interconnected pretexts: a threat to security and the super- iority of the realm’s ideology. Both of these premises also seem to be attempts to cope with the tragic nature of human existence. Empires, like other cultural insti- tutions, create malevolent ‘others’ and superlative social doctrines, which establish

CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAL THEOLOGY OF INCARCERATION 103

HIGGINBOTHAM04 .ل

an ordered existence and ethica) certitude in denia) of the complexity and conflicted moral nature of our existence.

Snyder (2001) observes that the hegemony of ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not as easily main- tained in more connected theologies of nature and collective grace, unlike the indi- vidualistic narratives common in the American dream. An affirmation of grace in nature and thus each individual undermines judgmental dualisms. Nature and humans are no longer of instrumental value, subject to objectification, exploitation, and disposal as in the current prison system. Classifications that empires use — male/female, black/white, cowboy/Indian,’ fallen/redeemed, and criminal/law- abider — are ontological judgments of individualized theologies that reinforce the elite’s power in ordered and caste systems.

An emphasis on individualized redemption easily allows for a denial of compli- city, especially among the more powerful: “they are guilty of a crime, so I am inno- cent and not like ‘them.’” History shows that complicity is essential to large-scale evils such as genocide. With mass incarceration, the effects are also pernicious.

For example, ethicist James Logan (2008) observes that a ‘locked-down con- sciousness’ severely limits human flourishing for all of society. People have a limited vision of possibility when there is an assumption that prison is the primary way to protect US from one another. As a result, the subculture on the streets, in which a vast percentage of prisoners arise, becomes more aggressively con- flicted. The ‘social capital’ necessary for communities to flourish is threatened, in addition to other ways that the networks of positive relationships are undermined.

Ethicist Kathryn Soltis (2011) describes the social inequity from mass incarcéra- tion as “invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational” (p. 122). As of 2008, more than 50% of those incarcerated — men and women — were parents of minor chil- dren؛ as many as 80% of women behind bars were mothers. The impact on these children is severely damaging: economic deprivation, diminished parental contact, and the stigma of being labeled as the child of a convict. These ‘collateral conse- quences’ are ignored in determining the justice of the system, because the offender’s full relationality is not taken into account. The current justice system of retribution is not self-contained: beyond those who might have directly caused crimes are many innocent victims of imprisonment.

Such harm to victims, perpetrators, families, and society calls for a compassionate, liberative pastoral theology, unlike the ideologies undergirding incarceration. Practices of restorative justice - an alternative to retributive ‘justice’ - hold rich poten- tial for examination. Presently, the focus is on the perpetrator؛ the state is the injured party, not the victim. Thus, there is often a lack of closure, which perpetuates conflict, violence, and hatred. Restorative justice is a community-based system that attempts to empower victims and provide restitution of losses, while still holding the offender accountable. A possibility of transformation exists, since the offender can attend to underlying issues such as addiction, which contribute to the offending behavior.

Pastoral theologians are well positioned for developing an emancipatory world- view, but racism must be seen as the core of the evil needing liberation. As Alexander (2012) convincingly argues, the racial caste system will only reappear in a new form if the abolition of mass incarceration “...fails to confront squarely the critical role of race in the basic structure of our society, and if it fails to cultivate an ethic of genuine care, compassion, and concern for every human being - of every class, race, and nationality...” (p. 18).

Pastora) theologians have espoused anthropologies and cosmologies emphasizing the inherent value of all persons. Our discipline’s focus on the interconnected nature of human identity is an alternative to othering and scapegoating. For example, Peggy Way (2005) emphasizes that the Creator intends goodness and joy for all persons. Humanity may be caught in the grasp of finitude and chronicity, neither of which is evil, unlike responses to limitation such as racism. However, she asserts that com- monality should only strengthen the resolve to engage others so as to create commu- nity, promote the well-being of all persons, and thus undermine this culture’s tendency to scapegoating. Way’s vision of hope and resistance is unlike many since she calls pastoral theologians both to recognize the suffering in the world and to give witness to the joy that is also present. “Indeed, the presence of joy within liberation movements and deprived communities speaks of the creature’s freedom to play and live on despite their various captivities!” (p. 141).

My suggested metaphor of tragedy is another possible vision, since it calls many of the pernicious ideologies described here into question. If human freedom has a tragic character, being limited and fragile, then people often live in ways that are harmful without even realizing it. Western society’s favored theology of the Fall, in which all evil is the result of personal choice, inhibits the very qualities such as compassion that pastoral theologians seek to inculcate. Put somewhat simplistically, understand- ing suffering as originating in a Fall invites moralisms and judgments of ‘others,’ while tragedy portrays the roots of misery in sympathetic terms.

If the discipline of pastoral theology wants to address the question that inspired this paper, we must involve ourselves in the public discourse about mass incarcéra- tion and its racist, imperial roots. Faith communities need US to provide liberating alternatives to assumptions that circumscribe the (injjustice system, such as a per- spective of human safety based on interdependency instead of fear and violence. I hope others also feel convicted to let their voices be heard.

CONVICTED: TOWARD A PASTORAL THEOLOGY OF INCARCERATION 105

Biographical Note

James Higginbotham is Associate Professor of Pastoral Care and Counseling at Earlham School of Religion. He has taught at colleges and seminaries in Indiana, Ohio, and China؛ and he has broad experience in pastoral ministry, community and pastoral counseling, chaplaincy, and community organizing. Jim is an ordained minister with standing in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). He earned his Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in Religion and Personality with minors in Ethics and Psychology, and has advanced degrees in Pastoral Counseling from Loyola College of Maryland and a M.Div. from Vanderbilt Divinity School. He is a member of: Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Sigma Nu honor societies؛ Society for Pastoral Theology؛ Association of Practical Theology؛ and Person, Culture & Religion Group, American Academy of Religion

Notes 1 I am appreciative to members of the SPT who provided feedback on an earlier version of this paper and

to the editors of this journal for their valuable suggestions. 2 'Willie' Horton, who had been convicted of murder, escaped while on a weekend furlogh program in

Massachusetts and committed rape and armed robbery. Horton was the focus of a Presidential

HIGGINBOTHAM06 .ل

campaign advertisement against Michale Dukakis, the governor of Massachusetts when Horton escaped, using a menacing, dark mugshot and an abbreviated version of his name William.

References Advancement Project, (n.d.). School-to-prison pipeline. Retrieved from http://safequalityschools.org/

pages/school-to-prison-pipelinein-action klexaèc, ikWe. ion. The New jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

New York: New Press. Clear, Toàà 1 100ך. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration makes Disadvantaged

Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press. Cwskan, ؟Ip. وول؛ . Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural History of

Psychotherapy. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Death Penalty Information Center, aorq. Facts about the death penalty. Retrieved from http://WWW.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf Erikson, Erik H. 18ةو. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: w.w. Norton & Co. v.rtason, V.v’\Y YA. وةوذ. Gandhi’s Truth: On the Origins of Militant Nonviolence. "New York: w.w.

Norton & Co. Girard, René. rg77. Violence and the Sacred, trans. p. Gregory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University

Press. Girard, René. 1 و8ة . The Scapegoat, trans. Y. Freccero. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Human Rights Watch. US: A nation behind bars. aorq. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.0rg/news/

aorq/05/06/ us-nation-behind-bars Insel, Thomas. Director's blog: A misfortune not a crime. NIMH. aorq. Retrieved from http://WWW.

nimh.nih.gov/about/director/aorq/a-misfortunenot-a-crime.shtml Inzlicht, Michael and Obhi, Sukhivinder. Powerful and coldhearted. New York Times, aorq. Retrieved

from http:// www.nytimes.com/aorq/07/a7/op؛n؛on/Sunday/powerft1l-and-coldhearted.html LaMothe, Ryan. "Sins of the American empire and pastoral responses.” Pastoral Psychology 5q (aoo7):

45 -ا؟47ت · Aogau, 100 .ة%. Good Punishment?: Christian Moral Practice and u.s. Imprisonment. Gïauà

Rapids: Eerdmans. Maslow, Abraham H. “A theory of human motivation.” Psychological Review 50 (15,43): 370-396. NIMH. Inmates with ra-month mental health problem, aorq. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.

gov/health/statistics/prevalence/_rq8a59.pdf Parens, Erik. aorq. The benefits of 'binocularity.' New York Times. Retrieved from http: //opinionator

.blogs.nytimes.com/aorq/09 /a8 / the-benefits-of-binocularity/ Sentencing Project, Fact sheet: Trends in u.s. corrections, aora. Retrieved from http://sentencingproject.

org/doc/publications/incTrendsinCorrectionsTactsheet.pdf Sentencing Project, Race and punishment: Racial perceptions of crime and support for punitive policies,

aorq. Retrieved from http://twvw.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_Race_and_ Punishment.pdf

Shapiro, Joseph, aorq. As court fees rise, the poor are paying the price. NPR Retrieved from htp://www .npr.org /aorq/05/r9/3rar585r6/ increasing-court-feespunishthe-poor

Snyder, Richard T. aoor. The Protestant Ethic and the spirit of Punishment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Soltis, Kathryn G. aorr. “Mass incarceration and theological images of justice.” Journal of the Society of

Christian Ethics 31 (!y. 113-130. Taylor, Mark L. aoor. The Executed God: The Way of the Cross if־ Lockdown America. Minneapolis:

Fortress. Taylor, Mark I. aorq. "Decolonizing mass incarceration: 'Flesh will wear out chains.'” Journal for

Culture and Religious Theory r3 (r): rar-rqa. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Investigation of the Ferguson Police

Department, aor؛. Retrieved from: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/ attachments/aor 5 /03 / oq / fergusonpolicedepartmentreport.pdf

Waller, James, aooa. How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Walmsley, Roy aor3. World prison population list (roth ed.). International Centre for Prison Studies. Retrieved from http://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_ro .pdf

! ؟,؟ו؛ , loo؛. Created by God: Pastoral Care for all God’s People. آل. lours: CWYrce Press.

ATLV

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, downioad, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by u.s. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournai typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.