by Nivedita Joon
This article is part of the Gender, Sexuality, and Decolonization Resource Page blog.
As feminists, we are meant to speak truth to power. But do we still speak from a position of abject powerlessness? Around three decades since the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, feminist activists have made profound contributions towards bridging the gender gap – be it in education, health, employment and mobility. Thus, as “gender mainstreaming” becomes common parlance in international and domestic policy making, it is critical for feminists to take stock and review our progress. Has feminist policy making contributed to the well-being of all women? For instance, while today global governance has adopted a progressive language around gender-based violence, the specific concerns of women of colour, immigrant women, Dalit women, sex workers or transwomen have not subsided.
In this blogpost, I will explore one such story of feminist history that demonstrates that feminists too can be complicit with structural violence and state coercion. This is a story of the feminist movement against violence against women, and how neoliberalism and patriarchal institutions came together to further harm already marginalised women. It’s about how “carceral feminism” became the dominant model of feminist policymaking in the struggle against gender-based violence. We begin with a brief conceptual history of carceral feminism with roots in the United States, and then shift our analysis of the phenomenon to Latin America in the 1990s with the Inter-American Commission of Women consultation on women and violence.
First theorised by Elizabeth Bernstein in her study of transnational campaigns against sex trafficking of women, “carceral feminism” refers broadly to the convergence of certain feminist goals (such as anti-violence, anti-trafficking, anti-prostitution) with the state’s criminal justice apparatus including law enforcement and the prison system.[1] Theorised largely in the context of the United States and its politics of mass incarceration, black feminists and scholars of race have argued that the discourse and laws around anti-rape often produces dehumanising and racist stereotypes about dangerous black men[2]. The public rhetoric of “lock them up” after the sensationalist rape case of the “Central Park Joggers” in New York City in 1989 symbolised how racism can fuel punitive ideologies under the guise of gender justice. 
The feminist lawyer Aya Gruber has written a rich history of the entanglements between the waves of feminism in the US and the structures of slavery, race, gender and class[3]. One of the central arguments in the book pertains to how second wave feminists in the 1960s, departing from their anti-racist roots fought against anti-poverty feminists to take control of the narrative of domestic violence as a problem of patriarchy and sexist men.[4] Emboldened through “anti-patriarchy” feminisms, in the 1970s a group of “legal feminists” litigated for mandatory arrest policies of batterers.[5] Then, in the 1980s, feminist lawyers and policy makers joined hands with “conservative crime control enthusiasts” in an increasingly punitive atmosphere in the war against crime, drugs and prostitution.[6]
However, when we shift our gaze beyond the specific US context defined racial politics of second wave feminisms, the story of feminist complicity in carceral politics is a lot more complicated. To uncover this history, we move to Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1990s, where the Inter-American Commission of Women held the first ever consultation on “women and violence.” Following the Sixth International Conference of American States, the “Inter-American Commission for Women (IACW)” was established in 1928 as the first intergovernmental organization focused on bringing women’s human rights to the world stage[7]. After winning the right to universal suffrage in American and Caribbean states by the 1960s and ensuring that the economic and social development of women was key to Latin American policy making, the IACW shifted its attention to the issue of ‘violence against women’ and convened the first “Inter – American Consultation on Women and Violence” in 1990[8]. Following the success of this consultation, and in the backdrop of the 1993 United Nations World Conference in Vienna, the Organisation of American States in April 1994 adopted “The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women” also known as "Convention of Belem do Pará”[9] Until now, thirty-two Latin American countries had ratified the convention and began implementing legislations and policies to end both private and state violence against women[10]
The consultation brought together a variety of feminist activists, lawyers and policy makers to discuss the root causes of violence against women, the different types of inter and intrapersonal violence, the effects of violence on the psychological, social and cultural lives of women, families, societies and the polity, as well as how best to end the cycle of violence in the home and the public. A careful study of these intersecting debates can show us not only how Latin American feminists theorised violence against women, but also their views on what an international convention can or should do to empower women in the region. As I will argue, not only were feminists acutely aware of the limits of using legislation to prevent gender based violence, but also understood that no one solution can fix the problem. Thus, both carceral and anti-carceral feminist approaches (such as alleviating poverty, providing rehabilitation to victims, psychological support to women and children etc.,) existed in the very beginning of the global struggle against violence against women.
Inside the conference: debating the causes of violence against women
In her inaugural address to the convention, the President of the IACW, Milagro Azcunaga De Melendez acknowledged the seriousness of the “scourge of society” that is violence against women[11]. Manifesting in “physical, sexual and psychological aggression,” women have been the “innocent victims” of violence that constitutes a “violation of their fundamental rights as human beings.”[12] According to many participants, the causes of violence against women were multifaceted and complex. Women are victims of violence not only because of their “inferior position” in the hierarchical relationship with men, but also because of their economic deprivation the violent language of pornography, the “model of authoritarian relationships” developed through familial relations and the general “acceptance and even celebration of violence” in society. 
While “domestic or intrafamily violence” was recognised as the most rampant crime, a participant by the name of Teresa Rodriguez also acknowledged violence in correctional institutions such as repression and torture practiced against female prisoners, “hospital violence” in the form of caesarean operations as well as the language of violence in “pornography, advertising in the press, radio and TV.”[13] Moreover, a good deal of attention at the consultation was paid to examining the causes of violence against women, and analysing what violence does to the psyche of women. For instance, highlighting the “trauma of rape,” participant Sandra Dean-Patterson argued that a symptom of the “battered women syndrome” is the acceptance of violence as an “intrinsic part of human nature” and finding ways to either “adapt or avoid” it at all costs.[14] For Patterson and others, an important caveat to the overall discussion on the socio-cultural and psychological reasons for violence against women is the issue of the “family” and its “external pressures.”[15] For instance, Patterson lists the following tensions upon the family:
Moreover, these pressures are linked to the “lack of economic equality for women” that forces women to stay in abusive relationships. This necessitates “pay equity” among men and women, and the need for more opportunities to “balance work and family responsibilities” – thus giving women the “freedom to leave abusive situations.”[17]
Poverty and economic deprivation of women was broadly acknowledged as a critical reason for interfamily abuse of women. Therefore, an important distinction between western and Latin American feminism was the agreement amongst Latin American feminists that beyond the patriarchy and male machismo, poor economic conditions of women made them especially vulnerable to violence. Moreover, there existed a general reluctance among the participants to blame men for domestic violence, rather structural and complex psychological, economic and social causes were examined to explain violence against women. Additionally, many participants were comfortable sharing their sympathy for the husband who hurt his wife.
At the time of the consultation, the specific term “carceral” was not used, as it is a later development in academia. But the participants did discuss case studies to tackle the problem of domestic violence that allow us to see which way Latin American and Caribbean feminists tilted. In a panel on the topic “measures to eradicate violence against women: education,” Inez Morrison from Jamaica discussed their case study on the introduction of “women’s crisis centres” that offered counselling, shelter, vocational training along with the service of doctors, psychiatrists and “three attorneys at law” to rehabilitate and address the “loneliness and isolation” felt by “victims of rape, domestic violence and incest” in the country.[18] Another participant by the name of Elaine Matozinhos Ribeiro Gonçalves discussed their case study of women-only police stations in Belo Horizonte, Brazil[19]. Here, not only is the police force (“officers, detectives and clerks”) entirely constituted of women, they are especially trained to support victims of violence, “intimidate aggressors” and are supported by a team of “welfare workers, psychologists and attorneys” to provide mental, legal and social aid to the aggrieved women[20]. Therefore, in these case studies, instead of a punitive model focused on punishing the perpetrator, the participants recognised the importance of supporting women and taking care of their mental and physical needs. Thus, we see a broad agreement on the notion that aiding and supporting the survivors of violence is an important goal for feminists in the region, with less attention paid to the incarceration of male perpetrators. The participant’s holistic understanding of the context in which violence against women takes place led to an increased focus on rehabilitation and restitution, rather than punishment.
However, the question of punishment for perpetrators of violence was present in the minds of the participants and went hand in hand with the issue of creating an inter-continental regulatory framework. Thus, the central question that preoccupied the participants was about whether domestic or international law could provide the necessary tools to prevent and end violence against women. Ambassador Didier Opertitti from Uruguay, perhaps the only male speaker at the consultation, reminded feminists of the limits of litigation and the juridical process of changing attitudes, relationships and the fundamental unequal terms on which men and women engage with one another that leads to violence against women[21]. Challenging feminists’ “decalogue of violence against women” and their assumption to view women only as victims and never as perpetrators of violence, and by insisting on the need to preserve the family unit, the Ambassador refused the need for an international code specifically on the topic of violence against women[22]. He remarked that very little is known about the true reasons behind inter-familial violence; that there is never a singular cause, but that it does have a lot to do with the lack of “love” in the home and community [23]. Thus, no one solution can resolve the issue of domestic violence, and stricter punishment such as the death penalty, and a uniform regional code of law for the IACW, does not constitute as an adequate response.
However, the Ambassador’s critique of the law and punitive model (and thus, a presumed alignment with non-carceral views) was stung by his presumed cause to preserve the heterosexual and patriarchal “family unit.” Recognised as one with dubious motives, another participant by the name of Judith Springer criticised the Ambassador’s narrow commitments to the family when feminists have long acknowledged that the familial structure was based on the dis-empowerment of women[24]. Thus, the final nail in the coffin of non-carceral approaches – those speaking explicitly of the limits of incarceration, regulation and the law – were seen to be more concerned with preserving the structure of the patriarchal family than the cause of women’s empowerment. Understanding the IACW consultation as a historical archive therefore shows us why feminists were reluctant to endorse a wholly anti-carceral feminist platform (despite being less punitive than north American feminists), largely because of the rhetoric of family preservation that constantly challenged feminist ideologies to transform the fundamental nature of the relations between genders.
Today, owing to the neoliberal consensus in Latin American states, many are widely recognised as having adopted a penal and carceral approach to socio-economic problems along the lines of the United States[25]. Thus, the need for feminists to look back to history and ask how we got here, and to understand how to go forward from now on. As the debates in the IACW consultation have shown us, non-carceral approaches can be motivated by a desire to preserve patriarchal power and maintain the heteronormative gendered hierarchy. The struggle for a world without gender-based violence therefore requires feminists to navigate a terrain of carcerality in different forms.
I am a PhD student in the International History and Politics department at IHEID. Previously, I completed my MA in International Relations and Politics at the institute. My research is on the transnational feminist movement on violence against women from the 1970s to the early 2000s. In particular, I investigate transnational feminist activism against sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) to understand how third world feminists imagined, advanced and resisted carceral politics within women’s conferences and activist circles in UN conferences, regional networks in Latin America and transnational NGOs in Afric
[1] Elizabeth Bernstein, ‘Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 36, no. 1 (September 2010): 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1086/652918.,
[2] Kimberle Crenshaw, ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’, Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991): 1267, https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.
[3] Aya Gruber, The Feminist War on Crime: The Unexpected Role of Women’s Liberation in Mass Incarceration (University of California Press, 2020).
[4] Ibid, 16.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid, 17.
[7] “A brief history of the Inter-American Commission of Women,” Organización De Los Estados Americanos, https://www.oas.org/en/cim/docs/BriefHistory[EN].pdf.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Milagro Azcunaga De Melendez, “Address by the President of the Inter-Commission of Women, LIC. Milagro Azcunaga De Melendez, at the Inaugural Session of the Inter-American Consultation on Women and Violence,” in Proceedings, Inter-American Consultation on Women and Violence, Washington D.C., July 1990:1. District of Columbia: Inter-Allied Film Producers, Great Britain. https://search.alexanderstreet.com/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cbibliographic_details%7C1527541.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Teresa Rodriguez, “Violence and Women,” Proceedings, 7.
[14] Sandra Dean Patterson, “Women and Violence,” in Proceedings, 33.
[15] Ibid, 22.
[16] Ibid, 22.
[17] Ibid, 35.
[18] Inez Morrison, “Measures To Eradicate Violence Against Women: Education,” in Proceedings, 42-44.
[19] Elaine Matozinhos Ribeiro Gonçalves, “Women’s Police Stations in the Reduction of Violence against Women” in Proceedings, 49.
[20] Ibid, 50 – 51.
[21] Didier Opertti, “A Current Cultural Topic: Women Victims of Violence” in Proceedings, 76.
[22] Ibid, 83.
[23] Ibid, 81.
[24] Judith Springer, “Comments” in Proceedings, 90.
[25] See Markus-Michael Müller (2012) The rise of the penal state in Latin America, Contemporary Justice Review, 15:1:, 57-76, DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2011.590282.