Spatial Govermentality

8/9/2019 Spatial Govermentality

1/15

Spatial Governmentality and the New Urban Social Order: Controlling Gender Violence

Through LawAuthor(s): Sally Engle MerrySource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 103, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 16-29Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683919 .

Accessed: 12/02/2015 06:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/683919?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/683919?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/15

SALLY

ENGLE

MERRY

Department

f

Anthropology

Wellesley

College

Wellesley,

MA

02481

SpatialGovernmentality nd the New Urban SocialOrder:

Controlling

GenderViolence

hrough

Law

Thenewurban

ocial

order

epends

n a

complex

ombinationf

systems

f

punishment,iscipline,

nd

ecurity.

chol-

ars

drawing

n Foucault's

nalysis

f theartand

ationality

f

governance,

r

governmentality,

ave

explored

owurban

socialorders re

ncreasingly

ased nthe

governance

f

space

atherhan n the

discipline

f

offenders r he

punishment

of

offenses.Thenewurban ocialorders characterized

y privatizedecurityystems

nd

onsumer-policedpaces

uch

as malls.Gender iolence nterventions

epresent

nother

eployment

f

spatial

orms

f

governmentality.

ver

he

ast

two

decades,

unishment

fbatterersasbeen

augmentedy disciplinaryystems

hat each

batterersewforms f mas-

culinity

nd

by securityystems

orwomen ased n

spatial

eparation.

nthe

postmodernity,

spatial overnmentality

s

integrally

onnected

ith

punishment

nd

discipline.

hesenew

orms

f

governance

irculate

lobally long

with

neolib-

eral deas of the diminished tate.

gender

violence,

governmentality,

rban

ociety,globalization,

aw]

lthough

modem

penality

s

largely

structured

around

he

process

of

retraining

he soul rather han

corporalpunishment,

as Foucault

argued

in

his

study

of the

emergence

of the

prison

1979),

recentschol-

arship

has

highlighted

nother

egime

of

governance:

on-

trol

through

he

management

f

space.

New forms of

spa-

tially organized

crime control characterize

ontemporary

cities,

from the

explosion

of

gated

communities

Caldeira

1999)

to

prostitution

ree

zones as a

regulatory trategy

for the sex trade

Perry

and Sanchez

1998;

Sanchez

1997a,

1997b)

to violencefree zones as

a

way

of

diminishing

communal

conflict

in India.

Spatialized strategies

have

been

applied

o the controlof alcohol

consumption

Val-

verde

1998)

and the

regulation

of

smoking.

In

the

1970s,

concerns

about earof crime n the UnitedStates

expanded

from

a

focus on

catching

offenders o

removing

incivili-

ties in

public

spaces (Merry

1981;

Wilson and

Kelling

1982).

This meant

creating

paces

that

appeared

afe

to ur-

banites

by removingpeople

who looked

dangerous

r ac-

tivitiesthatseemed o

reveal

social

disorder uch as home-

less

people

or

abandoned

rash.

New

community-policing

strategiestowardyouths emphasize moving potentially

criminal

youths

o otherareas

rather han

prosecuting

hem

(Ericson

and

Haggerty

1999:168).

These

are all

examples

of

new

regulatory

mechanisms

that

arget paces

rather han

persons.They

exclude

offen-

sive behavior rom

specifiedplaces

rather han

attempting

to correct or

reform offenders.

The

regulation

of

space

through

architectural

esign

and

security

devices s

gener-

ally

understood

s

a

complement

o

disciplinarypenality

but

fundamentally

ifferent n its

logic

and

technologies

(Ewick

1997;

Shearing

and

Stenning

1985;

Shields

1989;

Simon

1988;

Valverde et al.

1999).

While

disciplinary

mechanisms ndeavor o

normalize he deviantbehavior

f

individuals,

hese

new

mechanismsfocus on

governing

populations

as a whole

(O'Malley

1993;

Simon

1988).

They

manage

risks

by

anticipating roblems

and

prevent-

ing

them

rather han

punishing

ffendersafter he

incident.

Governance

hrough

risk

management

means

mitigating

harms rather

han

preventing

ransgressions.

t

is

future-

orientedandfocuses

on

prevention,

isk

minimization,

nd

risk

distribution

Moore

and

Valverde

2000).

A

focus on

managing

isks rather han

enforcing

moral

norms has

transformed

olice practices

in recent

years

(Ericson

and

Haggerty

1997, 1999;

O'Malley

1999a:

138-139).

This

approach

eeks to

producesecurity

rather

than to

prevent

crime-to reducethe

risk

of

crime rather

thanto

eliminate t.

Order s

defined

by

actuarial

alcula-

tions

of

tolerablerisk rather

han

by

consensus and con-

formity

to

norms

(Simon

1988).

New

policing

strategies

seek

to

diminish risks

through

he

production

of

knowl-

edge about potentialoffenders (Ericson and Haggerty

1997).

In

general,

modem

democratic

ountrieshave

expe-

rienced

a

pluralizing

f

policing,

which

joins

private

and

community-based

trategies

hat

focus on

protection

of

space

with

public strategies

hatdetect and

punish

offend-

ers

(Bayley

and

Shearing

1996).

New

mechanisms f social

ordering

asedon

spatial

egu-

lation

have been

labeled

spatial

governmentality Perry

2000;

Perry

and

Sanchez

1998).

They

differ

substantially

American

Anthropologist

103(1):

16-29.

Copyright

?

2001,

American

Anthropological

Association

This content downloaded from 128.240.229.71 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015 06:22:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/15

MERRY

/

SPATIAL

GOVERNMENTALITY 17

from

disciplinary

orms of

regulation

n

logic

and tech-

niques

of

punishment.Disciplinary egulation

ocuses on

the

regulation

of

persons through

ncarceration r

treat-

ment,

while

spatial

mechanisms oncentrate

n the

regula-

tion of

spacethrough xcluding

offensive

behavior.

Spatial

forms

of

regulation

ocus

on

concealing

or

displacing

of-

fensiveactivitiesrather haneliminatinghem.Their arget

is a

population

ather han ndividuals.

They

produce

ocial

order

by creating

zones

whose

denizensare shielded rom

witnessingsocially

undesirable

ehavior

uch

as

smoking

or

selling

sex. The individual

offender

s

not treated

or re-

formed,

but

a

particular ublic

is

protected.

The

logic

is

thatof

zoning

rather

han

correcting

see

Perin

1977).

Spatializedregulation

s

always

also

temporal

as well.

Regulationsexcluding

offensive behavior

usually specify

time

as

well as

place.

Systems

such as

curfews

designate

both

where and

when

persons

can

appear.Spatial

regula-

tions

may

interdict

articular

inds

of

persons

rom

an

area

only duringcertain imes,such as businesshours,or pro-

hibit

behavior,

uch as

drinking,

nly

aftera

certain ime at

night

(see

Valverde

1998).

Spatial egulation

may

cover

all

periods

of

time,

but it is

typically

argeted

o

some

speci-

fied

part

of the

day.

It

may

also be

imposed

only

for

a

lim-

ited

duration,

s in the case of

the

stay-away

courtorders

discussedbelow.

Although

spatial

forms of

governmentality

re not

ex-

clusively

urban,

hey

have

takenon

particular

mportance

in modem cities.Inaddition

o featuresof

size,

scale,

het-

erogeneity,

and

anonymity,

many

contemporary

ities are

characterized

y sharp

conomic

nequalities,

major

differ-

ences

in

levels of

development,global

labor and

capital

flows,

and a shift

to neoliberal orms of

governance

see

Low

1999).

As states endeavor to

govern

more while

spending

ess,

they

have

adopted

mechanisms

hatbuildon

individual

self-governance

and

guarded paces. They

es-

tablish

areas o

which

only

people

seen as

capable

of self-

governance

have access and

incarceratehose

who cannot

be reformed.

People

are

encouraged

o

participate

n their

own

self-governance,

whether

by voluntarily

passing

through

metal-detectormachines

n

airports

r

organizing

into

community

watch

brigades

(Bayley

and

Shearing

1996).

In the

United

States,

his has meantan

increasing

ocus

on self-managementalong with the rapid expansionof

prison

populations.

There has

been

an

enormous ncrease

in the

numberof

prisoners

ver the last decade

as well as

a

turn

o

more severe

punishments,ncluding

he revival of

the death

penalty.

Within he neoliberal

egime

of individ-

ual

responsibility

and

accountability, opulations

are di-

vided betweenthose understoodas

capable

of

self-man-

agement

andthose not.

Managing

paces

and

ncarcerating

offendersare therefore

omplementary

ather han

oppos-

ing strategies.

These

complementary trategies

are the

product

of the vast economic

inequalitiesdividing

urban

populations

n

the

UnitedStates.

n American

ities,

spatial

strategies

are

typically

used

by

the

wealthy

o

exclude

the

poor,

while those who fail to

respect

hese islandsof

safety

are incarcerated.Private

organizationspursue

similar

strategies,

eveloping ystems

of

privatepolicing

and

gov-

ernance

that

parallel

those of

the state

(Valverde

et

al.

1999). This transformationeems to be characteristic f

cities outside

he United

States

as well

(see

Low

1999;

Cal-

deira

1999).

Indeed,

contemporary

rbanisms

shaped

not

only by

features

of

size, scale,

and

anonymity

but also

by

globallyproducednequalities

nd

transnationally

irculat-

ing

notionsof

governance.

Spatial

govemmentality

s

typically portrayed

s

a

re-

cent

technology

of

governance,

ut

the use of

spatial epa-

rationas

a

form of

governance

s ancient.

Preindustrialit-

ies

wereoftenenclosed

o

protect

hem rom he

dangers

f

marauding

andits

outside he

city

walls

(Sjoberg

1960).

In

the medieval walled town as

well as in the

postmodern

globalcity, spatialmechanismsexistedthatexcluded the

rule-breaker. ut

the relative

mportance

f

spatial ystems

seems

to

be

increasing

n

the

burgeoning

ities

of the new

millennium.The

turn

o more

spatialized

ystems

reflects

despair

about he

possibilities

of

reform

and he

difficulties

of

reincorporating

ffenders

nto the

contemporary

rder

of labor

(see

Simon

1993a).

The new

systems

promote

safety

for the

privileged

ew

by

excluding

those

who are

dangerous

ather han

promoting afety

for the

collectivity

by seeking

o

reform hose who

offend.

Constructing

afe,

policed spaces

requires

esources

hat

are not

available o

everyone.

These

strategies

are

limited to those who can

mobilize

them-typically people

located in more

privi-

leged positions

in

class,

racial,

and

gender

hierarchies.

New walled

towns within

cities allow wealthier ndividu-

als to retreat

nto

privately

ecured

paces

andabandon he

public

arena

see

Perry

2000).

With

the

shift

to

community

policing

and

privatepolice,

the affluent

acquire

greater

safety

han

he

poor(Bayley

and

Shearing

1996).

The

expansion

of

spatial

govemmentality

diminishes

the

scope

of

collective

responsibility

or

producing

ocial

order

characteristic

f

governance

n the

modem state.

Some

persons

are

definedas

hopeless,

deserving

xclusion

rather

han

correction

and

reintegration.

The

collectivity

takes less

responsibility

or

the excluded.

Prisons

are in-

creasingly een as holdingpens ratherhanplacesof edu-

cation,

raining,

ndreform.

Although patial

govemmentality

s

generally

described

as a

system

hat

provides afety

for those who can afford t

while

abandoning

he

poor

to

unregulated

ublicspaces,

n

this article

describea different

use

of

spatialgovernance:

the

spatial

xclusionof batterersrom he life

space

of their

victims.This is not an

instanceof

creating

a collective

safe

space

but, nstead,

of

protecting

person

by

prohibiting

c-

cess to her home

or

workplace.

This

approach mphasizes

the

safety

of the victimratherhan

he

punishment

r reform




4/15

18

AMERICAN

NTHROPOLOGIST

VOL.

103,

No. 1

*

MARCH

001

of

the offender.

Unlike

the more

recognized

uses of

spatial

governance,

this

initiative endeavors to

protect

poor

women

as well

as richwomen.

It

represents

he use of

spa-

tial

systems

of

governance

that benefit more than the

wealthy

and

privileged.

Like other ormsof

spatial

govern-

mentality,

however,

this

regimetypically

controls he

dis-

advantagedather han heprivileged.Peoplesubject o re-

straining

rders or

gender

violence

are

typicallypoor

men

very

similar

to,

and often identical

with,

those

generally

controlled

by

the forms of

spatial

governmentality

evel-

oped

by

the

wealthy.

It is not

that

these are the

only

men

who

batter,

but these are

usually

he

only

ones who

end

up

in the

restraining

rder

process.

Theuseof

spatial

ontrol

n

gender

violence situations

s

relatively

new. It took a

powerful

social movement

many

years

to

develop

this

legal

protection

or

battered

women.

Punishing

batterers

or the crime of

assault s an old

prac-

tice;

providing

egal

restrictions n theirmovements o cre-

ate a safe

space

for

victims s

muchnewer

(Pleck 1987).

A

concerted ocialmovementof feministactivistsbeginning

in the late 1960s

argued

or the

applicability

f

protective

orders or

such situations.

Commonly

eferred o

as

tempo-

rary restraining

orders

(TROs),

these

orders

supplement

more conventional

strategies

for

punishing

batterers.

TROs

are courtorders hat

require

he

person

who

batters

(usually

but

not

always

male)

to

stay away

fromhis

victim

(usually

but not

always

female)

under

penalty

of

criminal

prosecution.

n the United

States,

protective

orderswere

used

for domesticabuse situations

eginning

n the

1970s,

about

the

same time as

refuges

and shelters were

being

promoted

by

the

battered-women'smovement

Schechter

1982).Bothprovidea safespacefor the victimrather han

seeking

to reformor

punish

the offender. t

was not until

the

late 1980s thatactivists ucceeded

n

persuading

ourts

and

police

to

use

these

protective

orders

widely.

Requests

for civil

protective

orders or

battering rew dramatically

in the

1990s.

My

research

documentsthe

explosion

of

these cases

in

a small

town n

Hawai'i

n

the

late 1980s and

1990s,

a

pattern eplicated

n

other

parts

of the

country

dur-

ing

thesametime

period.'Although

am

describing

patial

governmentality

n

a small town

rather han a

majorcity,

restraining

rderswere

developed

n

large

urbanareasand

spread

o smaller ities andtowns.

Although patial

mechanisms

may

reducewomen's risk

of attack from theirbatterers,hey only protecta victim

froma

specified

offender or a limited

period

of time.

They

do not establish

public safety

zones that

exclude

people

with historiesof

battering.

Nor is

there ntensive surveil-

lance of

people

with

hazardous isk

profiles

for

battering.

Such

proactive

risk-minimization

trategies

are

increas-

ingly

common in modern

policing strategies

hat

target

high-riskpopulations

or

special

surveillance

Ericson

and

Haggerty

1999),

but the

protection

of

poor

women from

theirbatterers as not evoked a similar

nvestmentof state

resources.

ndeed,

t is

only

he

consistent

olitical ressure

f

battered-women's

dvocates hathas succeeded n

develop-

ing

and

extending

his

mechanism

or

governing

atterers.

The

article is based on a decade of

ethnographic

e-

search n a town in

Hawai'i,

a

place

with a distinctive

olo-

nial

past

and

plantation

egacy

but a

thoroughly

American

legal

system

andfeministmovement

against

battering.

ts

courts follow mainlandU.S. patternsn their relianceon

spatialprocesses

or

protecting

battered

women

as

well

as

in

their

approaches

o

punishing

and

reforming

batterers.

The

town,

Hilo,

has

45,000

inhabitants

nd

serves as the

hub

of

a

large agricultural egion

dotted

with vast

sugar

cane

plantations,

he recent

collapse

of

which

has exacer-

bated

problems

f

unemployment

nd

poverty.Although

t

lacks the

anonymity

of

larger

cities,

Hilo shares he wide

economic

disparities

of

contemporary

American cities.

Farmers,

plantation

workers,

part-time

onstructionwork-

ers,

homeless

people

iving

on the

beach,

welfare

amilies,

professors, udges,

and

county

officials

ostle

one

another

in the

streets,stores,

and offices of Hilo

and its

environs.

Although

dispersed

ruralcommunitiesoften do not use

sheltersor

courts

o

handle

gender

violence,

Hilo

is suffi-

ciently

urban

o

rely

heavily

on the

law andformal

organi-

zations such

as shelters.

Moreover,

Hilo is

influenced

by

changing

conceptions

of

governance

rom

the

U.S.

main-

land.This

analysis

of

spatialapproaches

o wife

battering

shows the

importance

of

spatial

modes of

governance

n

contemporary

rban

ife

and reveals the

extent to which

these

new

formsof

governance

re

circulating

romone lo-

cal

place

to another.

Theorizing

Spatial

Governmentality

The

concept

of

spatial

governmentality

erives

from

Foucault's laboration f the notionof

governmentality,

neologism

hat

ncorporates

oth

government

nd

rational-

ity

(1991).

Governmentality

efersto the

rationalities

nd

mentalitiesof

governance

and the

range

of

tactics and

strategies

that

produce

social order.

It focuses on

the

how of

governance

its

arts and

techniques)

ather han

the

why

its

goals

and

values).

Techniques

of

govern-

mentality

re

applied

othe artof

governing

he self

as well

as thatof

governing

ociety.

NikolasRose

defines

govern-

mentality

as

the

deliberations,

trategies,

actics

and de-

vices

employed by

authorities or

making

up

and

acting

upona population nd its constituents o ensuregood and

avert

ill ...

(Rose 1996:328;

see also Miller and Rose

1990;

Rose andMiller

1992;

RoseandValverde

1998).

Considerable esearchon

governmentality

as

deline-

ated

a

rough

historical

equence

from

eighteenth-century

mechanismshatact

primarily

n the

body,

such as exile or

dramatic

physical punishment,

o a

modemrn,

ineteenth-

centurysystem

of social controlthat relies on

reforming

the soul of theindividual

nd

normalizing

ule

breakers,

o

a

late-twentieth-centuryostmodern

ormof social control

that

argets

ategories

of

people

using

actuarial

echniques




5/15

MERRY

/

SPATIAL GOVERNMENTALITY

19

to

assess

the

characteristics

f

populations

and

develops

specific

locales

designed

for

prevention

rather han

the

normalization

f offenders

(Simon 1993b).2

The

modem

system

relies on

disciplinary

echnologies

to

forge

the

modem

subject

atworkas

well

as

in

the

family.

The

post-

modem

system

s

premised

on

a

postindustrial

ubjectivity

of consumption, hoice, introspection boutfeelings,and

flexibility.

It drawson the

therapeutic

mechanisms

wide-

spread

by

the close of the twentieth

century.

The contem-

porary

use

of

therapy

o

acquire

elf-governance,

o

learn

to

manage

eelings,

o rethink hecostsandbenefits

of vio-

lence

against

ntimates,

ndto focus

on choice

represents

new

technology

of

governance

haracteristic

f

postindus-

trial

society

(Rose

1990,

1996;

Simon

1993a).

Therapies

f

various

kindsseekto

gain

the

subject'scompliance

n

a re-

gime

of

change.

Insteadof

inducingchangethrough

disci-

pline

and

habit,

these

approaches

ocus

on

insight

and

choice.

The

subject

s

encouraged

o

understand

why

she

feels and acts as she does and

brought

o see that

she

could

makedifferent hoices thatwouldbe better or her.An im-

portant

acet

of

therapeutic

nterventions

s, therefore,

an

emphasis

on

self-governance,

n

establishing

ontrol

over

feelings,

and on

making

choices aboutactions.

These

sys-

tems focus

not

on

regimes

of

punishment

and

correction

but

on

inducing

consent

through

coercion--on

forcing

people

to

participate

n

remaking

hemselves,

taking

re-

sponsibility

or

themselves,

and

developing

their

capacity

to

control heir

emotional ives andactions.

Foucault efers

to this form

of

power

as a

biopolitics

of the

population

n

contrast

o

disciplinary ower

that

works on deviant

ndi-

viduals

(O'Malley 1993:160).3

These transformations

re

partof a transnational ovement oward elf-management

and neoliberal

governance

rather

han the

particular

ea-

tures

of

urban

nvironments.

At

the

same

time,

there has been an elaboration

of

mechanismsthat

promote

security by

diminishing

risks.

Risk-based

echniques

uch as social

insurance,

workers'

compensation,

nd

ncome ax are

examples

of

security-fo-

cused

technologies

of

governance.

They

offer

more

effi-

cient

ways

of

exercisingpower

since

they

tolerate

ndivid-

ual deviancebut

produce

order

by

dividing

he

population

into

categories organized

arounddifferential

degrees

of

risk

(O'Malley

1992;

Simon

1988).

Risk-based

pproaches

fall within the sphereof neoliberal echniquesof govern-

ance,

which

Valverde

t

al.

describeas the

downloading

f

risk

management

o individuals nd

families,

responsibi-

lization,

empowerment,

nd consumer

choice

(1999:19).

Responsibilization

nvolves the inculcation nd

shaping

of

responsibility

or

good

health and

good

order within the

home,

the

family,

and

the

individual

by

means of

expert

knowledges

Rose 1999:74).

Foucaultwas unclear bout

whether hesethree ormsof

governance,organized

by

a

logic

of

punishment,

disci-

pline,

and

security,

represented

sequence

or a

coexisting

triangle

(Foucault

1991:102).

He

suggests

that there has

beena

rough

historical

development

rom

feudal forms of

the state

based

on

sovereignty

nd aw to

an

administrative

state characterized

y

regulation

and

discipline

to a

gov-

ernmental

tate

defined

not

simply

by

its

territory

ut

by

its

population

nd economicadministration

nd controlled

by

theapparatusesf security 1991:104).Thenhe argues hat

sovereignty,discipline,

and

government

do not

replace

each

otherbut constitutea

triangle

with its

primary

arget

the

population

nd

ts

essential

mechanism

he

apparatus

f

security

1991:102).

The

triangle uggests

mutual nterde-

pendence

and

connection ratherthan

displacement,

but

Foucault

never

developed

his

concept

nor its

implications

for the

interpenetration

f

law, normalization,

nd disci-

pline

(see

Hunt and Wickham

1994:67).4

Empirical

re-

search

suggests

a

relationship

of

growth

and

layering

among

these

forms of

governance

ather hana

process

of

displacement.

or

example,

he

study

of

alcohol

regulation

suggests

the historicalaccretion

of

governancepractices

and their mutualredefinition f one another ather han a

series

of

stages

(Valverde

1998:177).

Patrick

O'Malley questions

the

evolutionaryassump-

tions behind

the thesis of

a

sequence

of forms of

govern-

ance from

punishment

o

discipline

o

security.

New strate-

gies

are

developed

not

ust

because

hey

aremore

efficient,

but also

because

they belong

to

political

programs

devel-

oped

n

moral

and

political

struggles

riented ither oward

neoconservative

r social

ustice agendas

O'Malley

1992,

1996;

O'Malley

and Palmer

1996).5

For

example,

Alan

Huntdemonstrates

ow new forms

of

governance

f

others

and of the

self

arise out

of social movements or moralre-

form(1999).Thesemovements or moralregulation, ften

focusing

on demands or new

patterns

f

drug consump-

tion or

sexual

behavior,

are

spearheaded

y

particular

c-

tors located n the

state,

n

organizations,

r

in

communi-

ties who articulatea crisis and a solution

in

a

way

that

resonates

with broader

ocial

trendsand discourses

Hunt

1999:10).

Changes

n

formsof

governance

re

agentic

and

contested

parts

of the

political

and

social

process.

Indeed,

in

the

case

of

gender

violence,

t is clear

that

the new de-

ployment

of

spatialgovemmentality-the

use

of restrain-

ing

orders-was the resultof sustained

olitical

activism.

Many

forms of

governmentality

ave a

spatial

compo-

nent.Foucault ecognized critical ole forspatialordering

in his

analysis

of

systems

of

discipline

n the nineteenth

century,

but he saw its role

largely

as a frame or

ordering

and

confining

bodies and as a structureof surveillance

(1979).

In

contemporary

ociety,

spatialized

orms of or-

dering

are connected o the recent

ntensification

f con-

sumption

as a

mode of

identity

ormation

long

with neo-

liberal

approaches

o

government.

n

contemporary

ities,

there is

increasing

ocus on

managing

he

spaces people

occupy

rather han

managing

he

people

themselves.

Sys-

tems of

providing ecurity hrough

he

private egulation

f




6/15

20

AMERICAN

ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL.

103,

No.

1

*

MARCH

001

spaces

reveal he

emergence

of

postcarceral

ormsof

disci-

pline

that do not focus on individualized

soul

training

(Shearing

and

Stenning

1985:336).

Instead,

these

new

forms of

regulation

depend

on

creating

spaces

charac-

terized

by

the

consensual,

participatory

overnance

of

selves

(Ewick

1997;

O'Malley

and Palmer

1996;

Rose

1996;ShearingandStenning1985;Shields 1989;Simon

1993a).

These

systems rely

on selves who

see

themselves

as

choice-making

onsumers,

defining

hemselves

hrough

the

way

they

acquire

commodities

and choose

spouses,

children,

and

work

(Miller

and Rose

1990).

As Rose ar-

gues,

in

liberal

democracies f the

postwarperiod,

citizens

are

to

regulate

hemselves,

o

become

active

participants

n

the

process

rather han

objects

of

domination

1990:10).

Citizen

subjects

are

educatedand solicited ntoan

alliance

between

personal

objectives

and

institutional

oals,

creat-

ing

the

phenomenon

Rose

calls

government

t a

distance

(Rose 1999).6

Disney

World and the

shopping

mall

represent

ocales

for such

participatoryegulation

n

which the

self

is

made

and makes itself

in

ways

structured

y

the

privateregula-

tion of the

space.

These forms

of

regulation

rely

on the

state

only minimally

and are

largely

maintained

hrough

private

security

forces. The

space

itself

creates

expecta-

tions of

behaviorand

consumption.

These

systems

are not

targeted

at

reforming

he

individual

or

transforming

is or

her

soul;

instead

hey

operate

on

populations,

nducing

o-

operation

without

ndividualizing

he

object

of

regulation.

Privatecontrol lacks

a moral

conception

of order

and is

concerned

only

with

what

works;

t

is

preventative

ather

than

punishing

(Shearing

and

Stenning

1985:339).

This

shift to an instrumentalocus means a move away from

concern

with

individual eform o control

over

opportuni-

ties for

breaches

of

order.

Spatialgovernmentality

works

not

by

containingdisruptive

populations

but

by

excluding

them

from

particular laces.

The

shopping

mall,

the

proto-

type

of

spatialgovernmentality,

s

also the

product

f mar-

ket-based

echnologies

or

shaping

and

controllingdentity

andbehavior.As

subjects

become

consumers,

theautono-

mous citizens

regulate

hemselves

hrough

rganizing

heir

lives around

he

market

O'Malley

1993:172-173).

The

individual

nvestedwith

rights

s

replacedby

the

ndividual

who defineshimself or

herself

by

consumption.

This con-

trol s

promotive

ather han

reactive,

voluntary

ather han

coercive,

basedmoreon choice than

constraint. ower

ap-

pears

to

disappear

behind individual choice

(Ewick

1997:81).

Systems

of

private

egulation

rebacked

by

for-

mal

legal processes,

which

will remove

those who cannot

govern

hemselves.

Thus,

the newer

systems

coexist with

morally

reformist

carceral

systems,

each

defined

by

whom

and what it ex-

cludes

(Ewick

1997;

see

also

O'Malley

1992).

The

prison

system

survives

and

expandsalong

with

nonpunitive ys-

tems,

which

manage

he

opportunities

or

behaviors ather

than he

behaviorshemselves.

Outside he

space

marked

y

the absenceof

penal power,

there

is a world of

unem-

ployed,

insane,

socially marginal

people

subjected

o

the

penal power

of

police

and

prisons

(Ewick

1997:83).

Al-

though

here s

a

tendency

o understandhese

changes

as

sequential

ather

han

co-present,

Ewick

notes that he

spa-

tial

system

of

ordering

ounded

n

consumption

depends

on anexpanding arceral ystemfor those excludedfrom

participation

n the

shopping

mall order of

individual

choice

(1997).

As in the control

of

gender-based

iolence,

spatial

forms

of

orderingoperate against

a

backdrop

of

punishment.

Punishment/Therapy/Safety:

Approaches

to

Gender Violence

Froma

governmentality

erspective,

here

arethree

dis-

tinct

formsof

governance:

unishment,

iscipline,

and

se-

curity.

One

is based on

punishing

offenders,

one on

re-

forming

offenders

hrough herapy

and

training,

and

one

on

keeping

offenders

away

from victims

through

spatial

separation.

All three

areused n

dealing

with

gender-based

violence

in cities in North

America.In this

section,

I

de-

scribe each form

of

governmentality

s it

has beendevel-

oped

to control

wife abuse n the

United

States

and show

how it works

n

practice

n

the

particular

ontext

of

Hilo,

Hawai'i.

In

wife-battering

ases,

the

dominantmode

of

punishment

s incarceration.

eform

depends

on

a

range

of

services such

as

batterer

ntervention

rograms,

ontrol

of

alcohol and

drug

use,

parenting

lasses,

counseling,

and

the

ongoingsupervision

f a

probation

fficer.

Security

s

produced y

spatial

ystems

such

as civil

protective

rders,

whichrequirebattererso stay awayfromtheirvictims.A

detailed

analysis

of

the

operation

f

each of

these

mecha-

nisms

indicates

fundamental

differences

n

the

logic

of

each as well

as

intersections n

practice.

Spatial

orms of

governance

equire

punishment

s a

last

resort,

while

they

also areconnected

o efforts

o reform

batterers.

Punishment/Prison

Punishments

targeted

o

a

particular

ct rather

han he

character f the

offenderor the

plight

of the victim.

It seeks

to

deter

uture

offenses

with

the fearof

punishment.

n the

past,

forms of

publicpunishment

were

designed

not

to re-

form the

offender

but,

as

Foucault

argues,

to

express

the

will of the

sovereign

1979).7

These

punishments

were tai-

loredto the

offense itself and

ncluded

logging

and

public

torture. n the

modern

period,

punishment

s

largely

depri-

vation of

property

(fines)

and

deprivation

of

liberty

(prison).

Incarceration

s

justified

by

the

possibility

of re-

formeven

though

t is

generally

cknowledged

hat

prisons

fail to

reform.

Beginning

n the

1970s,

feministactivists

pressed

or

a

greater

use

of

punishment

n

gender

violence

cases,

advo-

cating

mandatory

olice

arrests,

no-dropprosecution,

nd




7/15

MERRY

/

SPATIAL

GOVERNMENTALITY

21

mandatory

ncarceration.

Historically,

nder he

legal

doc-

trine

of

coverture,

he

family

had been definedas a

private

sphere

under he

authority

f

the

husband

ather

hanthe

state

(see

Finemanand

Mykitiuk

1994).

Although

cover-

ture

was

generally

eliminated

by

the

late

nineteenth

en-

tury

n

the

United

States,

ts

legacy

is

a reluctance

o

inter-

vene legally in the family in ways that challengemale

authority.

The

law intervenes

n

gender

violence

incidents

less

readily

than

in

other cases of

assault.Until

recently,

violence

within

amilieswastreated s a social

problem

e-

flectiveof

poverty

ather hanas a

criminal ffense.As

late

as

1973,

a

prosecutorworking

n the Districtof

Columbia

bemoaned the lack of

punishment

batterers received

through

he law and the total absenceof

services

o

which

batterers r theirvictims could be

referred

Field

and

Field

1973).

Gender

violence

cases

did

appear

n

court n

the

past

n

Hilo,

and

offenderswere

generally

ound

guilty

and

fined,

but the

numbers were small.

Between 1852 and

1913,

about

eight

cases werehandled n the courteach

year,

rep-

resenting

2% of the

annualcaseload

and

14%

of all vio-

lence

cases.8

Courtand

police

records or the

1970s

show

a

steady

but

low

level

of

use of

police

and

courts.Between

1971

and

1976,

therewere between

one and nine

cases

of

gender

violence

in

Hilo courts

every year

and

between

1980

and

1986,

fewer than

twenty

a

year.By

1998 the

number

had

ncreased

25 times to 538 cases

a

year

andthe

caseload

n

2000 is

likely

to

be even

higher

see

Figure

1).

Calls

to

the

police

for

help

increased ivefold from

500 a

year

in

1974

to

2,500

in

1994

while

the

population

dou-

bled.

Fragmentary

ata

from

other

parts

of

the

United

States reveala similarstaggeringgrowth n the numberof

criminal

ases

of

domestic

violence

in

the

courtssince the

mid-1980s.

These

changes

are a resultof

demands or a

more

activist

police

force and

mandatory

rrest

policies

along

with

no-dropprosecution.9

This

increase

n

cases has not

translated

nto

a

signifi-

cant ncrease

n

punishment.

nstead,

t has

served

o

funnel

offenders nto an

array

of services and

subject

hem

to

on-

going supervisionby

the

courts.

A

1995

study

of 140 do-

mestic violence arrests n

11

jurisdictions

ound

that

only

44

made

it to

conviction,

plea,

or

acquittal,

nd of

these,

only

16

served

any

time

(Hanna

1998:1523).

n

Hawai'i,

a

new spouse abuse statutepassed in 1986 mandated48

hours of

incarcerationor a

person

convicted

of

battering.

Judges

and

prosecutors

n Hilo

say

that

t

is

very

common

for men to

escape

jail

time

by pleading

o a lesser

charge,

such as third

degree

assault,

with

the

stipulation

hat he of-

fenderreceive

probation

nd

attenda batterer

ntervention

program--but

not do

jail

time. It is also common or

cases

to be dismissed

altogether

becausethe victim

refuses

to

testify

or the

defendant eaves the island. In

Hilo,

many

cases

are

not

prosecuted,

but

convictions

usually

lead

to

punishment.

n

a

sample

of

30 cases heard n the courts n

Hilo in the summer

of

1994,

for

example,

almost

half

(12)

were dismissed

or not

prosecuted.

Of the 18

prosecuted,

12 went to

jail,

almostall

(11)

with the minimum

entence

of two

days

or time served.Of

the 6 who did not

go

to

jail,

2

received

a

suspended

entenceand

4

had the

charge

re-

duced o third

degree

assault.

However,

all 18

received

one

yearof probationwiththestipulationhat heywerenot to

threaten

r harm he victim

and

fully

17 were referred

o

social

services.The most common

social service was

the

feminist

batterer

ntervention

rogram

13),

although

many

were sent to

alcohol and

drug

services

(9),

other

private

counseling

and

angermanagement

rograms

5),

or

an

in-

digenous

Hawaiian

dispute

resolution

process

(3).

Six

of

these

people

ndicated hat here

was

a

TRO

n

effect at

the

time of the arrest.

A

sample

of 7

cases

in

the

year

2000

showed somewhat

greater

punishment,

with

6

out

of 7

re-

ceiving ail

time and

only

1

being

dismissed.

Thus,

hema-

jor

intervention

f the court s reform

hrough

ocial

serv-

ices backed

by

the

threatof

punishment.

The

same

people

areoften nvolved nbothcriminalandcivilproceedings.

Discipline/Reform

Disciplinary

echniques

work

on

persons

rather

han

ac-

tions,

seeking

o reform

hem

hrough

ehabilitation

ndre-

pentance.

Disciplinary

ystems

incorporate

broad

range

of

therapeutic

and

group

discussion

techniques

ranging

from

batterer's

ntervention

rograms

o

alcoholics-anony-

mous-style

self-help meetings

(see

Rose

1990;

Valverde

1998).

Some are

designed

o reform

by

forcing

he

body

to

follow an

orderly

equence

of

activities

n

work

and

every-

day

life,

while

othersreform

hroughntrospection

nd n-

sight,

requiring

onsent romthe

subject

of

transformation.

As

Simon

points

out,

prison

reform

models from

the

early

nineteenth

century

already

incorporated

hese two

ap-

proaches

o

discipline:

ne was

based

on

habituation

f

the

body

and

coordinationwith

the

machinery

of

production

while

the other

developed

skills of

self-management

nd

self-control

and

promoted

utonomy

and

integrity

1993a:

29).

These two

forms

continued to

provide

alternative

models

of

disciplinethroughout

he nineteenth

and

early

twentieth

enturies,

but

the lattercame to

predominate.

n

the

late

twentieth

entury,

he

criminal

ustice system

n

the

UnitedStateshas

increasingly

urned o

introspective

orms

of disciplineandself-managementSimon 1993a).

In

the

1990s,

this model dominated

batterer eformef-

forts in

Hilo as

well as

in

the rest of

the United States.

Feminist-inspired

attererntervention

rograms rew

out

of discussions

by

battered

women n

Duluth,

Minnesota,

n

the

1980s,

which

emphasized

hat

battering

eedsto be un-

derstood n

termsof

power

and

control

Pence

and

Paymar

1993).

This model

focused on

undermining

he

cultural

support

or

male

privilege

and violence

against

women

by

exploring

men's

feelings

and

beliefs and

encouraging

men

to

analyze

their

own

behavior

during

battering

events.




8/15

22

AMERICAN

ANTHROPOLOGIST

*

VOL.

103,

No.

1

*

MARCH 2001

4000

3750

MAbuseCases

3500

-3TRO Cases

(missing

data

1979-1988)

3250

-BCalls

to Police

missingdata

1995-1996)

3 Populationhundreds)

3000

2750

2500

2250

2000

1750

1500

1250

1000

750

500

250

1974 1975

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983

1984 1985 1986 1987

1988 1989 1990

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

1996 1997

1998

Figure

1.

Legal

intervention

and

population,

ounty

of

Hawai'i.

Violence

against

women

was

understood s

an

aspect

of

patriarchy.

A

dominant

eatureof

group

discussions

was

changing

beliefs

about

men's

entitlement

o

make

authori-

tative

decisionsandback

hem

up

with

violence.

The

Duluth

model

came to

Hawai'i

in

the

1980s.

Men

convicted

of

spouse

abuseor

undera

TROwere

required

o

attend he

Alternatives o

Violence

(ATV)

program

tarted

in

Hilo

in

1986.

ATV

offers

violence

control

raining

or

men

anda

support

roup

or

women. 2

Men

are

required

o

attend

weekly

two-hour

group

discussions or

six

months.

In

groups

of

10 to

15 men

and 2

facilitators,

articipants

talk abouttheiruse of violenceto controltheirpartners.

Discussions

stress

the

importance

f

egalitarian

elations

betweenmen

and

women and

the

value

of

settling

differ-

ences

by

negotiation

rather

han

by

force.

The

men

are

taught

hat

treating

heir

partners

with

respect

rather

han

violence

will win

them

a

more

loving,

trusting,

nd

sexu-

ally

fulfilling

relationship

nd

forge

warmer

elations

with

their

children.

They

arenot to

refer

o their

partners

s

old

lady

or

cunt,

nor

are

they

to

exercise male

privilege.

Egalitarianender

elations re

modeled

by

the

male/female

team

of

facilitators

eading

he

group.

If men fail to attend

he

program,

he staff nforms

heir

probation

fficers.Those

whose attendance

s

a

stipulation

of

a

criminal

pouse

abuse

conviction

face revocation

of

their

probation.

hose

required

o attend

s a condition

f

a

TRO are

guilty

of

contempt

of court-a

criminal

of-

fense-and

their

case is sent

to the

prosecutor.

n

practice,

thesemen

are

typically

sent back

to ATV rather

han

re-

ceiving

a

jail

sentence

or other criminal

penalty,

but

the

threat

of

jail

time

s

frequently

rticulated

y

judges

during

court

hearings.

Thus,

attendance

t this

psychoeducational

program

s enforced

by

the threatof

prison.

The

program

emphasizes rainingn self-management f violence,but

failure o

accomplish

his

task results n the return

o

a

re-

gime

of

punishment,

t least

n

theory.

n

practice,

onpar-

ticipants

re

typically

ent back

to the

program.

Only

after

new violations

re

hey

sent o

jail.

The men

attending

his

program

re

argely

poor,

unem-

ployed,

and

relatively

uneducated.

Program

ntake

orms

for

1,574

people

servedbetween

1990and

1998,

of

whom

two-thirds

were

men,

provide

demographic

ataon who

is

referred.

About

three-quarters

f the men

(77%)

and

women

(70%)

earned

under

$11,000.

In

contrast,

he

1990




9/15

MERRY

/

SPATIAL

GOVERNMENTALITY

23

Censusfound hat

only

19%

of

the

town's

residents

arned

under

$10,000

in

household

income

while 53%

earned

over

$25,000,

an income

level

reached

by

only

4%of

the

ATV

women

participants.'3

en

and women

in the

vio-

lence

control

program

and

women's

support

groups

fre-

quently

alked

about

poverty,

welfare,

and survival

by

fish-

ing, hunting,

and

odd

construction

obs.

ATV

clients

are

also

substantially

ess

educated han

town

residents,

with

the

meneven less

educated

han he

women.

Half

are

high

school

graduates

46%)

and

one-quarter

tarted

college

(25%),

but

only

3%

have a

college degree.

While

29% of

Hilo's

population

has

an

associate's,

bachelor's,

or

higher

degree, only

5% of the ATV

population

does.'4

Thus,

the

men

sent to the

violence control

program,

as well as

the

women

they

batter,

are

significantlypoorer

and less

edu-

catedthan

he town

overall.

The

courts

occasionally

referred

atterers o one of

sev-

eral

alternative

pproaches

o

gender

violence in

Hilo.

The

most common

were

family

therapy,

Christian

pastoral

counseling,andanindigenousNativeHawaiianmodel of

healing

andconflict

resolution.These

alternatives

ncorpo-

rate

quite

different

deologies

of

gender

and

marriage

han

feminist

programs.

For

example,

conservative

Christian

models seek to

develop

respect

within

family

relations

while

reinforcing

he

husband's

authority

nd

the

perma-

nence

of

marriage.

Yet all

use

techniques

of

self-manage-

ment and

self-reflection

similar

to

those used at

ATV,

techniques

hat

Rose

argues

are

characteristic

f the

tech-

nology

of

governance

n

the

present

period

1999).

Batter-

ers, too,

are to be

reformed

hrough

hese

technologies

of

the self.

Security/Spatial

Mechanisms

Security

echniques

are

those that

seek

to

minimize

he

harm

wreaked

by

offenders

by

containing

or

diminishing

the

risks

they pose

to

others.

They

focus on

protecting

ic-

tims or

potential

victims

and

spreading

he

cost of

harms o

a

larger

group through

nsurance

ystems.

Security

ech-

nologies

assess

risks,

anticipate

nd

prevent

isks,

and

ana-

lyze

factors

that

produce

risk.

Their

target

is an

entire

population

ather han

particular

ndividuals,

and the

goal

is not

reformbut

security

or the

population

as a

whole.

Foucault

sees

security

as

a

specific

principle

of

political

methodandpractice apableof beingcombinedwithsov-

ereignty

and

discipline

(Gordon

1991:20).

The

methodof

security

deals in a

series

of

possible

and

probable vents,

calculates

comparative

osts, and,

insteadof

demarcating

the

permissible

and

forbidden,

pecifies

a

mean

and

possi-

ble

range

of

variation.

Sovereignty

works

on a

territory,

discipline

ocuses

onthe

individual,

nd

security

addresses

itself

to a

population.

Fromthe

eighteenth

entury

on,

se-

curity

s

increasingly

he

dominant

omponent

of

modernm

governmental

ationality.

Hunt

and

Wickham

uggest

that

Foucault's erm

ecurity

an

be better

ranslateds

welfare,

emphasizing

the focus

on

individuals

as

subjects

of

the

state

(1994:54).

The

emphasis

on

security

technologies

represents,

Gordon

argues,

Foucault's

most

important

x-

tension

of the

analysis

of

disciplinebeyond

he

framework

of

Discipline

and Punish

1991:20).

Insurance

s an

important

spect

of

security

technolo-

gies. It is concernedwith the likelihoodof events rather

thanwith fault

or

responsibility.

As Ewald

notes,

law

and

insurance

are

practices

with

quite

heterogeneous

atego-

ries,

regimes,

and

economies,

since law

is

preoccupied

with

determining

esponsibility

or

injurious

ctions

while

insurance

s

only

interested

n the likelihood

of

injury

and

the assessment

of

reparations

or

categories

of

individuals

deduced

on the basis

of

statistical

alculations

1991:201).

Security

ystems

are

engaged

n

reducingdanger

not

by

re-

forming

ndividuals

who

are

threatening

ut

by

predicting

who

might

be

dangerous

ndeither

preventing

nd

neutral-

izing

that

danger

or

spreading

t

evenlyamong

he

popula-

tion. Some forms

of criminal

behavior,

uch as

drug use,

are

currently

eing

subjected

o harm-minimization

trate-

gies

designed

to

diminish

he harm hat this behavior

m-

poses

on individuals

and the wider

population

nstead

of

using

disciplinary

strategies

(Feeley

and Simon

1994;

O'Malley

1999b).

In the domain

of

gender

violence,

security

echniques

are

designed

o

protect

victims

nsteadof

seeking

o

reform

offenders.

They

did

not

emerge

n

the field

of

gender

vio-

lence until

the

battered-women's

movementof

the

1970s

(Schechter

1982).

Although

here

was some

use of

peace

bonds

n

earlier

years,

leadersof the

battered-women's

movement

began

o

press

ora

system

of

restraining

rders

rooted n the civil law systemin the early 1970s. A 1973

articledescribes

a

New

Yorkstatute

or

a

family

court

pro-

ceeding

thatallowed

a victimto receive

a

protective

order

without

having

to

bring

criminal

charges.

This

order

was

backed

by

a

penalty

of

prison

for its violation

(Field

and

Field

1973:238).

During

his

period

of

initial

experimenta-

tion,

therewas

worry

about he lack

of

a

right

to

counsel

and

protection

gainst

self-incrimination

or the

defendant

in this civil

proceeding.

On the other

hand,

some

ap-

plauded

the

way

this

legal

mechanism

could

invoke

the

authority

of

the law in

a

noncriminal

ontext.

In

1976,

Pennsylvania

became

the

first state

to

pass legislation

authorizingudges to issue domesticviolencerestraining

orders;

in

1978,

Massachusetts

ollowed

suit

(Ptacek

1999:48).

In

Hawai'i,

a law

providing

or

Ex-Parte

Tem-

porary

Restraining

Orders

or victims

of

domestic

violence

was

passed

n

1979.15

Thus,

heuse

of

protective

rders

or

domestic

violence

represented

new

legal

mechanism

de-

veloped

in the

1970s,

which

disseminated

apidly

across

the U.S.

This

is the

most innovative

featureof

contemporary

Americanefforts

to

diminish wife

battering.

t is

funda-

mentally

a

spatial

mechanism

ince

it

simplyseparates

he




10/15

24 AMERICAN

NTHROPOLOGIST

VOL.

103,

No.

1

*

MARCH

001

man

and

the

woman.

Shelters,

which

provideplaces

of

ref-

uge

for battered

women,

are

similarly

novel

inventions

of

the

battered-women'smovement

of

the

1970s,

although

they

build

on older

patterns

of

safe houses

and

helpful

neighbors

and relatives. Neither

of these

interventions

makes an effort to

reform the

batterer,

but

seek

only

to

keephimawayfrom he victim.

The

TRO Process in

Hilo

The

development

of this

legal

mechanism

means

that

gender

violence

incidents

arrive in

the

legal

system

through

wo

quite

different

processes:

a

criminal

process

of

arrestand

convictionor a civil

process

of

issuing

a

tempo-

rary

restraining

rder.

The first

eads to a trialand

potential

criminal

conviction,

he second

to a

family

court

hearing

that could result n

the

issuance

of a TRO.

Both

are acti-

vated

argely

by

the

complaint

f

an

injured

arty,

although

a

police

officer

may

be summoned

by

a

neighbor,

elative,

or friend.TROsare almostalwaysissuedat therequestof

an

individual

petitioner.

Although

the first

process

is a

criminal

one and the

second a civil

one,

in

practice

here

are

many

connections

between he

two.

Criminal

ases are

often

handled

hrough

plea

bargaining

etween

the

prose-

cutor and

defense

attorney

rather han

trial.

Defendants

typically

receive

the same

sentencesas TRO

respondents.

Moreover,

a civil

case can

be

converted nto a

criminal

case

if

there s a

violationof

the

conditionsof the

order.

Thus,

civil

cases often

become

criminal

while criminal

cases are

typically

handled

through

nformal

negotiation

that akes he

victim's

wishes nto

account,

paralleling

ivil

procedures.A final important onnectionbetweenthese

two

processes

s that t

is

common

for the same

couple

to

become

involved

in

civil

and

criminal

processes

simulta-

neously.

Victims

and

batterers

are

sometimes

confused

about he

relationships

etween

he two

courts

andthe dif-

ferences

n

their

procedures.

The civil

court

process

must

be

initiated

by

the

victim,

who

goes

to the

Family

Court

to

secure the

order.The

Family

Court s

itself a

recent

concept,

createdas a

sepa-

rate

udicial

entity

n Hawai'i

n

1989.

A

person

can

apply

for

a TRO

against

anyfamily

member,

whether

or

not

he

or she is

living

n

the

same

household.16

The

victim

ills out

an

affidavit,

which is

reviewed and

signed by

the

judge.

This initiatesa temporary,mergencyorderrequiringhe

named

ndividual

o vacate

he

premises

or to

refrain rom

violence,

depending

onthe

kind of

order

requested.

There

must

be a

hearing

before

the

Family

Court

within

15

days

to

extend he

order.

The number

of

requests

or TROs

has

increaseddra-

matically

since the

early

1970s. Between

1971 and

1978,

there

were

7

protective

ordersor

peace

bonds

ssued in

Hilo for

domesticviolence

situations.

By

1985,

however,

the

year

a

new,

more

stringent pouse

abuse aw

wentinto

effect,

there

were250 in

one

year.

In

1990 there

were

338

and

by

1999,

471

froman area

of

perhaps

0,000

residents.

Although

there

has been a

doubling

of

population

n

the

last

twenty

years,

TRO

petitions

have increased

ar

more

rapidly

see

Figure

1).17

Observations

f the domestic

violence calendar

during

the 1990s

indicate

hatmost defendants

re men

and

most

victimsarewomen.'8Thewomenwho bring hese cases to

the court

are

primarily

young,

in their

20s and

30s,

and

nonprofessional

workers

r

nonworkers.

heir

ethnic

den-

tities

reflect

the local

population,

ncluding

white,

Portu-

guese,

Filipino,

Japanese,

Hawaiian,

Hawaiian/Chinese,

and Puerto

Rican individuals.

Because

of the

high

rate

of

intermarriage

mong

hese

groups,

he

majority

have

mul-

tiple

ethnicities.

Most are

local,

although

a

significant

minority

are

people

from

he

mainland,

many

of

whom

fol-

low alternative

ifestyles

suchas thatof the

pioneer/surviv-

alist

aspiring

o live off the land.

A few

support

hemselves

by

cultivating

marijuana.

Most

of the

people

have

low

in-

comes

andoften arenot

working.

At the

hearing,

victimsare almost

always

accompanied

by

a womanadvocate

rom ATV.

The man

appears

alone,

although

here

is

always

a

male advocate

from

the

ATV

program resent

n the

waiting

area

of the courtand

willing

to talk to

the men. The

Family

Court

udge

reads

he

writ-

ten account

provided

by

the

victim,

asks the

accused

f

he

or she

acknowledges

he

charge,

andtakes

testimony

f

the

accused

denies all violence.

If the accused

accepts

the

charge

or the evidence

is

persuasive,

he

judge

issues

a

TROfor

a

period

of monthswith

a

series of

conditions.

f

there

areno children

and a desire

by

both

to

separate,

he

respondent

s told to

stay

away

from

he

petitioner

nd

both

are toldto haveno further ontact.Thisis called a no-con-

tact

TRO. If

they

have children

but

the victim

wishes

no

contact,

he

judge

will

arrange

isitation

or

custody

or

the

children

and

specify

no

contact

between he

adults.

f

they

wish to

continue the

relationship

nd/or

o

live

together,

the

udge

usually

ssues

a contact

TRO

but

also sends

them

to

ATV,

requiring

ither

he

accusedor

both

parties

o

par-

ticipate

n the

program.

The contact

order

allows

the

re-

spondent

o be with the

petitioner

but

prohibits

him

from

using

violence

against

her.

Observations

f

130 cases

in

the

early

1990s indicated

hat

slightly

underhalf

(42%)

of

petitioners

equested

ndreceived

ontact

TROs.

At

the

hearing,

he

udge

points

out

that

any

violationof

the conditionsof the

protective

order s a

misdemeanor,

punishable

y

ajail

sentenceof

up

to one

year

and/ora

fine

of

$2,000.

He

frequently

chedules

a

review

hearing

n

a

month

or two

to monitor

he

situation,

particularly

or

the

contact

restraining

rders,

andto

make

sure

that

hecondi-

tions

of the TRO

are

being

fulfilled.

He

also

requires

he

respondent

o surrender

ny guns

in his

possession

to

the

local

police

officer

for theduration

f the

TRO.

The

Family

Court

udge's

concerns

are

twofold:

irst,

o

stop

the violence

and

second,

to

protect

he

children

n-

volved. The

judge

endeavors o

convey

a

clear

message




11/15

MERRY

/ SPATIAL GOVERNMENTALITY

25

that

violence

s

against

he law and hat t is bad orchildren.

Any

indication f violence or abuse

against

hildren licits

an immediate

referral o

Children's

ProtectiveServices.

Protective

orders

commonly

include the

requirement

o

seek

treatment s well

as

the

obligation

o refrain rom

vio-

lence

and,

n

no-contact

orders,

o

stay away.

The

judge

is

much more ikelyto refera coupleto the batterernterven-

tion

program

when

the

woman

requests

a contact

TRO

than

when

she

wishes no contact.

When a woman

request-

ing

a

TRO

says

she wishes to

stay

with

her

partner

nd

hey

have

children,

he

udge usually

makes

a

referral

o

ATV.19

These

legal

orders

are

sometimes

viewed

uneasily by

judges.

Since

they

begin

as

an

emergency

intervention,

they impose

restrictions

on individualswho are

initially

absent

from the

hearing.

Because

they

are civil

proceed-

ings

rather

han

criminal,

defendantsdo not have the

right

to an

attorney

f

they

cannot

afford one.

Yet,

if

a

person

violates

the terms of a

TRO,

he

is

guilty

of

contempt

of

court

and can

be

prosecuted

or a criminalviolationand

theoretically

ace a

prison

sentence.

Although

n

practice

this

is

rare,

n

theory

t

remainsa

possibility.

n

Hilo,

a

vio-

lationbased

on a

violent

ncident

ypically

ed to a new ar-

rest,

while a violationbased on

the

failure o

attend

ATV

typically

ed to

being

resentenced ack

to

the

program.

A

second

difficulty

with the TRO

in

gender

violence

cases

is its

limited

enforceability.

t

relies

on the

respon-

dent's

acquiescence

or an

effective

police response.

nthe

hands

of

a

skeptical

batterer,

t

is

no more

powerful

han

the

policing

behind

t.

Spatial Govermentality

Documents

Transcript of Spatial Govermentality