Gender, Power and Restorative Justice: A Feminist Critique 3030908267, 9783030908263

Citation preview

CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

Gender, Power and Restorative Justice A Feminist Critique

Jodie Hodgson

Critical Criminological Perspectives

Series Editors Reece Walters Faculty of Law Deakin University Burwood, VIC, Australia Deborah H. Drake Department of Social Policy & Criminology The Open University Milton Keynes, UK

The Palgrave Critical Criminological Perspectives book series aims to showcase the importance of critical criminological thinking when examining problems of crime, social harm and criminal and social justice. Critical perspectives have been instrumental in creating new research agendas and areas of criminological interest. By challenging state defined concepts of crime and rejecting positive analyses of criminality, critical criminological approaches continually push the boundaries and scope of criminology, creating new areas of focus and developing new ways of thinking about, and responding to, issues of social concern at local, national and global levels. Recent years have witnessed a flourishing of critical criminological narratives and this series seeks to capture the original and innovative ways that these discourses are engaging with contemporary issues of crime and justice. For further information on the series and to submit a proposal for consideration, please get in touch with the Editor: Josephine Taylor, [email protected]. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14932

Jodie Hodgson

Gender, Power and Restorative Justice A Feminist Critique

Jodie Hodgson Manchester Centre for Youth Studies Manchester Metropolitan University Manchester, UK

ISSN 2731-0604     ISSN 2731-0612 (electronic) Critical Criminological Perspectives ISBN 978-3-030-90826-3    ISBN 978-3-030-90827-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

This book is dedicated to my grandparents, George and Patricia Chatterton.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank those who participated in this study. The youth offending teams who agreed to allow me access to undertake the empirical work and the practitioners who, generously, gave their time to be interviewed and talk openly to me about their insights. I am sincerely grateful. Most of all I would like to express my gratitude to all of the girls, who took part in this study, for agreeing to share their experiences with me. If it were not for these girls, the research would not have been possible. I would like to acknowledge and thank Janet Jamieson and Helen Monk who supervised my PhD research. I am especially thankful to Joe Sim. If it was not for Joe, I would likely have never submitted a proposal for this book let alone finish it. Thank you so much for all your guidance, support and encouragement throughout the process and thank you for giving your time generously to comment on my draft chapters. Thank you to Jan Andre Lee Ludvigsen for his support, patience, encouragement and proof-reading. Special thanks to my incredible friend Kym Atkinson for her feedback on draft chapters and generally teaching me so much. Thanks to Kay Inckle for her feedback and support. I want to thank colleagues and friends at Leeds Beckett University, in particular Lewis Simpson and Alexandria Bradley. Friends and colleagues at Liverpool John Moores University, in particular Lindsey Metcalfe, for vii

viii Acknowledgements

setting up the writing groups where much of this book was written. My friends and colleagues at the University of Liverpool writing group. My best friends, Jenny, Hannah, Stu and Elen. Finally, I want to acknowledge my family. In particular, my sister Amie, if it wasn’t for her, I probably wouldn’t have gone to university in the first place. My brother Lee and most of all I want to acknowledge and thank my mum Sara. Thank you for everything you do, and have done, for me, and thank you for always being proud of me.

Contents

1 Introduction  1 2 Girls and Youth Justice  21 3 An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power  45 4 Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting Perspectives and Alternative Narratives to Dominant Discourses  77 5 Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding Structural Inequalities in Relation to Gender  107 6 Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising Restorative Justice Through a Gendered Lens  145 7 Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology  169 8 Conclusion  193

ix

x Contents

A  ppendix: Methodology 203 References225 Index229

List of Tables

Table 1 Number of interviews conducted with girls within each participating youth offending service Table 2 Number of interviews conducted with practitioners within each participating youth offending service Table 3 Age of respondents by order and youth justice supervision/ intervention to which they were subject Table 4 Job role and gender of youth justice practitioners interviewed for this study

213 214 216 217

xi

1 Introduction

This book is rooted within issues of social justice for girls in conflict with the law. It is a development of doctoral research which consisted of a critical exploration of offending girls’ experiences of participating in a restorative justice (RJ) conference as part of a youth justice intervention in England. Focusing on the individual narratives of girls and young women who form part of an inherently neglected group of young people in conflict with the law, this book expands feminist engagement with RJ by focusing critical attention on the importance of the social construction of gender, the exercise of power, shame, stigma, muting and resistance to girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. The book ties RJ to the exercise of patriarchal power. Focusing on the gendered nature of shame and stigma, the book contends that RJ conferencing can produce harmful implications for girls and young women who participate. Ultimately, it is argued that anti-carceral, social policy alternatives, underpinned by feminist praxis, should replace a youth justice jurisprudence for girls. The empirical research project underpinning this study sought to extract and evaluate meaning from girls’ experiences in order to develop new and alternative forms of knowledge relating to RJ. These new forms of knowledge do not claim, as Ballinger (2016, p. 4) states, to arrive ‘at an © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_1

1

2 

J. Hodgson

immutable “truth” … since the potential for excavating new knowledge always exists’ but aims to provide a space in which alternative narratives to dominant discourse can emerge. As Bryson (1992, p. 4 cited in Mooney, 2000, p. 75) states, there are a ‘“maze” of theories and perspectives which exist within feminism’. Although not all those discussing gender are feminists and not all feminists share the same theoretical and methodological standpoints, there are a number of central tenants that feminist work shares. At the core of these insights is, firstly, ‘the recognition that gender is a central organising principle of social life’ and a ‘socially constructed’ concept that determines social norms and expectations, which regulate the behaviour of males and females through discourses of masculinity and femininity (Renzetti, 2018, p. 74). Secondly, the discourses of masculinity and femininity create ‘exclusive’ gender categories, which positions masculinity as ‘more highly valued’ than femininity, due to the patriarchal system of control upon which society operates (ibid., p. 75). The prioritising of women’s experiences and subjectivities as well as the recognition that gender intersects with multiple experiences of inequalities on the basis of ethnicity, class, sexuality and (dis)ability accounts for a further core principle of feminist theoretical perspectives. Finally, all of these core principles are underpinned by a commitment to collective actions to eradicate gender inequality (ibid.). No single feminist approach has been utilised, in the development of this book. It intends to be established as a contribution to feminist criminological research, which distinguishes individual experiences as being shaped by gender. It is the social construction of gender that binds the methodological and theoretical perspectives together. Although the empirical study underpinning this book is concerned with girls, who have committed an offence, and have been subject to youth justice intervention, the discussion and analysis to be developed form a coherent argument that identifies the processes and dynamics of social control to which all women and girls are subject. In doing this, it will demonstrate how all females are judged against their adherence to idealised forms of femininity and provide a framework in which to understand how these processes shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing.

1 Introduction 

3

 dvancing Feminist Perspectives on Girls A in the Youth Justice System Within criminological theory and enquiry, female offending has remained largely under-theorised in comparison to male offending. Initial perspectives that did offer accounts of female offending considered it only in relation to ‘pseudo-scientific psycho-biological theories’ which adopted ‘an entirely uncritical attitude towards sexual stereotypes of women and girls’ (Smart, 1976, p. 4). The prominence of such gendered, stereotypical presuppositions (e.g., Cowie et al., 1968) ‘offered only narrow and distorted caricatures’ of female offending which ‘relied on the notions of “normal” femininity regulated through the concepts of morality, respectability, frailty and naturalness’ (Monk & Sim, 2017, p. 4). It was not until the 1970s that feminist contributions to criminology began to emerge. Beginning with the publication of Women, Crime and Criminology, Smart (1976) paved the way for the emergence of a ‘distinctive feminist criminology … [which] set out to challenge some of the gender-blind assumptions inherent within criminology’ (Burman & Gelsthorpe, 2017, p. 213). The book was pioneering in its advocation of alternative and critical perspectives towards the construction of crime and deviance and the responses to them. The contributions of Smart’s seminal work served to disrupt the fallacious positivism inherent within Criminology at the time and its focus on pathological explanations of crime and deviance (Monk & Sim, 2017). Since then, feminist contributions to the social sciences have continued to emphasise the need for radical change through collective action and resistance to the micro, meso and macro levels of patriarchal power operating in the lives of all women and girls. Moreover, justice alternatives which are underpinned by a commitment to radical and transformative social change in order to disrupt and disassemble the social, institutional and structural injustices to which women and girls are subject continue to emerge. Thus, the ‘ruptural’ effect of feminist interventions into the social sciences, described by Stuart Hall (1996, p. 269) over two decades ago, has not remained stagnant and feminism continues to restructure and transform notions of power and knowledge.

4 

J. Hodgson

Within the discipline of criminology, feminist contributions have been successful in constructing debates concerning women, crime and victimisation and have continued to pioneer the argument for the inclusion of women (and girls) in the study of crime and criminalisation. As such vast amounts of theoretical developments, research and debates have emerged, which have highlighted the ways in which ‘offending, victimisation and institutional responses to these issues are fundamentally gendered’ (Renzetti, 2018, p. 76). Reflecting on the contributions made by her pioneering book Women, Crime and Criminology, on the 40th anniversary of its publication, Carol Smart reiterated the need for the continuation, and development, of new feminist work within the broad field of criminology (Smart, 2017). This book responds to this call and intends to extend the continuum of feminist work within criminology through broadening the scope of feminist scholarship to include RJ practices used with girls in the youth justice system. ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ explores the experiences of 15 girls involved in the youth justice system and who have participated in a RJ conference and the perspectives of 13 youth justice practitioners. When it comes to girls involved in the youth justice system, their voices and experiences are often overlooked and neglected. In 2009, Burman and Batchelor argued that: Young women offenders fall between two stools. Policy responses to youth offending focus primarily on young men (ignoring gender) and policies in relation to women offenders fail to differentiate between older and younger women (ignoring age). (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p. 270)

This neglect and invisibility has continued into the third decade of the twenty-first century. For example, high-profile reports aimed at reforming how the criminal justice system responds to women in conflict with the law, such as The Corston Report (2007) and The Female Offender Strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018), have neglected to address issues specific to girls. Further to this, girls remain ‘a minority in both community and custody settings’ (Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk, 2021, p. 27). As a result, there continues to be a lack of understanding about the needs and experiences of girls, which are distinguished from

1 Introduction 

5

their young male and adult female counterparts based on their age and development (Burman & Batchelor, 2009). The major consequence of this is that there is limited understanding of the needs of girls involved in the youth justice system and how best to respond to them. They are ‘effectively pigeon-holed into a criminal justice system designed for the male majority’(All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System, 2012, p. 5). This neglect of girls and their experiences is what prompted the development of the empirical research explored within this book. As noted by Skinner et  al. (2005), p.  12), ‘enabling the voices of women [and girls] and other marginalised groups to be heard and their experience valued’ is central to feminist enquiry. By focusing on girls’ experiences of RJ, this book intends to contribute to the gap in knowledge concerning girls and youth justice interventions and ensure their experiences do remain at the margins of academic scholarship and policy discourse relating to young people in conflict with the law. This book is therefore concerned with bringing to the forefront of academic inquiry the voices of girls who have, thus far, remained unheard within the context of RJ research. As will be discussed in the following chapter, the international evidence base and literature surrounding RJ are vast, and this existing body of knowledge reflects the proliferation and popularity of RJ practice which has swept across countries and continents in recent decades. This book, therefore, does not intend to revisit this existing knowledge base but to contribute to the significant lacuna in knowledge concerning girls and RJ. In order to do this, it is first necessary to briefly explore the theoretical underpinnings and principles of RJ as it has developed throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

A Brief Overview of Restorative Justice There is no single meaning or definition of RJ; therefore, explicitly understanding what RJ is in theory, and in practice, is not straightforward (Johnstone, 2011; McCold, 1998; Van Ness & Strong, 2002). Although

6 

J. Hodgson

there continues to be no universally agreed upon definition of RJ, it is commonly understood as: A process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future. (Marshall, 1999, p. 5)

In recent decades the concept has gained significant popularity and momentum within criminal justice, political and academic discourse internationally (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015; O’Mahony & Doak, 2017). Proponents of RJ consider it to be a progressive alternative to responding to crime and deviance and an optimistic way to address existing problems inherent within the criminal justice system (London, 2013). The foundations of RJ philosophy are concerned with repairing harm following the aftermath of an offence, as opposed to the infliction of punishment, and are regarded as a radical alternative to punitive methods of dealing with offending behaviour, which limits the role of the state in delivering justice (ibid.). At the centre of RJ philosophy is the desire for an inclusive, participatory approach to conflict resolution, which emphasises the importance of restoring relationships between victims, offenders and their communities (Crawford, 2002). The values of RJ, such as ‘inclusion’, ‘resolution’ and ‘amends’ (Van Ness & Strong, 2015, p.  49), have become attached to RJ policy and practice, and it has received unprecedented support on an international scale including endorsement from both the Council of Europe and the United Nations Economic and Social Council in advocating for the use of RJ as a response to youth crime (Lynch, 2010; Schiff, 2013). Further to this is the development of an international evidence base indicating that RJ interventions have a beneficial effect on victim satisfaction (Shapland et al., 2011; Sherman & Strang, 2007). Within youth justice, RJ has gained momentum in Australia in the form of family group conferencing, implemented initially in New Zealand by The Children, Young Persons and Families Act 1989. In a UK context, statutory-based RJ, similar to the family group conferencing model, was implemented in Northern Ireland in the form of The Youth Conferencing Service by the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

1 Introduction 

7

(Campbell et al., 2005), and in Ireland, diversionary based family conferences were introduced by the Children Act (2001) (Kilkelly, 2014). In England and Wales, RJ has become embedded into the youth justice sphere following its formal implementation as a response to youth crime by The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the subsequent Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Hodgson, 2020).

Shame and Restorative Justice Whilst the popularity of RJ continues to expand within and beyond criminal and youth justice settings and various manifestations of practice continue to emerge, RJ remains at the centre of a debate concerning the delivery of criminal and youth justice within Western society. One of the reasons for this is because the ‘social dimensions of restorative justice’ have come to be closely associated with the idea of ‘reintegrative shaming’ developed by Braithwaite (Marshall, 1999, p. 30). The central premise of reintegrative shaming theory is: that locations in space and time where shame is communicated effectively and reintegratively will be times and places where there is less predatory crime. (Braithwaite & Braithwaite, 2001, p. 39)

The theory, therefore, emphasises the fundamental role shame occupies in criminal sanctioning and its ability to prevent offending (Braithwaite, 1989). The process of shaming can be described as ‘all social processes of expressing disapproval which [have] the intention or effect of invoking remorse in the person being shamed and/or condemnation by others who become aware of the shaming’ (ibid., p. 100). Braithwaite (1989, p. 85) suggested that the social conditions, which facilitate reintegrative shaming, are contained within a ‘communitarian society [which] combines dense networks of individual interdependencies with strong cultural commitments to mutuality of obligation’. He suggested that such societies ‘not only have the capacity to deliver more potent shaming, but they can also deliver shaming which is more

8 

J. Hodgson

reintegrative’ (ibid., p. 87). According to Braithwaite (ibid., p. 9), shaming within this context functions as a process of ‘moralizing social control’. Braithwaite (1989, p. 55) acknowledges that ‘shaming runs the risk of counterproductivity when it fades into stigmatization’. He refers to a distinction between ‘reintegrative’ shaming and ‘disintegrative shaming’ (ibid., p.  55). Reintegrative shaming is ‘shaming which is followed by efforts to reintegrate the offender back into the community … through words or gestures of forgiveness or ceremonies to decertify the offender as deviant’ (ibid., p.  101). The theory specifies that shaming, within the context of reintegration, should therefore only focus upon the deviant act, not the individual, and is distinguished from stigmatisation through attempts to ‘maintain bonds’ following the experience of shame. Disintegrative shaming, however, can be understood as ‘stigmatic shaming’ (ibid., p. 105) and consists of: shaming in which no effort is made to reconcile the offender with the community. The offender is outcast, her deviance is allowed to become a master status, degradation ceremonies are not followed by ceremonies to decertify deviance. (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 101)

The theoretical arguments contained within reintegrative shaming theory are considered to be an important influence with respect to the growth of RJ in Western society and have had a significant practical impact on the development of RJ practice, particularly RJ conferencing (Retzinger & Scheff, 1996; Young & Goold, 1999). RJ conferencing is a process whereby ‘victims and offenders involved in a crime meet in the presence of a trained facilitator with their families and friends or others affected by the crime, to discuss and resolve the offence and its consequences’ (Strang et al., 2013, p. 3). It is the model of RJ conferencing which appears to have had the most influential impact with regard to the application of Braithwaite’s (1989) reintegrative shaming theory and the proliferation of restorative justice practice outside of Australia and New Zealand (Johnstone, 2011). This is because the ‘developed and applied forms of Braithwaite’s theory are the focus in restorative justice conferences’ (Kim & Gerber, 2012, p. 1064).

1 Introduction 

9

This association, between reintegrative shaming theory and RJ, has prompted a debate concerning the appropriateness of utilising shame in order to deliver justice (Braithwaite & Braithwaite, 2001). As a result, the concept has come to occupy a crucial but controversial role within RJ conferencing (Maruna et  al., 2007). This is primarily due to concerns regarding the appropriateness of shaming penalties used as a response to offending behaviour and the extent to which evoking shame can function in a reintegrative manner, as suggested by reintegrative shaming theory. By focusing on girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing, through a gendered lens, the central arguments and discussions developed within this book aim to broaden the debate regarding the role of shame within RJ practice. The development of this debate is concerned with critically exploring the suitability of RJ conferencing, as underpinned by reintegrative shaming theory, to be used as an intervention with girls involved in the youth justice system.

 he Justification for ‘Gender, Power T and Restorative Justice’ Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, RJ has remained a consistent approach within England and Wales’s central government’s aim to prevent young peoples’ offending behaviour and (more recently) divert them away from the youth justice system. Whilst a body of research has been developed, which critiques the use of RJ within the criminal and youth justice systems, research focused upon young female offenders’ experiences of RJ interventions remains unsubstantial. Existing literature, which does discuss issues of gender and RJ, suggests that almost all ‘feminist discussions address the ways in which it may help or hinder female victims’ and few have considered how RJ may be beneficial or problematic for female offenders (Daly, 2008, p. 113). At present, there continues to be no evaluation concerning the efficacy of RJ as a response to young female offenders (Sharpe, 2012). Those commentators who do address this issue have raised several concerns relating to the use of RJ with girls who offend (ibid.). For example, the

10 

J. Hodgson

appropriateness of encouraging girls to express shame for their offending, the ways in which ‘community values and expectations’ associated with appropriate female behaviour may influence outcomes within RJ practice (Alder, 2003, p. 118) and the understanding that girls are more difficult to work with compared to boys (Alder, 2003; Sharpe, 2012). Notwithstanding a small number of exceptions (Chap. 2), the experiences of offending and girls (and women) have remained neglected from RJ discourse. The implications being that RJ has developed in a genderless silo, whereby the politics of gender and the gendered structural inequalities and specific needs of girls involved in the youth justice system have remained ostracised from RJ policy, practice and research. By centralising the voices of girls who have participated in a RJ conference, ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ contributes to the development of alternative narratives to RJ discourse. Such alternative narratives contribute to a radical reconceptualisation of RJ practices which disrupt the gender-blindness that continues to shape RJ discourse. Through the dissemination of alternative accounts of RJ, the book draws critical attention to issues concerning the exercise of power, gendered social control and structural inequalities which, despite shaping the lives of girls in the justice system and their experiences of youth justice intervention, have been neglected by RJ research, policy and practice. The dominance of gender-blind approaches to RJ practices therefore raise a series of fundamental questions concerning the appropriateness of RJ interventions used with girls, which are addressed within this book.

Original Contribution to Knowledge Sinhoretto and Tonche (2019, p.  230) argue that ‘the field that has formed around restorative justice needs to open itself up to dialogue … [as] it is only through debate, criticism and primarily self-criticism’ that progression within the field of RJ can be achieved. They invite and provoke the production of feminist and abolitionist knowledge which challenges RJ as an alternative form of justice, in order to explore how RJ may (or may not) form part of an emancipatory strategy for gender and justice (ibid.).

1 Introduction 

11

RJ must therefore endeavour to respond to, and engage with, the struggles for social justice that girls who enter the youth justice system are faced with. This means accounting for power, resistance and subjectivity, whilst recognising how each of these issues intersect and transgress from wider society into the RJ arena. By centralising the subjugated voices and alternative narratives of girls who have participated in RJ, this book makes a series of original contributions to knowledge. Such contributions broaden the scope of feminist scholarship on RJ and serves to disrupt gender-blind RJ discourse and open a transformative space in which the issues relating to the exercise of patriarchal power, shame, stigma and marginalisation and RJ can be addressed. The original and unique contribution to knowledge this book makes are centred upon (i) incorporating a female voice into RJ research, (ii) a critical conceptualisation of the role of shame and stigma in shaping girls’ experiences of RJ, (iii) providing a unique insight into offending girls’ demonstrations of agency and resistance which challenge the power of RJ to shape their subjectivities and (iv) the proposal for a radically informed shift in the existing treatment and responses to girls involved in the justice system through the development and application of a ‘girl-wise penology’ underpinned by abolitionist alternatives and feminist praxis. Female Voice RJ Research—The findings from the empirical research underpinning this book have been produced through qualitative interviews with girls who have participated in RJ as part of a youth justice intervention. The decision to undertake empirical research with girls who offend was established upon the concern that their narratives and experiences were being systematically excluded within a youth justice system which is statistically dominated by young males who offend. Notwithstanding the fact that empirically investigating girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing is a difficult task, given that girls who offend are a hard-to-reach group within criminological research (Deacon & Spencer, 2011), the participation of justice-involved girls in this research provides a unique female voice to research on RJ. Shame and Stigma—‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ is focused on rethinking stigma in relation to offending girls, by conceptualising the social construction of gender, as a macro-level form of power, which fuels the ‘political economy of stigmatization [and shame]’ (Parker & Aggleton,

12 

J. Hodgson

2003, p.  17) and the implications this might have for their participation in RJ. Recent development in the Sociology of Stigma have contributed to an inter-disciplinary understanding of stigma and the role it plays in reinforcing social and structural inequality at micro, meso and macro levels. Drawing upon the example of RJ conferencing and girls involved in the youth justice system, the arguments put forward in this book intend to expand the inter-disciplinary knowledge base of stigma through a theoretical extension of stigma power to the perspectives of critical criminology and feminist scholarship. Utilising theoretical accounts of stigma and a feminist informed analysis of shame, the book explores how the social processes underpinning stigmatization have the potential to elicit and exacerbate feelings of shame, which are impacted by the social construction of gender and ideals of femininity. By drawing upon feminist insights concerning discourses of femininity and gendered social control and inequality, the original arguments within this book demonstrate how, both, shame and stigma are produced and reinforced through a framework of gendered power. In doing so this book serves to fundamentally challenge the conceptual framework and theoretical premise, upon which the development of restorative justice conferencing has been established, and raises important contextual arguments about the suitability of restorative justice conferencing used with girls who offend. Stigma is discursive in nature and ‘operates as a form of governance which legitimizes the reproduction and entrenchment of inequalities and injustices’ (Tyler, 2013, p. 212). As young women the girls who participated in this research have long histories of stigma, evident on a structural level by virtue of their gender and the oppressive and regulatory social norms and expectations prescribed to them through the social construction of femininity, it is argued that to be female is to be subject to stigma regardless of other intersecting factors (Laws, 1979). Focusing on gender, the social construction of femininity and the reconceptualisation of stigma as a ‘machinery of inequality’ (Tyler, 2020, p. 1) highlight the relevance of, and relationship between, stigma power and gender power. Understanding girls’ experiences of stigma through the lens of gender inequality and injustice and connecting this gendered experience of stigma to feelings of shame evoked as part of RJ intervention is an

1 Introduction 

13

integral component of the feminist critique of gender, power and RJ underpinning this book and its original contribution to knowledge. What ‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ seeks to contribute here is an understanding of how girls’ experiences of stigma and shame form part of the reproduction of structural inequalities and social injustice, which shape the material and lived realities of their lives. Resistance and Agency—In recent decades expressions of agency and resistance have become salient not only in contesting the conceptualisation of women as passive recipients of unequal societal structures but also in terms of contributing to more ‘nuanced understandings of the dimensions of power’ (Burman & Gelsthorpe, 2017, p. 219). Gender, Power and Restorative Justice provides a unique insight into the ways in which girls embody strategies of resistance and demonstrate agency as a means to make sense of, and navigate, their experience of RJ. Resistance, as an expression of agency, is therefore concerned with relations of power and the opportunity for action. This book explores new ways in which the politics of power operates through resistance and agency for girls who participate in RJ conferencing and contributes to the production of alternative narratives and new knowledge informed by girls’ voices. Abolitionist Alternatives for Girls in Conflict with the Law—‘Gender, Power and Restorative Justice’ draws attention to the muting of girls’ voices from RJ discourse and the harmful implications shame, stigma and ideological discourses of masculinity and femininity have for girls. The book provides a unique contribution to youth justice research through the development and advocation of abolitionist and anti-carceral feminist alternatives to youth justice responses to girls. This proposal for such a radically informed shift in the existing treatment of girls who offend form part of a broader discussion which contributes to the established and emerging arguments concerning abolitionist alternatives to state responses to criminalised women and girls and the subsequent injustices to which they are subject. As such the alternative policy proposals underpinning ‘girl-wise penology’ presented in Chap. 7 of this book build upon abolitionist and feminist perspectives on injustices perpetrated by the state with a specific focus on the ways in which such arguments would contribute to the dismantling of youth justice involvement in girls’ lives.

14 

J. Hodgson

Summary of Chapters This book is set out in eight chapters. Chapter 2 provides a contextual insight into the treatment of, and responses to, ‘troublesome’ girls (Hudson, 1989, p. 197). The chapter draws attention to the marginalisation of girls’ experiences within youth justice discourse and considers the nature and extent of their offending behaviour. It critically explores youth justice approaches throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries and the gender-specific implications these approaches have had for girls who come into contact with the youth justice system. The chapter focuses on the themes of welfare, justice, risk, gender-responsivity and gender-­ specific provision and considers the implications each of these approaches have for girls in terms of the social control and regulation of their behaviour in line with dominant discourses of femininity, net-widening, responsibilisation and finally RJ. The chapter considers further the marginalisation of girls’ experiences from RJ policy and practice and the limited criminological research focused on this issue. Chapter 3 links RJ to the exercise of patriarchal power. The chapter argues that shame and stigma are deeply rooted within patriarchal power relations. Drawing upon the incursions made within the sociology of stigma, feminist theory and insights on shame, the chapter puts forward a theoretical framework for understanding the ways in which dominant discourses of femininity and masculinity and the exercise of patriarchal power can shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. It also considers the importance of agency and demonstrations of resistance in order to reformulate gender subjectivities and challenge the social processes of shaming and stigmatisation. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the individual narratives and personal insights provided by the girls and practitioners during their interviews. These chapters explore the disconnect between girls’ subjective experiences of participating in a RJ conference and practitioners’ perspectives concerning RJ conferencing with girls who offend. ‘Conflicting perspectives of RJ in practice’, ‘issues of power and control’, ‘the victim-offender paradox’, ‘gender-blind RJ practice’ and ‘the silencing of girls’ subjectivities’ are the themes explored in Chap. 4. Chapter 5 explores the themes

1 Introduction 

15

of ‘shame and stigma’. It is argued that shame and stigma play a central role in girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing and produce harmful effects for them. Both of these chapters draw attention to the ways in which the marginalised subjectivities of girls provide alternative narratives to dominant discourse on RJ approaches used in the youth justice system, developed through a gendered lens. Drawing upon the empirical data generated from the interviews undertaken with the girls and the practitioners, Chap. 6 draws together the themes inherent within the empirical data and contextualises RJ in relation to broader issues of power, patriarchy and social control. It considers the harm that can occur as a result of gender-blind RJ practices, specifically in relation to the social construction of truth relating to the ideals of femininity, stigma and shame. The discussion concludes with an analysis of the ways in which each of the girls interviewed demonstrated their agency to resist and challenge the dominant discourse surrounding contemporary RJ practice and in doing so challenge existing RJ discourse and the perspectives presented by practitioners. Chapter 7 considers the wider implications and issues concerning the harmful impact shame, stigma, dominant discourses of masculinity and femininity and the exercise of patriarchal power has for girls within and beyond the youth justice system. It considers whether ‘engendering’ RJ by incorporating changes to policy and practice would be sufficient in addressing the gender-specific needs of girls in the youth justice system and what role, if any, shame should occupy in RJ conferencing. It is ultimately argued that there is a need for a radical overhaul to the current responses to girls in conflict with the law. Drawing upon the recommendations made by Carlen (1990) for a ‘woman-wise’ penology, the chapter lays out the framework and principles for a ‘girl-wise’ penology that consists of an anti-carceral feminist response to girls embroiled in the youth justice system. Chapter 8 critiques the ideological principles of reintegration and restoration that have been attached to RJ discourse and challenges the capacity of RJ to deliver any kind of gendered justice in the context of a deeply divided social order built on harmful gendered divisions.

16 

J. Hodgson

References Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. (2021). Young Women’s Justice Project Literature Review. Alliance for Youth Justice. Alder, C. (2003). Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative Justice. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes, & L.  Westmarland (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical issues (pp. 117–126). The Open University. All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System. (2012). Inquiry on Girls: From Courts to Custody. The Howard League for Penal Reform. Ballinger, A. (2016). Gender, Truth and State Power, Capitalising on Punishment. Routledge. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press. Braithwaite, J., & Braithwaite, V. (2001). Shame, Shame Management and Regulation. In E. Ahmed, N. Harris, J. Braithwaite, & V. Braithwaite (Eds.), Shame Management through Reintegration (pp.  3–72). Cambridge University Press. Burman, M., & Batchelor, S. (2009). Between Two Stools? Responding to Young Women who Offend. Youth Justice, 9(3), 270–285. Burman, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2017). Feminist Criminology: Inequalities, Powerlessness and Justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 213–238). Oxford University Press. Campbell, C., Devlin, R., O’Mahony, D., Doak, J., Jackson, J., Corrigan, T., & McEvoy, K. (2005). Evaluation of the Northern Ireland Youth Conference Service. Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice: Queens University Belfast. Carlen, P. (1990). Alternatives to Women’s Imprisonment. Open University Press. Corston, J. (2007). The Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. : Home Office. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from www.clinks.orgs Cowie, J., Cowie, V., & Slater, E. (1968). Delinquency in Girls. Heinemann. Crawford, A. (2002). The Prospects of Restorative Justice in England and Wales: A Tale of Two Acts. In K. McEvoy & T. Newburn (Eds.), Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice (pp. 171–207). Palgrave Macmillan. Cunneen, C., & Goldson, B. (2015). Restorative Justice? A Critical Analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 137–155). Sage Publications.

1 Introduction 

17

Daly, K. (2008). Girls, Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 109–137. Deacon, J., & Spencer, J. (2011). Sensitive Survey Research: An Oxymoron? In P.  Davies, P.  Francis, & V.  Jupp (Eds.), Doing Criminological Research (pp. 139–160). Sage Publications. Hall, S. (1996). Cultural Studies and Its Theoretical Legacies. In C. Kuan-Hsing Chen & D. Morley (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (pp. 261–274). Routledge. Hodgson, J. (2020). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A Critical Analysis. Youth Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420967751 Hudson, A. (1989). Troublesome Girls, Towards Alternative Definitions and Policies. In M.  Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp.  197–219). Sage Publications. Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice, Ideals, Values and Debates (2nd ed.). Oxon Willan Publishing. Kilkelly, U. (2014). Diverging or Emerging from Law? The Practice of Youth Justice in Ireland. Youth Justice, 14(3), 212–225. Kim, H. J., & Gerber, J. (2012). The Effectiveness of Reintegrative Shaming and Restorative Justice Conferences: Focusing on Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions in Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(7), 1063–1079. Laws, J. (1979). The Second X. Elsevier North Holland, Inc. London, R. (2013). A New Paradigm Arises. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (2nd ed., pp. 5–1). Routledge. Lynch, N. (2010). Restorative Justice through a Children’s Rights Lens. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(2), 161–183. Marshall, T. (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Maruna, S., Wright, S., Van Brown, J., Merle, F., Devlin, R., & Liddle, M. (2007). Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long Term Follow-up Study. ARCS. McCold, P. (1998). Restorative Justice: Variations on a Theme. In L. Walgrave (Ed.), Restorative Justice for Juveniles: Potentialities, Risks and Problems for Research (pp. 19–53). Leuven University Press. Ministry of Justice. (2018). Female Offender Strategy. Ministry of Justice. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/719819/female-­offender-­strategy.pdf

18 

J. Hodgson

Monk, H., & Sim, J. (2017). Introduction. In H.  Monk & J.  Sim (Eds.), Women, Crime and Criminology, A Celebration (pp. 1–16). The Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion and EG Press Limited. Mooney, J. (2000). Gender, Violence and the Social Order. Palgrave Macmillan. O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining Restorative Justice, Agency and Accountability in the Criminal justice Process. Hart Publishing. Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-Related Sigma and Discrimination: A Conceptual Framework and Implications for Action. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 13–24. Renzetti, C.  M. (2018). Feminist Perspectives. In W.  S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 74–82). Routledge. Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (1996). Strategy for Community Conferences: Emotions and Social Bonds. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative Justice International Perspectives (pp. 215–336). Criminal Justice Press. Schiff, M. (2013). Institutionalizing Restorative Justice: Paradoxes of Power, Restoration and Rights. In T.  Gavrielides & V.  Artinopoulou (Eds.), Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy (pp. 153–178). Routledge. Shapland, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2011). Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. Routledge. Sharpe, G. (2012). Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice. Routledge. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice the Evidence. The Smith Institute. Sinhoretto, J., & Tonche, J. (2019). Restorative Justice for Women’s Rights’. In P. Carlen & L. A. França (Eds.), Justice Alternatives (pp. 219–234). Routledge. Skinner, T., Hester, M., & Malos, E. (2005). Researching Gender Violence: Feminist Methodology in Action. Willan Publishing. Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Smart, C. (2017). Observations Through a Rear-View Mirror: Revisiting Women, Crime and Criminology. In H.  Monk & J.  Sim (Eds.), Women, Crime and Criminology, A Celebration (pp. 57–78). The Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion and EG Press Limited. Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) Using Face-to-Face Meetings of Offenders and Victims: Effects on Offender Recidivism and Victim Satisfaction. A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. Zed Books.

1 Introduction 

19

Tyler, I. (2020). Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Zed Books. Van Ness, D., & Strong, K.  H. (2002). Restoring Justice (2nd ed.). Anderson Publishing Co. Van Ness, D. W., & Strong, K. H. (2015). Restoring Justice: An Introduction to Restorative Justice (5th ed.). Routledge. Young, R., & Goold, B. (1999). Restorative Police Cautioning in Aylesbury: From Degrading to Reintegrative Shaming Ceremonies? Criminal Law Review, 126–138.

2 Girls and Youth Justice

Introduction Somehow, in all the concern about the situation of women and women’s issues during the second wave of feminism, the girls were forgotten. (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013, p. 2)

Young female offenders account for only one-fifth of the youth offending population (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2014). Their offending behaviour is often less serious than their male counterparts, and their involvement in offending is often short-lived (Arnull et  al., 2005; Bateman, 2008; Shepherd, 2015). For girls that do come into conflict with the law, it is established that their offending is often accompanied by profound experiences of victimisation and social, economic and material injustice and inequality. The purpose of this chapter is to critically explore the experiences of girls in the youth justice system and the ways in which youth justice policy and practice, emerging from the twentieth century, have had particularly gendered consequences for them. The themes of welfare, justice, risk, gender-responsivity and provision, and RJ will be the focus of the chapter. It will highlight how the social control and

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_2

21

22 

J. Hodgson

informal policing of girls’ behaviour in line with dominant discourses of femininity has been a principle feature of youth justice responses to girls, whilst also drawing attention to their marginalisation within criminological scholarship and youth justice policy. This overview of the treatment and responses to criminalised girls provides a basis in which to introduce and understand the gap in research, policy and practice concerning RJ and youth justice involved girls, as well as a contextual framework for the gendered critique of RJ and power to be addressed, in detail, in subsequent chapters.

Girls and Youth Justice Despite the development of a body of feminist literature dedicated to criminological research concerning the responses to, and treatment of, female offenders, it is suggested that ‘scant attention has been paid to the particular needs, characteristics and complexities of young female offenders’ (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p.  280). As such, girls’ experiences within the youth justice system have, in comparison to adult female offenders, been routinely marginalised and excluded from youth justice discourse, resulting in young female offenders becoming ‘an invisible minority whose offending pathways and distinctive needs have gone largely undocumented and unaddressed’ (ibid., p. 270). For girls who form part of the youth justice system, it is suggested that they remain ‘the forgotten few’ (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p. 280) and ‘perhaps the most neglected offender population’ (Batchelor & Burman, 2004, p. 277). What we do know is that for girls, who do come into the remit of the youth justice system, their experiences are impacted by the social construction of gender, inequality, oppression and social control. All of which have contributed to a combined set of unique problems that require recognition and consideration (Batchelor & Burman, 2004; Gelsthorpe & Worrall, 2009). In the context of criminological inquiry, girls have remained largely absent in comparison to the attention given to their young male and adult female counterparts. Attempts to explain criminality amongst girls have arguably been overshadowed by a tendency to contextualise their

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

23

offending in relation to social class and moral development, which enforce sinister images of female offending, entrenched within normative expectations associated with the ideals of femininity (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015). Furthermore, the double deviancy (Lloyd, 1995) attached to women’s and girls’ offending behaviour for breaking the law but also for transgressing dominant discourses of acceptable femininity has resulted in them being subject to harsher sentences. Race and ethnicity are also variable factors, which impact upon the treatment of, and responses to, female offenders. Black and minority ethnic women have been described as a ‘minority within a minority’ within the criminal justice system (Cocks & Sacks-Jones, 2017, p.  4). They account for 8.8% of all the adult female prison population in comparison to 3.3% of the female population overall (ibid.), whilst Ministry of Justice statistics published in 2016 reveal that black women are ‘25% more likely than white women to be sentenced to custody’ (Uhrig, 2016, p.  19). Additionally, research conducted by Feilzer and Hood (2004) has identified higher prosecution rates and longer sentences for girls from ethnic and minority backgrounds compared to those of white female offenders. More recent research has revealed that Black, Asian or minority ethnic girls and young women continue to be over-represented in the youth and criminal justice system. Compared to their white counterparts, Black and Asian girls are more likely to be cautioned and processed through the youth justice system, and they are statistically over-represented within remand and youth custody and secure training centres (Agenda, 2021). Feminist pathways research has sought to challenge the neglect of girls within criminological discourse and draw attention to the ways in which their experiences in the social world and the nature of their offending, and responses to it, are acutely gendered. In doing so, feminist pathways scholars have demonstrated the significance of challenging essentialised and pathological explanations of girls’ offending by realigning focus on the state, its institutions and informal agents of social control, as the subject of scrutiny. One of the central contributions and concerns which have emerged from feminist pathways research is the extent to which girls’ formative experiences and their offending create a paradoxical status between their victimisation and their criminalisation (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013).

24 

J. Hodgson

In addition, such research has also been pivotal in highlighting that there is a ‘significantly higher likelihood of mental health problems’ for girls in the justice system (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006, p.  60). The dominant arguments produced from this research are that girls’ offending and their experiences of victimisation are often blurred and intertwined. Gender-­ blind and gender-neutral explanations for offending and victimisation are inaccurate and problematic (Chesney-Lind, 1989), and to fully understand and respond to the complexities of female offending, and the gender gap in crime, women and girls should be studied separately from men (Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). As such, there now exists a body of international research that evidences the disproportionate extent to which experiences of gendered violence and victimisation shaped the lives of girls involved in the youth justice system (e.g., see Batchelor, 2005; Bloom et al., 2003; Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Burman et  al., 2000; Chesney-Lind, 1989; Howard League, 1997; Schaffner, 2006; Sharpe, 2012). Chesney-Lind and Sheldon (2004, p.  145) have estimated that 40–73% of incarcerated girls have experienced sexual abuse. Research in the United States has also revealed that female victims of sexual abuse are more likely to go missing from home and be truant from school, resulting in contact with the criminal justice system for ‘status’ offending (Chesney-­ Lind, 1989). Additionally, the prominent role criminal justice agencies play in relation to the criminalisation of girls’ ‘survival strategies’ and the sexualisation of their offending behaviour have been highlighted (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Existing research further highlights the prevalence of self-harm, other mental health problems and substance abuse amongst this population of girls (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015), as well as high levels of social exclusion, educational marginalisation, social care intervention, neglect, poverty and sexual victimisation and exploitation (Bateman & Hazel, 2014; Goodfellow, 2019; Sharpe, 2015). In addition to the knowledge base emerging from feminist pathways research, existing literature also highlights how attempts to regulate girls’ behaviour in line with dominant discourses of femininity have been a principal theme represented within youth justice and welfare responses focused upon girls’ deviance and offending (Cox, 2003; Gelsthorpe &

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

25

Worrall, 2009; Hudson, 1989; Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2009; Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015). Whilst expectations associated with gender appropriate behaviour have remained a persistent factor shaping girls’ experiences in the youth justice system, official policy responses have not been consistent and have been subject to change in line with ‘trends in youth justice policy and practice, criminological theorising and … socio-­political concerns’ (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015, p. 50). It is these varying approaches in responding to young people who break the law and the gendered consequences that the shifting landscape of youth justice policy and practice has had on youth justice involved girls that this chapter will now turn its attention to.

(In)Justice, Welfarism and ‘Risky’ Girls The main focus of this chapter is to explore the gendered implications of youth justice interventions for girls who come into conflict with the law. However, the social control and regulation of girls’ behaviour has not exclusively taken place through youth justice intervention but also through the welfare sphere. Welfare interventions have played a crucial role in the social control and informal policing of girls’ behaviour. Whilst both welfare- and justice-informed legislation, policy and practice have intermittently shaped the responses to girls’ troublesome behaviour, the most consistent theme underpinning these responses are attempts to regulate their behaviour in line with dominant discourse of femininity, underpinned by the social construction of gender (Worrall & Gelsthorpe, 2009). Conflict between welfare and justice approaches to offending by young people characterised much of the twentieth-century responses to girls’ offending and deviant behaviour. Within youth justice, welfarism was concerned with the diversion of children away from criminal justice agencies and a focus on responding to them through welfare-based interventions and sentences (Scraton & Haydon, 2002). The central argument underpinning welfarism was that ‘age and family circumstances should be taken into account when adjudicating on juveniles’ (Muncie &

26 

J. Hodgson

Goldson, 2006, p.  35). However, for girls, policy and practice under-

pinned by welfarism was ‘closely tied to ideas about “respectable” femininity’ (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2009, p. 196). According to Hudson (1989, p.  197) the dominant assumption amongst welfare professionals during this time was that ‘girls in trouble fundamentally have problems with their sexuality’. She argued that welfarism was underpinned by the discourse of ‘welfare as protector’. Such discourse, it was argued, was situated within an ‘inarticulated but profound fear of the young woman who is sexually active, sexually explicit, and who is not actually possessed by any one male’ (ibid., p. 197). During this time welfare policy and practice acted as a ‘spurious justification for placing excessive restrictions on individual liberty, particularly for girls’, most prominently due to concerns about ‘perceived sexual behaviour’ or ‘offending against the codes of adolescent femininity’ (Worrall & Gelsthorpe, 2009, p. 296). The prevalence of welfarism during this period continued to reinforce girls’ unequal position within society by failing to address the legitimate needs of girls whilst at the same time devaluing their social status through processes of labelling and stigmatisation for transgressing discourses of acceptable femininity. Escalating political and social aversion to welfarism ultimately resulted in a shift to a justice model of intervention underpinned by due process, proportionality and individual rights (Asquith, 2002). This was prompted in part by the critique that girls’ behaviour was being ‘policed on “moral danger” grounds’ (Sharpe, 2012, p. 17) but also in response to sustained critique from a range of critics who contended that welfarism did not afford young people ‘sufficient legal and judicial safeguards’ (Asquith, 2002, p. 276). Supporters of the justice model advocated for increased use of cautions for low-level offences and minimal welfare intervention, expect for the most serious cases (Muncie, 2004). In theory the shift to a justice-based model of intervention could have provided a resolution to the bias girls were subject to under the welfare model (Sharpe, 2012). However, such optimism was short-lived as the ‘‘welfarisation’ and ‘soft policing’ of young women’s behaviour, by both formal and informal social control mechanisms, … [gave] way to the

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

27

straightforward criminalization of that same behaviour’ (Worrall, 2001, p. 86). As such, ‘increasing numbers of young women were being incarcerated, not on spuriously benevolent welfare grounds but on spuriously equitable “justice” grounds’ (Worrall, 2001, p. 86). From this point, ‘earlier discourses which pathologised girls’ delinquency, criminalised their welfare needs and established female sexuality as the principal rationale for youth justice control’ were subsided (Sharpe, 2012, p. 18). Girls were now being ‘re-assessed and re-categorised … as increasing numbers of young women … [were] being assigned to the same categories as young men and … subjected to the same forms of management as young men’ (Worrall, 2001, p. 86). Such gender-blind responses to offending behaviour not only failed to recognise the needs of girls and the gendered contexts of their offending, but it also resulted in high numbers of girls being criminalised and sentenced to custody (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2009). The welfare versus justice debate occupied much of the youth justice landscape and trajectory during the 1950s until the 1990s. Whilst no model was completely adopted into practice as youth justice tended to ‘act on an amalgam of rationales wavering between the two philosophies’ (Muncie & Hughes, 2002, p. 1), it was the shift towards risk management and crime prevention which eventually served to sideline the welfare/justice debate. This shift can be more broadly understood in relation to what Beck (1992) describes as a movement towards a risk society and an increase in neo-liberal and neo-conservative values which fundamentally altered how criminal justice and crime control was responded to. The emergence of a risk-based penology as a dominant paradigm in youth justice practice continued to produce gendered implications for girls involved in youth justice. Towards the end of the twentieth century, a central focus on risk management and crime prevention, ‘derived from developmental theories of criminality’ (Pitts, 2001, p. 77) and empirical research focused on ‘calculating risk’ and the ‘statistical probability of reoffending’ (Muncie, 2004, p. 276), emerged. Such research indicated that exposure to risk factors in ‘psychosocial domains … at an early stage of life … can predict and even determine later offending’ (Case & Haines, 2015, p. 101). This prompted a wide range of risk prevention interventions that ultimately led to young people being responded to in terms of risk factors associated with offending behaviour (Muncie, 1999).

28 

J. Hodgson

This shift from welfare and justice to crime prevention and risk management had ‘particularly dramatic and criminalizing consequences for girls and young women’ (Worrall & Gelsthorpe, 2009, p. 219). This was because the categorisation of offending populations according to levels of risk resulted in identified needs of offending populations becoming conflated with risk. For young female offenders this served to frame their gender-specific needs as ‘criminogenic problems’ (Hannah-Moffat, 2005, p. 43). As a result, the social and structural inequalities girls experienced based on their gender were reframed as ‘individual problems or … individual inadequacies’ (ibid., p. 43). In this context gender was no longer considered a predictive factor of offending behaviour, as actuarial discourses of risk management determined ethnicity and social class as more relevant to pre-empting offending behaviour. Girls thus became subject to the same risk-based calculations as boys resulting in a significant net-­ widening impact and a spike in recorded offences perpetrated by girls (Worrall, 2001). This increase in recorded offences committed by girls ‘prompted attempts to reconfigure criminal justice responses to them, through gender-specific programming’ (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015, p. 49).

Gender-Specific Provision The contributions made by feminist pathways research have formed the basis for the development of gender-specific provision in policy and practice directed towards assessment, treatment and the delivery of gender-­ specific programming for female offenders (Tosouni, 2019; Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). In a Western context gender-specific programming first became most prominently established in the United States following an increase in financial provision to target the gendered risk factors for offending behaviour (Bloom et  al., 2002; Goodkind, 2005; Sharpe, 2015). It aims to ‘advance equitable treatment’ within youth justice practice (Sharpe, 2015, p.  2) by responding to the gender-specific needs of girls. Underpinned by the evidence base informing feminist pathways research (for example Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Daly, 1994), the

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

29

Oregon Guidelines for Effective Programming for Girls are regarded as providing the framework for developing gender-specific programmes for girls involved in the youth justice system (Morgan & Patton, 2002; Sharpe, 2015; Youth Justice Board, 2009). Oregon guidelines are underpinned by the evidence base informing feminist pathways research and focus on the delivery of relationship, health and strength-based programming for girls, which seeks to address issues of trauma and victimisation, physical, sexual and mental health and self-respect (Morgan & Patton, 2002). These guidelines have been utilised most prominently by gender-­ specific programmes and initiatives developed in the United States. The epistemological foundations, upon which gender-specific programming has been developed, centre upon the consensus that that ‘preventive and treatment programming for girls must be responsive to their particular circumstances, needs, and strengths—all three of which differed from those of boys in meaningful ways’ (Tosouni, 2019, p. 9). Such foundations begin with the understanding ‘that girls and women are gendered subjects, with particular, gendered social experiences, who therefore require a holistic, therapeutic approach to intervention in recognition of the social origins of their troubles’ (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015, p. 57). In light of the emergence of gender-specific programming, it is acknowledged that ‘interventions for girls and young women should aim to provide a comprehensive … service that addresses the complexity and multiplicity of their support needs [and] must also be explicitly gender responsive’ (Bateman & Hazel, 2014, p. 4). It is also recognised that, in comparison to adult female offenders, girls ‘have distinctive needs because of their younger age and stage of emotional development’ (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p. 279). Therefore, the ‘real-life context of young women’s offending demands a consideration of the key determinants of gender and age’ (ibid., p. 281). Whilst the emergence of gender-specific programming demonstrates the role of feminism in the development of youth justice policy and practice concerned with responding to the ‘broader context of limiting social and structural conditions’ (Burman & Batchelor, 2009, p. 279), which characterise girls’ experiences, it has also been subject to critique, most prominently on the grounds of misconstrued assumptions concerning girls’ offending. For example, Sharpe (2015, p.  2) contends that ‘the

30 

J. Hodgson

translation of feminist pathways research into gender-specific youth justice policy and practice is based on flawed assumptions about girls’ pathways into and out of crime’ and has the potential to result in ‘iatrogenic consequences’ for those subject to them. Goodkind (2005, p.  61) has highlighted how attempts to implement gender-specific provision in the United States have failed to address ‘institutional or structural change’ and have instead focused on imputing individual responsibility on girls and their families. Additional contributions concerning the relevance and rationale of gender-specific programmes and services for girls in conflict with the law have been challenged on the grounds that they are based upon a neo-­ liberal appropriation of feminist values which materialise in the ‘disempowerment’ of girls (Goodkind, 2009, p.  398). Reflecting on findings from empirical research focused on two girls’ programmes in North America, Goodkind contends that the emphasis gender-specific programming places on ‘independence, self-esteem, choice and empowerment’ (ibid., p. 403) fails to raise girls’ awareness of the social injustice and oppression which shape and control their experiences. It also neglects to consider how they intersect with differences in terms of ethnicity, class and sexuality, whilst failing to emphasise the need for collective resistance and transformative, radical, change to disrupt such oppression. Such focus on individual aspects of self-development and change imputes upon girls an individual responsibility to effect change. It is this imputation of individualised notions of change and responsibilisation within gender-specific programming which reflects the ‘intersection of neoliberalism with feminist values’ and translates into the disempowerment of girls and a contradiction to feminist values which promote both individual and social change (ibid., p. 397).

Gender-Responsivity, Girls and Justice Working within a gender-specific framework, which recognises and responds to the gender-specific needs and experiences of women and girls who offend, is now acknowledged in policy and legislation in England and Wales (Shepherd, 2015). For example, the Gender Equality Duty,

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

31

contained within The Gender Equality Act (2006), places a statutory responsibility for the youth offending service to provide gender-specific services for female offenders. This duty was further reinforced in the Equality Act 2010. Section 10 of The Offender Rehabilitation Act (2014) also introduced a statutory requirement to ‘meet the particular needs of female offenders’. Moreover, policy developments aimed at reforming how the criminal justice system responds to women in conflict with the law also include The Female Offender Strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018) which proposes increasing community-based, gender-specific provision for women offenders. However, the extent to which gender-specific programming and responsivity is incorporated into youth justice responses to girls who offend has not been consistent, and much of the practice and policy developments have primarily shaped responses to adult women who offend and the same impetus to respond to the gender-specific needs and experiences of girls in the youth justice system has not, to the same extent, been reproduced. For example, although the youth offending service has a duty, specified by the Gender Equality Duty, contained within the Gender Equality Act (2006), to provide gender-specific services for girls, it is important to note that there is no ‘centralised mechanism’ for assessing the standard of such provision (Shepherd, 2015, p. 112). This is because the responsibility of the youth justice service to provide gender-specific intervention for girls falls to local authority youth offending teams, as part of the decentralisation agenda introduced by the Coalition government (ibid.). As a result, it is difficult to assess whether youth offending teams are fulfilling this duty. Further to this, the Youth Justice Board’s standards for children (2019) guidance on the provision of statutory services for children in the youth justice system has no gender focus and neither does its strategic plan 2021–2024. The Female Offender Strategy makes no reference to responding to girls and young women in conflict with the law, whilst the most recent review of the youth justice system, undertaken by Charlie Taylor (2016), did not address the specific needs of girls separately from boys. Further to this, the government’s response to the review made ‘no reference to the treatment of girls … other than in police custody’ (Clinks, 2017, p.  13). It is not surprising, therefore, that a recent review of

32 

J. Hodgson

existing literature focused on young women’s contact with the justice system, undertaken by The Young Women’s Justice Project (Agenda, 2021), has concluded that there is a significant gap in the research and evidence base concerning gender-specific programmes for young women. Although there are some examples of gender-specific provision for girls in the youth justice system, these programmes have, most prominently, been developed at a localised level through initiatives developed by youth offending practitioners and do not form part of youth justice policy or strategic guidance (CJJI, 2014; APPG, 2012). The 2014 report by the HM Inspectorate of Probation on the effectiveness of the youth justice system at reducing girls’ offending and addressing their gender-specific needs found that the availability of provision for girls varied across youth offending teams. The report did reveal that some youth offending teams were providing gender provision (CJJI, 2014). For example, Leeds youth offending service adopted a specific policy for working with girls which included the development of gender-sensitive assessments and various gender-specific interventions which addressed underlying issues relating to girls offending. Other examples included the pink project, developed by Nottingham youth offending team and the Pearl project and Leicestershire youth offending service. The provision provided within these programmes focused on relationships, providing same-sex workers and gender-specific groups for girls on statutory order (Matthews & Smith, 2009; APPG, 2012; CJJI, 2014). Overall, however, the report produced by the HM Inspectorate of Probation found that gender-­ specific approaches to working with girls ranged along a continuum from minimal provision for girls to services explicitly designed for girls and that these services were not underpinned by any specific ‘strategic or evidence base’ (CJJI, 2014, p. 40). Further to this, an inquiry on girls in the youth justice system undertaken by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (2012) found that gender-specific provision for girls was scarce and their needs were being overshadowed by the needs of boys who account for the majority of youth justice practitioners’ caseload. The chapter, thus far, has identified the trajectory of youth justice over the course of the last two decades and the adverse impacts the shifting landscape youth justice has had for girls in conflict with the law. What becomes clear, when charting this trajectory, is that youth justice policy

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

33

and practice has continued to produce gendered implications for girls, most prominently through non-intervention against criminal and social injustice which serves to reinforce their unequal structural position within society or an expansion of formal and informal social control which serves to regulate their behaviour in line with dominant discourses of femininity. However, when it comes to RJ, there remains very limited research and scholarship focused on the experiences of girls subject to RJ interventions (Hodgson, 2020). The chapter will now turn its attention to the neglect of girls from RJ discourse and critically consider some of the potential problems relating to the use of RJ with girls involved in the youth justice system.

Neglected Girls and Restorative Justice Despite the changes in the youth justice system since its implementation into the youth justice sphere beginning with The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 , RJ continues to remain a principal component of central government’s approach to managing and preventing youth crime. In addition to this, an international evidence base has been developed, indicating that RJ interventions have a beneficial effect on victim satisfaction (Shapland et al., 2011; Sherman & Strang, 2007). Accompanying this evidence base there has also been a mounting body of critical literature concerning the momentum to incorporate RJ as a formal response to youth crime and the logic in which legislative reforms and policy changes have been implemented. For example, within the United Kingdom, the impetus to incorporate RJ as a formal response to youth crime has been rigorously debated in relation to issues of net-widening, responsibilisation and risk governance (Ashworth, 2013; Gray, 2005; Johnstone, 2011; Kemshall, 2008; Levrant et al., 1999; O’Malley, 2009). Whilst there is now a plethora of literature which both critiques and advocates the use of RJ with young people who offend, there continues to remain a substantial lack of knowledge concerning the experiences of girls who have participated in a RJ intervention. It remains that ‘very little to date is known about female offenders’ experiences of restorative conferencing’ (Österman & Masson, 2017, p. 21). The limited gendered

34 

J. Hodgson

analyses, which do exist, ‘are largely of a theoretical nature, often focusing on the potential gendered benefits and risks’ for those who participate (ibid., p. 5). In terms of girls, the gender gap in RJ research and scholarship is even wider, and there is limited analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of RJ as a response to their offending behaviour. The small number of scholars who have contributed to addressing this gap in knowledge have raised a number of concerns relating to the use of RJ with girls who offend. Worrall (2000, pp.  156–157) discusses how the perception of girls as ‘articulate and emotional’ contributes to the assumption that ‘they can more readily be persuaded to talk about their feelings and can be more influenced by the articulacy and emotion of adults’. She argues that this account fails to recognise the ways in which girls’ troublesome behaviour is actually exacerbated by ‘physically, sexually or emotionally abusive … [experiences of ] informal control’ (ibid., p. 157). Furthermore, there is pronounced potential that girls’ previous negative experiences of informal social control will be an excluded narrative within RJ interventions, and ‘attitudes about appropriate female adolescent behaviour may become reinforced rather than challenged’ (ibid., p. 157). It has been highlighted within this chapter that the regulation of girls’ behaviour has been reflective of attempts to ensure their adherence to gender appropriate behaviour (Sharpe, 2012). Furthermore, the informal means of social control, which girls have been subject to, has meant that the community contributes to the regulation of girls’ behaviour (Alder, 2003). Drawing upon feminist insights, which position the community as a central agent of social control, Alder argues that community understandings of gender appropriate behaviour may have implications for the processing of girls through RJ interventions (ibid.). Furthermore, Baines (1996: cited in Alder, 2003, p. 119) argues that caution should be taken with regard to responding to girls through informal interventions, such as RJ, as it cannot be presumed that the tendency to judge their offending behaviour in relation to acceptable notions of femininity will not occur. Community understandings and reactions to girls’ offending behaviour represent further problems for girls placed on community orders (Alder, 2003). This is because they may experience difficulty complying with their orders due to experiencing negative reactions from the

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

35

community (ibid.). For example, in order to examine women’s subjective experiences of probation supervision, Malloch and McIvor (2011, p. 328) analysed data from interviews undertaken with women subject to varied forms of community supervision and ‘agency workers’ in Scotland. The research found that female participants experienced a sense of stigma for their involvement in the criminal justice system and ‘disliked’ the public nature of the community-based orders they were subject to (ibid., p. 332). It was also argued that the challenges faced by female offenders, in completing community orders, were often determined by ‘wider circumstances’ to which the criminal justice system is not necessarily able to respond such as addiction and victimisation (ibid., p. 341). Despite the limited research available concerning young female offenders’ experiences of community-based orders, the existing research undertaken highlights the potential problems for community-based restorative interventions used with girls. Notwithstanding some exceptions (e.g., see Alder, 2003; Daly, 2008; Toor, 2009; Miles, 2013; Masson & Österman, 2017; Österman & Masson, 2016, 2017), much of the existing research assumes a ‘generic rather than gendered youth population’, reflecting a reluctance to account for gender as a social dynamic present in RJ practices (Alder, 2003, p. 117). Thus, the potential for implications to arise when the offender is female have been neglected (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015). The few studies that have examined girls’ participation in RJ interventions have identified gendered differences in their experiences. For example, Maxwell et al. (2004) found that girls were less positive about the conferencing process than males due to issues surrounding shame and unfair treatment. Whilst Daly (2008), drawing upon observation data generated from 89 RJ conferences, as part of the South Australian Juvenile Justice project in 1998 and 1999, identified that girls participating in RJ conferencing showed the least remorse for their offending, contested their status as an offender and often identified as victims. Within a UK context, findings from Miles (2013), who undertook interviews with RJ practitioners in England and Österman and Masson (2016) who interviewed RJ practitioners and female offenders who participated in RJ conferencing, have suggested that female offenders would potentially experience

36 

J. Hodgson

amplified feelings of shame and guilt during a RJ conference, resulting in a detrimental impact on their mental health. Additionally, the findings presented by Österman and Masson (2016, p. 11) revealed that the majority of female offenders who participated in their research found their experience of RJ conferencing to be ‘highly emotional’ and ‘highly stressful’ (ibid., p.  11). Evoking shame within young female offenders has also been identified as problematic. Alder (2003) states that there is a tendency for girls to experience self-blame, guilt and shame as a consequence of negative reactions for their transgressions of appropriate behaviour, which presents difficulties for them to engage in RJ. Furthermore, Sandor (cited in Baines & Alder, 1996, p. 45) has contended that ‘in a culture where shame has been a powerful tool of domestic control over women, this assumed pathway to reintegration has to be questioned’. This is because ‘the gendered nature of shame acts to socially control and stigmatise the activities of girls in ways which it does not do for boys’ (Toor, 2009, p. 246). In addition to the gender gap in RJ literature it is also important to draw attention to the gender-blindness in RJ policy. Firstly, it should be noted that developments in policy and legislation relating to the implementation of RJ in the youth justice system remain silent on issues of gender. Such gender-blindness is exacerbated by the fact that there is no statutory guidance provided to aid the development of RJ services and provision and there is an inconsistent delivery of RJ services nationally (Haines & Case, 2015). This is supported by a RJ mapping exercise undertaken in 2016 which revealed widespread variation in the delivery of RJ services across England and Wales (Institute for Criminal Justice Policy Research, 2016). Furthermore, Österman and Masson (2017, p. 7) have noted that ‘types of funding structures and staffing arrangements vary widely across … organizations, with no uniform approach or model being operated’. Due to the wider-spread variations in the delivery of RJ interventions in the youth justice system, alongside the lack of statutory guidance and consistent approach to RJ, it is evident that there is no standardised approach to working with young female offenders undertaking RJ (Hodgson, 2021). It must therefore be questioned whether the

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

37

gender-­blindness of RJ discourse makes it an effective or appropriate intervention to be used with girls who offend. Secondly, it is argued that the developments in gender-specific provision and gender-sensitive approaches emerging from feminist pathways research are not consolidated into RJ practice. Academic and policy discourse neglects to account for gender as a social dynamic present in RJ practices (Hodgson, 2020, 2021). This is despite existing literature which has raised concerns that a higher prevalence of mental health needs, increased experiences of shame and stigma, previous victimisation, discourses of appropriate female behaviour and complex relationships with victims are factors, specific to female offenders, which could impact negatively on their experience of RJ conferencing (e.g., see Alder, 2003; Daly, 2008; Miles, 2013; Masson & Österman, 2017; Österman & Masson, 2016; Toor, 2009). Despite the limited yet valuable contributions made by the scholars cited above, feminist incursions within the discipline of criminology, youth justice and restorative justice discourse have yet to address the gender-­blindness evident within RJ policy and practice relating to young people who offend (Hodgson, 2021). As such the core arguments relating to gender, power and resistance, informed by feminist theory, are yet to be applied to girls participating in RJ within an offender capacity.

Conclusion The shifting landscape of youth justice policy and practice in England and Wales and its failure to acknowledge or respond appropriately to the needs of girls who come into contact with criminal justice and welfare agencies have underpinned the focus of this chapter. The chapter has drawn attention to the injustice girls experience at the hands of the youth justice system. It is argued that such state responses to girls who offend form part of their oppression but also serve to reinforce dominant discourses of femininity which regulate their behaviour and serve to reproduce the gender order of society. The injustice they experience constitutes harm, control, marginalisation and oppression and is profoundly

38 

J. Hodgson

connected to their structural position within the ‘heteropatriarchal social order’ (Ballinger, 2016, p. 29). In terms of RJ, the chapter has highlighted the lacuna in knowledge concerning girls’ experiences of RJ interventions and therefore emphasises the need to give a voice to girls who have remained unheard within the context of RJ discourse. The neglect of gender within RJ policy, practice and academic discourse is problematic due to the following reasons: (i) it fails to recognise gender as a social construct which produces and maintains gender inequality, (ii) it does not allow for the recognition of gendered power relations and the role they occupy in relation to girls’ offending behaviour and their experiences of RJ and (iii) the contributions of feminist pathways research which have highlighted the social, structural and institutional injustices girls experience, and have thus evidenced the need to work with girls in gender-responsive ways, are neglected. This creates a series of fundamental concerns and implications which reflect long-standing issues concerning the treatment of, and responses to, girls in the youth justice system. Chapter 3 presents the core theoretical perspectives underpinning this book’s feminist critique of RJ.

References Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. (2021) Young Women’s Justice Project Literature Review. Alliance for Youth Justice. Alder, C. (2003). Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative Justice. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes, & L.  Westmarland (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical issues (pp. 117–126). The Open University. All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System. (2012). Inquiry on Girls: From Courts to Custody. The Howard League for Penal Reform. Arnull, E., Archer, D., Eagle, S., Gammampila, A., Johnston, V., Miller, K., & Pitcher, J. (2005). Persistent Young Offenders—A Retrospective Study. Youth Justice Board. Ashworth, A. (2013). Responsibilities, Rights and Restorative Justice. In G.  Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (2nd ed., pp.  356–374). Routledge.

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

39

Asquith, A. (2002). Justice Retribution and Children. In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 275–283). Sage Publications. Baines, M., & Alder, C. (1996). Are Girls More Difficult to Work With? Youth Workers’ Perspectives in Juvenile Justice and Related Areas. Crime and Delinquency, 42(3), 467–485. Ballinger, A. (2016). Gender, Truth and State Power, Capitalising on Punishment. Routledge. Batchelor, S. (2005). ‘Prove Me the Bam!’: Victimization and Agency in the Lives of Young Women Who Commit Violent Offences. Probation Journal, 52(4), 358–357. Batchelor, S., & Burman, M. (2004). Working with Girls and Young Women. In G. McIvor (Ed.), Women Who Offend (pp. 266–287). Jessica Kingsley. Bateman, T. (2008). Target Practice: Anction Detection and the Criminalisation of Children. Criminal Justice Matters, 73(1), 2–4. Bateman, T., & Hazel, N. (2014). Resettlement of Girls and Young Women: Research Report. Beyond Youth Custody. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications. Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (2006). The Gendered Nature of Risk Factors for Delinquency. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 48–71. Bloom, B., Owen, B., Deschenes, E., & Rosenbaum, J. (2002). Moving Toward Justice for Female Juvenile Offenders in the New Millennium Modeling Gender-Specific Policies and Programs. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 37–56. Bloom, B., Owen, B., Rosenbaum, J., & Deschenes, E. P. (2003). Focusing on Girls and Young Women: A Gendered Perspective on Female Delinquency. Women and Criminal Justice, 14(2/3), 117–136. Burman, M., & Batchelor, S. (2009). Between Two Stools? Responding to Young Women Who Offend. Youth Justice, 9(3), 270–285. Burman, M., Brown, J., Tisdall, K., & Batchelor, S. (2000). A View from the Girls: Exploring Violence and Violent Behaviour, Unpublished Final Report for ERSC. Case, S., & Haines, K. (2015). Risk Management and Early Intervention: A Critical Analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 100–118). Sage Publications. Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls’ Crime and Woman’s Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female Delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 5–29.

40 

J. Hodgson

Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crimes (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Chesney-Lind, M., & Sheldon, R. G. (2004). Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice (3rd ed.). John Wiley and Sons. Clinks. (2017). Clinks response to the Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. Available at: https://www.clinks.org/ Accessed 21st October, 2017] Cocks, J., & Sacks-Jones, K. (2017). ‘Double Disadvantage’ The Experiences of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Women in the Criminal Justice System. http://weareagenda.org/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2017/03/Double-­ disadvantage-­FINAL.pdf Cox, P. (2003). Gender, Justice and Welfare: Bad girls in Britain, 1900–1950. Palgrave Macmillan. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection. (2014). Girls in the Criminal Justice System [Online]. Manchester: HM Inspectorate of Probation. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from Justice Inspectorates.gov.uk. Cunneen, C., & Goldson, B. (2015). Restorative Justice? A Critical Analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 137–155). Sage Publications. Daly, K. (1994). Gender, Crime, and Punishment. Yale University Press. Daly, K. (2008). Girls, Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 109–137. Feilzer, M., & Hood, R. (2004). Difference or Discrimination? Minority Ethnic Young People in the Youth Justice System. Youth Justice Board. Gelsthorpe, L., & Worrall, A. (2009). Looking for Trouble: A Recent History of Girls, Young Women and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 209–223. Goodfellow, P. (2019) Outnumbered, Locked Up and Overlooked? The Use of Penal Custody for Girls in England & Wales. : Griffin Society. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.thegriffinssociety.org/ Goodkind, S. (2005). Gender-Specific Services in the Juvenile Justice System: A Critical Examination. Affilia, 20(1), 52–70. Goodkind, S. (2009). You Can Be Anything You Want, But You Have to Believe It: Commercialized Feminism in Gender-Specific Programs for Girls. Signs Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 34(2), 397–422. Gray, P. (2005). The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and Social Control. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 938–957.

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

41

Haines, S., & Case, S. (2015). Positive Youth Justice Children First, Offenders Second. Policy Press. Hannah-Moffat, K. (2005). Criminogenic Needs and the Transformative Risk Subject. Punishment and Society, 7(1), 29–51. Hodgson, J. (2020, November). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A Critical Analysis. Youth Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420967751 Hodgson, J. (2021). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: Exploring Practitioners’ Perspectives on the Relevance of, and Rationale for, ­Gender-­Specific Provision. Critical and Radical Social Work. https://doi.org/1 0.1332/204986021X16279110047749 Howard League. (1997). Lost Inside: The Imprisonment of Teenage Girls. The Howard League. Hudson, A. (1989). Troublesome Girls, Towards Alternative Definitions and Policies. In M.  Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp.  197–219). Sage Publications. Institute for Criminal Justice Policy Research. (2016). Report of a Mapping Exercise of Restorative Justice Provision in England & Wales for the Restorative Justice Council [online]. : Birbeck University of London. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://restorativejustice.org.uk/ Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice, Ideals, Values and Debates (2nd ed.). Oxon Willan Publishing. Kemshall, H. (2008). Risks, Rights and Justice: Understanding and Responding to Youth Risk. Youth Justice, 8(1), 21–37. Levrant, S., Cullen, F., Fulton, T. B., & Woznaik, J. F. (1999). Reconsidering Restorative Justice: The Corruption of Benevolence Revisited? Crime and Delinquency, 45(1), 3–27. Lloyd, A. (1995). Doubly Deviant. Society’s Treatment of Violent Women. Penguin Books. Malloch, M., & McIvor, G. (2011). Women and Community Sentences. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(4), 325–344. Masson, I., & Österman, L. (2017). Working with Female Offenders in Restorative Justice Frameworks, Effective and Ethical Practice. Probation Journal [online], 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517728784 Matthews, S., & Smith, C. (2009). The Sustainability of Gender Specific Provision in The Youth Justice System. The Griffin Society. Maxwell, G., Kingi, V., Robertson, J., Morris, A., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Achieving Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice: Final Report. Ministry of Social Development.

42 

J. Hodgson

Miles, R. (2013). Restorative Justice: Female offenders in Restorative Justice Conferences. http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/ restorative-­justice-­female-­offenders-­restorative-­justice-­conferences Ministry of Justice. (2018). Female Offender Strategy. Ministry of Justice. https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/719819/female-­offender-­strategy.pdf Morgan, M., & Patton, P. (2002). Gender-Responsive Programming in the Justice System—Oregon’s Guidelines for Effective Programming for Girls. Federal Probation, 66(2), 57–65. Muncie, J. (1999). Institutionalized Intolerance: Youth Justice and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Critical Social Policy, 19(2), 147–175. Muncie, J. (2004). Youth and Crime (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Muncie, J., & Goldson, B. (2006). England and Wales: The New Correctionalism. In J. Muncie & B. Goldson (Eds.), Comparative Youth Justice: Critical Issues (pp. 34–47). Sage Publications. Muncie, J., & Hughes, G. (2002). Modes of Governance: Political Realities, Criminalization and Resistance. In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 1–18). Sage Publications. O’Malley, P. (2009). Risk and Restorative Justice: Governing Through the Democratic Minimisation of Harms. Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 09/88. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1473583 Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2016). Making Restorative Justice Work for Women Who Have Offended. The Restorative Justice Council. Retrieved March 14, 2020, from https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/ Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2017). Restorative Justice with Female Offenders: The Neglected Role of Gender in Restorative Conferencing. Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 3–27. Pitts, J. (2001). ‘The New Politics of Youth Crime: Discipline or Solidary? Palgrave. Schaffner, L. (2006). Girls in Trouble with the Law. Rutgers University. Scraton, P., & Haydon, D. (2002). Challenging the Criminalization of Children and Young People: Securing a Rights Based Agenda. In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 311–328). Sage Publications. Shapland, J., Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2011). Restorative Justice in Practice: Evaluating What Works for Victims and Offenders. Routledge. Sharpe, G. (2012). Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice. Routledge. Sharpe, G. (2015). Re-imagining Justice for Girls: A New Agenda for Research. Youth Justice, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225415570358.

2  Girls and Youth Justice 

43

Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2009). Engendering the Agenda: Girls, Young Women and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(13), 195–208. Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2015). Girls, Crime and Justice. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 49–64). Sage Publications. Shepherd, B. (2015). Youth Justice Practice with Girls. In J. Annison, J. Brayford, & J. Deering (Eds.), Women and Criminal Justice (pp. 99–118). Policy Press. Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative Justice the Evidence. The Smith Institute. Taylor, C. (2016). Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. Ministry of Justice. Toor, S. (2009). British Asian Girls, Crime and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 239–254. Tosouni, A. (2019). Gendered Injustice: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Detained Girls. Routledge. Uhrig, N. (2016). Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Disproportionality in the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales. Ministry of Justice. Wattanaporn, K., & Holtfreter, K. (2014). The Impact of Feminist Pathways Research on Gender Responsive Policy and Practice. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 191–207. Worrall, A. (2000). Governing Bad Girls: Changing Constructions of Female Juvenile Delinquency. In J.  Bridgeman & D.  Monk (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives on Child Law (pp. 151–168). Cavendish Publishing. Worrall, A. (2001). Girls at Risk? Reflections on Changing Attitudes to Young Women’s Offending. Probation Journal, 48(2), 86–92. Worrall, A. (2004). Twisted Sisters, Ladettes and the New Penology: The Social Construction of Violent Girls. In C. Alder & A. Worrall (Eds.), Girls Violence: Myths and Realities (pp. 41–60). New York Press. Worrall, A., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2009). What Works with Women Offenders: The Past 30 Years. Probation Journal, 56(4), 329–345. Youth Justice Board. (2009). Girls and Offending—Patterns, Perceptions and Interventions. Youth Justice Board. Youth Justice Board. (2019). Standards for Children in the Youth Justice System. Ministry of Justice.

3 An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power

Introduction In 2003 Alder drew attention to the virtual invisibility of young women’s experiences of RJ and argued that there were ‘a number of unanswered questions about restorative justice practices in relation to young women offenders’ (Alder, 2003, p. 125). Although RJ practice has been afforded significant support within the international youth justice sphere since the late twentieth century, the experiences of girls participating in RJ continue to remain invisible and marginalised from restorative and youth justice discourse. Notwithstanding a small number of exceptions (e.g., Alder, 2003; Daly, 2008; Hodgson, 2020; Miles, 2013; Masson & Österman, 2017; Österman & Masson, 2016; Toor, 2009), the extent to which gender is considered in relation to RJ practice has remained a neglected issue within existing RJ discourse. This chapter challenges this invisibility and situates gender as a central category of analysis for understanding girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. It outlines a feminist-informed, theoretical framework for understanding and analysing the empirical research findings, presented within Chaps. 4 and 5. These chapters explore the key themes of shame, stigma, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_3

45

46 

J. Hodgson

gendered discourses of appropriate female behaviour and agency which emerged from the interviews undertaken with girls processed through the youth justice system and youth justice practitioners. It should be noted that not all feminist analyses of gender fit neatly into a single theoretical perspective. Instead, theorising gender often involves drawing upon a variety of theoretical and conceptual incursions in order to adequately understand feminist concerns and approaches to gender. This chapter draws upon different aspects of feminist theory, as well as research from social psychology, sociology and criminology to outline a conceptual framework in which to construct a feminist-­ informed, critical analysis of the ways in which the social construction of femininity shapes girls’ experiences of shame and stigma. Further to this, it is important to note that much of the feminist work introduced in this chapter has been written in relation to adult women but is being used to provide a theoretical context for analysing the experiences of girls and young women. To begin, the chapter provides an overview of feminist approaches to theorising gender relations and their social construction. Second, it outlines a feminist analysis of the social and structural processes of stigma rooted within patriarchal power relations. Third, it focuses on shame as an emotion, which functions as a form of social control and regulation for girls that is manifested in gender-specific ways. The chapter then moves on to consider RJ as part of continuum of the exercise of patriarchal state power that contributes to the broader harm and social injustice girls are subject to. Finally, it considers the significance of resistance and agency in the lives of women and girls.

 he Social Construction of Gender: Relations, T Structures and Processes Distinguishing between the biological-ascribed status of sex and the socio-cultural status of gender and developing ‘a comprehensive feminist theory’ (Daly, 1997, p. 26) was one of the key focuses of feminist scholars in the 1970s. Since this time feminist theory has diversified and

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

47

developed, in part due to the critique that initial understandings of gender unproblematically conflated all women’s experiences without addressing the differences in their experiences centred upon class or race. Whilst other scholars contesting mainstream feminism have contended that there is no fixed sexual or gendered identity which can be attributed to a particular sex, collectively, such contributions have been fundamental in creating an understanding of gender as both a ‘constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes’ and ‘a primary way of signifying relationships of power’ (Scott, 1986, p. 1067). Such contributions have been central to the development of feminist theory within social sciences (Foster, 1999) as well as the emergence of a varied set of perspectives that are situated within the theoretical incursions of feminism. As feminist theory has expanded and developed the core foundations of feminist thought have been crucial to understanding gender as a social construct which operates at an interpersonal and structural level to produce a hierarchy of gender relations, whereby men maintain more power and control over women. Such foundations have been frequently utilised to understand the material and lived realities of women, their experiences within the social world and how these experiences intersect with other social divisions and systems of power. However, compared to the social divisions of class, race and sexuality, age has been a neglected category of analysis in feminist theory and feminist criminology. For girls and young women, the discourse of adolescence and femininity creates ‘conflicting sets of expectations’ which are reproduced through various social actors and institutions (Hudson, 1984, p. 31). In terms of feminist literature in criminology girls and young women have been neglected and there has been limited focus on the way in which adolescent femininity is mediated to girls involved in the youth justice system through constructed discourses of appropriate female behaviour and how these ideological discourses operate in the context of various youth justice interventions. Therefore, the empirical study underpinning this book aims to add to the feminist literature in criminology in this still-neglected area.

48 

J. Hodgson

The State and Gender Relations At a structural level, gender as an organising principle of social life, which produces and maintains patriarchal power, can be further understood when considered in relation to the state. By considering gender as ‘an aspect of institutions and large-scale cultural processes …, embedded in organisational divisions of labour, in organisational cultures, in symbolic systems, and in patterns of emotional attachment and hostility’, constructs the state as an institution that is inherently gendered (Connell, 2008, p. 118). Conceptualising the state through such a lens has enabled feminist scholars to examine and challenge the role of the state in subjecting women and girls to enduring systems of patriarchal oppression and marginalisation. For Connell, the state is ‘at the very least a significant vehicle of sexual and gender oppression and regulation’ (1994, p. 147). The construction of dominant discourses of truth around respectable femininity play a central role in the state’s ‘preservation of the heteropatriarchal social order’ (Ballinger, 2009, p. 33) as they determine the criteria in which women and girls not only view themselves but also the criteria against which they are judged, responded to and viewed within society. Discourses of respectability, sexuality, motherhood, fragility and domesticity demonstrate how inter-locking structures of subordination and subjugation are produced and maintained at a macro level in terms of policy, institutions and practices and continue to function at a meso level through social interaction and self-regulation (Worrall, 1990). Taken together these processes produce a discourse of truth around femininity which demonstrates how power is exercised against and amongst girls to produce and reinforce a hierarchical gender order. The exercise of patriarchal power, despite containing contradictions and contingencies which are explored later, is, therefore, at the core of women and girls’ oppression. The state, as a gendered institution and a ‘site of gender politics’ (Connell, 2008, p. 118), is ‘implicated within a class system of patriarchy’ which, Connell (1990, p. 515) argues, contributes to the establishment and regulation of social ‘systems’ that oppress women, for example, the family and the economy. It is composed of

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

49

‘gender relations’ which function as the dominant ‘institutionalisation of gendered power’ and are inherently shaped by these dynamics. Such components constitute the ‘essential and irreducible’ aspects of the state (ibid., p. 520). The operation of gender within this system can be referred to as a ‘gender regime’ and is defined by Connell (1990, p. 523) as ‘the historically produced state of play in gender relations within an institution’. The ‘gender regime’ is supported by three structures: ‘a gender division of labor’ which situates male-dominated institutions, such as the criminal justice system and the military, as coercive state apparatuses (ibid., p. 523). The second element is a ‘structure of power’ within the internal structure of the state and the bureaucratisation of these structures which function to validate the subordination of women through state power (ibid., p.  525). Third is the gendered patterning of emotional attachments. For example, what is understood to be ‘emotional labor’ (ibid., p. 526). Both ‘gender regimes’ and ‘gender relations’ operate within wider patterns of the ‘gender order’ (ibid., p. 73). The gender order strongly influences gender practice, arrangements and relationships within social life and forms part of a social structure that ‘conditions practice’ through direct and indirect interaction between males and females (Connell & Pearse, 2015, p.  74). Such interaction produces ‘gendered modes of behaviour’ (Hageman-White, 1987: cited in Connell & Pearse, 2015, p. 74) and inequality, which correspond to the gender order (Connell & Pearse, 2015). The state is a central institution which exercises power within its diverse structures to produce inequality through the regulation of gender relations across society (Connell, 1990). For example, the regulation of sexuality through legal definitions or the regulation of violence within marriage through either ‘non-intervention’ or ‘routine management’ of men’s violent behaviour (ibid., p. 527). This is arguably because the state is systematically ‘bias[ed] towards patriarchal interests in its policies and actions’ (Walby, 1990, p. 21). The gender order underpinned by gender regimes and relations are inseparable components for theorising gender at an interpersonal level. It is to this issue that the chapter now turns.

50 

J. Hodgson

Theorising Gender at an Interpersonal Level As indicated earlier, one of the core principles of feminist thought is that society is characterised by patriarchal power relations which serve as part of a social system whereby women and girls are not afforded equal social status in comparison to men. The subordinate position and unequal status females occupy account for their experiences of oppression and social control as gendered subjects. The social construction of gender accounts for these unequal social structures within society and legitimatises social divisions, which determine women’s and girls’ disadvantaged status (Lorber, 1994). The dominant discourses of ‘domesticity, sexuality and pathology’ inform the construction of gender and dictate normative expectations associated with the ideals of femininity (Carlen & Worrall, 1987, p. 8). These expectations account for differential experiences of social control between males and females (Carlen, 2008). The differential forms of social control girls experience are manifested through various contexts, for example, reproduction; contradictory standards regarding morality, sexuality, parenting, the body and bodily norms; the law and a lesser legal status (McNay, 2016; Smart, 1989; Smart & Smart, 1978). Heidensohn (1996, p. 779) identified ‘the domestic sphere of the home’, ‘the traditional community’, ‘the world of early modern welfare’ and ‘the world of modern welfare’ as the key areas in which women have traditionally been subject to social control. The differential forms of social control girls experience are manifested through various contexts, for example, reproduction, ‘a double standard of morality’, ‘a subordinate legal status’, sexuality and parenting (Smart & Smart, 1978, p. 3). Such forms of social control are enforced both formally and informally through various institutions, such as the family, criminal justice agencies and welfare institutions (Carlen & Worrall, 1987; Heidensohn, 1996; Hutter & Williams, 1981; Lees, 1983). These institutions employ methods of communicating moral and behavioural expectations associated with appropriate female behaviour (Hutter & Williams, 1981). In line with discourses of domesticity, there is an obligation for women to assume a primary role within the family, which holds them responsible for the

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

51

basic tasks of ‘care, containment and socialisation’ (Heidensohn, 1996, p.  780), resulting in their presence in the public sphere being hidden from view and simultaneously their ‘rights, duties and crises’ being privatised (Dahl & Snare, 1978, p. 8). Sexuality discourses also serve to reinforce conflicting perceptions of female sexuality that subject women and girls to a double standard of behaviour which fortifies sexual promiscuity amongst men and pathologises similar behaviour as immoral and ‘shameful’ amongst women (Smart & Smart, 1978, p.  4). These discourses produce stereotypical images and ideas associated with femininity and are enforced through social policy and interactions, which regulate behaviour in line with these ideals. Thus, they serve as a mechanism of social control for females (Carlen & Worrall, 1987; Heidensohn, 1996; Hutter & Williams, 1981; Lees, 1983; Schur, 1984; Smart & Smart, 1978). Sexuality is, therefore, a ‘fundamental and near universal discourse in terms of which girls are constituted’ and has been used to legitimise harmful and oppressive intervention into their lives (Cain, 1989, p. 4). Men’s violence against women is also used as a gendered mechanism of control. For example, Kelly (1988, p. 33) contends that ‘social control is men’s purpose when using sexual [and racial] violence against women’. Such forms of violence, Kelly argued, ‘are attempts to maintain, rather than challenge, existing power relations’ (ibid., p. 34). In this context, violence against women is only used when other attempts to control them have failed (ibid.). The use of violence, as a form of social control, denies women’s freedom and agency whilst the ways in which patriarchal society functions enable and justify men’s role in assuming power over women through ‘force, coercion or abuse’ (ibid., p. 41). In contemporary society, the function of violence, as a form of social control against women, has expanded due to the developments of technology in the digital age (Powell & Henry, 2017). Advances in technology have facilitated the emergence of new forms of violence against women, which can be conceptualised beyond physical acts, for example, online sexual harassment, threats, coercion, revenge pornography and digital abuse (ibid.), all of which constitute ‘individualised and collective harms of technology-facilitated sexual violence’ as they function to reinforce discourses of femininity and structural inequalities between men

52 

J. Hodgson

and women (ibid., p. 65). These different forms of technology-facilitated sexual violence constitute ‘a form of social control and regulation … which in turn serves to reinforce heterosexual and patriarchal norms’ (ibid., p. 155). Class, race and age all impact on the extent to which constructed discourses of femininity shape women and girls’ experiences. For example, in the past girls have been ‘socially constructed within a range of legal, welfare, and political discourses as, on the one hand, deeply maladjusted misfits and, on the other … dangerous folk devils, symbolic of postmodern adolescent femininity’ (Worrall, 2004, p.  44). This has resulted in them experiencing increased levels of social control (Carrington, 1993; Hudson, 1989). As discussed in Chap. 2, attempts to regulate girls’ behaviour in line with dominant discourses of femininity have been a principal theme represented within criminal justice and welfare responses focused upon girls considered ‘deviant’ (Cox, 2003; Gelsthorpe & Worrall, 2009; Hudson, 1989; Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2009; Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015). Hudson (1989) for example has highlighted how welfarism for girls in the twentieth century was driven by the trepidation surrounding troubled, sexually active girls who were considered beyond parental control. Despite being represented as a ‘protector discourse’, she argued that ‘embedded at the heart of British welfare practices with adolescent girls was almost a psychic fear of predatory female sexuality’ (1989, p. 197). Hudson documented that girls were more likely to encounter welfare services due to ‘concerns about their perceived sexual behaviour and/or because they … [were] seen to be “at risk” of “offending” against the codes of adolescent femininity’ (ibid., p. 296). Drawing upon such insights, it becomes apparent that gender is a construction which is pervasive in its ability to shape individual identity, experiences and perception of self. This is because it is a ‘socially significant’ trait, which is ‘visible and consequential in institutional realms’ (Laws, 1979, p. 1). Whilst the arrangement of gender contributes to the construction of one’s identity, the inequalities inherent within this arrangement are evidently harmful (ibid.). Thus, gender is situated as ‘complicated … difficult [and] inherently political’ (Connell & Pearse, 2015, p. 8). Not only is gender evident at a social level and inherent in

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

53

the ways ‘people construct themselves as masculine and feminine’, effectively positioning themselves within the gender order of society’ (ibid., p. 6), but gender is also imposed at a structural level through political, cultural and institutional arrangements. In this sense gender is a determining feature of social life and one’s identity. The arguments presented thus far have emphasised how discourses of ideal femininity, underpinned by the social construction of gender, function as a form of gendered social control. However, it is important to highlight that the social construction of femininity is also positioned against the social construction of masculinity. Masculinity exists in ‘contrast with femininity’ (Connell, 2020, p. 68) and as with femininity there are normative expectations associated with masculinity which also shape the behaviour of men and boys in line with constructed dominant discourses of gender. Most prominently these discourses centre upon expectations that men are ‘tough, aggressive, in control, that they are not to express any feelings except anger, not to cry and never to ask for help’ (Collier, 1998, p. 174). As discussed, masculinity is positioned as ‘more highly valued’ (Renzetti, 2018, p. 75) in the gender order than femininity and is interconnected to the structure and functioning of Western societies (Mac an Ghaill, 1996). For Connell (2020, p. 73) the state is a ‘masculine institution’ and is based upon a gendered configuring of ‘recruitment and promotion’, ‘internal division of labour and systems of control’, ‘policy making’, ‘practical routines’ and ‘pleasure and consent’. The family, the labour market and the education system are all shaped by the institutionalised masculinity of the state. Connell (2020, p. 74) argued that the ‘main structure of power’ in the gender order of Western society, which privileges masculinity, is patriarchy. There are however different types of masculinity which Connell identified. These are ‘hegemonic’, ‘conservative’ and ‘subordinated’ masculinities (Connell, 2014, p. 122). Hegemonic masculinity is constructed in relation to other, less-dominant masculinities and ‘emphasized femininity’ (Connell, 2014, p. 190). ‘Emphasized femininity is the pattern of femininity which is given the most cultural and ideological support’ because it is based on compliance with the interests of hegemonic masculinity. Such compliance rests on fulfilling expectations associated with

54 

J. Hodgson

dominant discourses of acceptable femininity discussed earlier in this chapter (ibid., p. 195). For Connell, the relationship between hegemonic masculinity, other subordinated masculinities and women plays a salient role in the functioning of a ‘patriarchal social order’ (ibid., p. 191). Connell (2014) identified hegemonic masculinity as the most superior type of masculinity which also plays the most influential role in terms of the production of ‘ideal’ masculinity and is central to the reproduction of patriarchal power relations at an interpersonal and structural level. For Connell (2008, p.  122) ‘it is essential to bring men and masculinity explicitly into the analysis of the state’. The institutionalisation of masculinity within the state shapes young men’s masculinity and therefore reinforces the gender oppression of girls. The state reproduces and relies on the constructed discourses of masculinities and femininities in order to maintain policies, institutions and practices in line with the gendered ordering of society (Kantola, 2015). Through constructed discourses of truth around masculinities, the state plays a role in the problematic politics of masculinities. Masculinities should therefore be considered as a ‘structural issue’ (Atkinson, 2020, p.  284). The constructed discourses underpinning normative expectations of masculinity, like femininity, function in an informal manner and are linked to the power exercised by adult and young men against women and girls. Therefore, to understand their experiences of shame and stigma it is also important to understand the construction of masculinities and how they are institutionalised in relation to the state but also interpersonally, playing a role in the labelling and stigmatisation of girls. This is because these processes constrain and regulate girls’ lives but also function to preserve the unequal gendered relations and gendered ordering of society. Having outlined the key, feminist concepts underpinning this book’s analysis, there are two further concepts to consider and that is the question of stigma and shame. It is to these concepts, and the implications for a feminist-informed analysis, that the chapter now turns.

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

55

Theorising Stigma As noted earlier, masculinity and femininity are constructed in such a way that ‘male is normal … and female is different, or Other’ (Laws, 1979, p.  4). As such, female gender identities are not afforded equal ‘social power’, ‘participation in society’ or access to societal ‘benefits’ as ‘males as a group constitute the dominant class and females are the deviant class’ (ibid., p. 4). For Laws, this ‘distinction between the dominant and the deviant’ demonstrates that ‘being female carries a stigma in and of itself, independent of other attributes with which it may be hyphenated’ (1979, p. 4). The history of stigma, as a concept which is underpinned by discriminatory social interaction and attitudes, is most prominently associated with Goffman’s (1963) theory of stigma. The theory described a social understanding of stigma as a characteristic, which distinguishes an individual as being ‘of a less desirable kind’ and is recognised as ‘a failing, a shortcoming or a handicap’, upon one’s identity (ibid., p. 12). Goffman (1963, p.  4) contends that stigmatisation does not occur based upon a single attribute but instead is constructed around ‘the relationship between an attribute and a stereotype’. Individuals are classified around attributes associated with a given social identity. These attributes constitute expectations associated with an individual’s identity. Goffman notes that such expectations are made in retrospect and are used to construct a ‘virtual social identity’ (ibid., p.  12). When a person does not meet the expectations which others expect of them, a stigma is attached to their ‘actual social identity’ (ibid., p. 12). For those who are stigmatised, their identity becomes spoiled in the eyes of others. Others who are not stigmatised ‘construct a stigma theory’ in order to exercise discriminatory and exclusionary attitudes and practices against those who are (ibid., p. 15). For Goffman, the individual is socialised into the beliefs and values upon which the stigma is based. Accordingly, this results in ‘self-hate and self-derogation … [and] shame becomes a central possibility’ (1963, p. 18) due to them internalising the negative perception of themselves, held by others.

56 

J. Hodgson

This account of stigma explores the social processes which lead to stigmatisation and the implications experienced by those stigmatised. Goffman’s work on the stigma concept is distinguished as providing a major contribution to enhancing the analysis of stigma and the development of stigma research (Tyler & Slater, 2018). Goffman’s stigma theory, however, goes little beyond an account of stigma management (Kusow, 2004). Further, for Parker and Aggleton (2003) stigmatisation is a diverse and complex process and Goffman’s analysis fails to account for the role of the state in the production and maintenance of the social exclusion of powerless groups, facilitated by processes of stigmatisation (Tyler, 2020a). Acknowledging such limitations evident in early stigma work, Tyler has developed an analysis of stigma which she applies to a range of contemporary issues. She contends that the social-scientific understandings of stigma, underpinning Goffman’s work, disconnect the structural forms of power from micro-power relations dependent upon them. Reconceptualising stigma as an operation of ‘disciplinary’ power that, although experienced personally through looks, language and actions, both in person and virtually, is rooted within much wider structures of arrogation, oppression, regulation and control which serve to produce and maintain inequality (Tyler, 2020a, p. 239). For Tyler, the power of stigma functions through subjection, producing abject subjects who become immobilised, humiliated and dehumanised via ‘instruments’ which leave in their wake extensive damage (Tyler, 2020a, p. 239). Tyler’s contributions to the sociology of stigma can be applied to the analysis of patriarchal power relations. Power relations embedded within the social construction of gender and gender politics mobilise stigma as an instrument of social control, devaluation and domination of women and girls to reinforce the order, relations and regimes of gender. Understanding it as a ‘political economy’ which reinforces inequality across intersecting divisions of difference (Tyler & Slater, 2018, p. 721), stigma can be used as an analytical tool to understand the structural processes involved in the gendered application of labels and the negative intra- and interpersonal consequences these labels have on the lives of girls who experience them.

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

57

As noted by Tyler, since Goffman’s seminal work on stigma, stigmatisation has tended to be dominated by an understanding that it is constructed by problematic, socially enforced norms that can be reduced by the benignant action of others and those stigmatised. The micro-social, individualistic, understanding of stigma has, in recent decades, come to be disrupted, rethought and developed in order to conceptualise a macro-­ social perspective on stigmatisation which centralises the role of power in the production of stigma. Hannem and Bruckert (2012), Link and Phelan (2014), Kusow (2004), Parker and Aggleton (2003), Pescosolido and Martin (2015) and Tyler (2020a), for example, have sought to reconceptualise stigma to take account of the capitalist, ableist, sexist and colonialist structures of power within which it is accommodated, reinforced and reproduced. Such insights resonate with the need to ‘gaze up’ (Paton, 2018, p. 930) to the production of stigma and the discursive framework within which it operates. Hannem and Bruckert (2012) theoretically conceptualise stigma in relation to its truncated relationship between structures of knowledge and power. They talk of ‘structural stigma’ which occurs when stigmatic assumptions become embedded in social policies and practices’ and argue that structural stigma justifies the social control and regulation of stigmatised groups (ibid., p. 5). Within this context stigma can be regarded as a ‘resource’, which enables the ‘exploitation, management, control or exclusion of others’ (Link & Phelan, 2014, p. 24). Stigma as a resource demonstrates the relationship between stigma and power and the ways in which this relationship functions to produce and sustain unequal power relations ‘through stigma processes that are indirect, broadly effective, and hidden in taken-for-granted cultural circumstances’ (ibid., p. 24).

‘Genderising’ the Power of Stigmatisation The arguments underpinning the contemporary contributions to the sociology of stigma highlight that it is not possible to theorise stigma and issues of stigmatisation separately from the exercise of power. It is also not possible to understand gender separately from the patriarchal relations of power upon which it is constructed. In this context, any analysis of stigma

58 

J. Hodgson

is inseparable from the macro-level structures of patriarchal power relations. The crucial argument being that stigma power can be accounted for as a tool for the collective oppression of the least powerful to maintain the position of the most powerful. This is because the process of stigmatisation is dependent on the operation of unequal power relationships within social contexts which are reinforced by wider macro-level structures of state power, thus effectively functioning as a mechanism of social control. The function of stigma and stigmatisation as a mechanism of social control is emphasised when considering the myriad of assumptions underpinning ideals of femininity which are used as a measurement against which women and girls are valued in relation to their identity. This is because, for those women and girls who do not meet the normative expectations associated with the ideals of femininity, their identity and their self-worth become devalued (Hutter & Williams, 1981). The effects of stigma on female identities, therefore, function as a form of disciplinary power that alters women and girls’ ideas and beliefs about themselves and shape others’ judgments about those stigmatised. In addition, such effects produce a compelling force that permeates into the subjectivities of the stigmatised, causing ‘permanent scars’ inscribed on peoples’ bodies (Tyler, 2020a, p. 29). Stigma is inherently linked to inequality and ‘to properly understand issues of stigmatisation and discrimination … [it] requires us to think more broadly about how some individuals and groups come to be socially excluded and about the forces that create and reinforce exclusion in different settings’ (Parker & Aggleton, 2003, p. 16). This is because ‘stigmatization does not simply happen in some abstract manner … it is part of complex struggles for power that lie at the heart of social life’ (ibid., p. 18). It is ascribed by the powerful in order to reinforce and maintain their own hierarchical position within society (ibid.). Stigma is discursive in nature and ‘operates as a form of governance which legitimizes the reproduction and entrenchment of inequalities and injustices’ (Tyler, 2013, p.  212). Therefore, those who are stigmatised often ‘internalize the stigma that they are subjected to’ (Parker & Aggleton, 2003, p.  18). This is because the structural inequalities and effects of power function to ‘legitimize inequalities of power based upon

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

59

differential understandings of value and worth’ thus reducing opportunities for resistance and contestation (ibid., p. 18). Women and girls are commonly subjected to stigmatisation as a result of the devaluation of their status and for transgressions of appropriate female behaviour. Stigma, however, can be understood beyond being a mark of a spoiled identity. It is deeply rooted within patriarchal power relations and can be used as an analytical tool in which to understand girls’ experiences of stigmatisation and the social and interpersonal consequences it has for them, as well as how stigma is employed as a form of power that is pervasive in maintaining gender relations in line with hetero-­patriarchal power relations. Power is inscribed upon girls’ bodies as a result of the social and cultural construction of femininity and enforced through various formal and informal mechanisms of policing and control. For Tyler (2020a), this imprint of power on girls’ bodies amounts to stigmatisation. The tools used to ingrain stigma range from the mobilisation of fear of physical violence to ‘symbolic forms of public shaming’ (Tyler, 2020a, p. 34). Stigma can be applied to women and girls in diverse ways if their behaviour does not conform to the norms and expectations associated with their gender identity. The stigmatisation of women and girls who offend is ingrained within reactions to their perceived double deviancy surrounding their offending against the law and transgressions of feminine ideals. Due to the extent to which the social construction of femininity is commanded by a vast array of competing and conflicting expectations and ideals, the potential for girls to become subject to stigma for transgressing acceptable notions of femininity is exacerbated when they fail to adhere to the role prescribed to them, for example, as daughters or indeed mothers (Barr, 2019). In addition to stigmatisation, the double standard against which women and girls’ offending is judged can increase the likelihood of experiencing shame for their transgressions. This is because when stigma is present the desired identity the individual wishes to express can no longer be achieved. For Lewis (1998, p. 126) the link between shame and stigma, therefore, ‘appears obvious’ as shame is recognised as an emotion experienced as a result of a failure to achieve a certain ‘relative standard’ shared by the individual and others. Furthermore, stigma is recognised as a mark for those guilty of a

60 

J. Hodgson

‘deviation from the accepted standards of the society’ (ibid., p. 127). This analysis indicates that stigma is compelling in its ability to elicit shame, as when an individual is stigmatised their identity is spoiled in the eyes of others (ibid.). As noted by Barr (2019, p. 44) stigma and shame have been consistently found to be related to gendered expectations. The social construction of female offending is central to understanding the relationship between shame, stigma and gendered expectations for girls (and women) who offend. McIvor (2012 cited in Barr, 2019) further accentuates the differential gendered expectations relating to the socially acceptable behaviour of men and women. She states that ‘whilst offending may be a socially inclusive experience for many men and they may gain prestige amongst their friends for their criminal behaviour, this is rarely the case for women and this may be a partial explanation of why so few women offend’ (McIvor et al., 2011, p. 195, cited in Barr, 2019, p. 44). Although stigma is not exclusively applied to women and girls and is arguably a consequence for all those who transgress social norms (Goffman, 1963; Link & Phelan, 2001), it is important to understand that the social processes in which stigma is applied to girls, for their offending, do not function in the same way as it does for males (Bartky, 1990; Hutter & Williams, 1981). Stigma rests on the transgression, either voluntary or involuntary, of group norms. For women and girls this occurs from an insufficiency to conform to the social and cultural construction of gender roles (Whiteford & Gonzalez, 2005). By critically exploring girls’ experiences of RJ, it is possible to situate their individual experiences and subjectivities into the wider structural relationship between gender, stigma, shame and power whilst also deconstructing the oppressive discourse of RJ which contributes to the muting of girls’ subjectivities.

Shame, Stigma and Femininity Goffman’s perspective on stigma implies that shame is a central emotion, which is manifested in response to being viewed negatively by others (Goffman, 1963 cited in Scheff, 2003, p. 244). Although suggesting that

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

61

shame is a consequence of stigmatisation, Goffman’s stigma theory does not connect the manifestation of shame amongst stigmatised individuals with the macro-structures of inequality and intersectional social divisions. Tyler, however, argued that ‘stigma is also a dehumanising force of power that infiltrates, pierces and deflates your sense of yourself ’ (Tyler, 2009 cited in Tyler, 2020a, p. 240) but also transcends between interpersonal and social interactions, amongst social, political, cultural and economic contexts. Tyler (2020b), moreover, emphasised that stigma is ‘an analytic that allows us to examine the relay between practices which impress stigma upon people, and how these impressions affect the way in which people perceive themselves and others’. It is, therefore, important to scrutinise and understand because it ‘captures the movement between external and internal processes of de/valuation’ (ibid.). Tyler’s account of stigma is a vital conceptual and theoretical development which provides a framework in which to construct an understanding of stigma, as a form of power, that is pervasive in maintaining the gender order in line with hetero-patriarchal relations, through the evocation of shame. Stigma, as a form of power, is embroiled within the history of patriarchy and a product of patriarchal power and entangled within wider historical structures of capitalism and colonialism (Tyler, 2020a). It is, therefore, produced structurally but also experienced inwardly through micro-level interactions of degradation and depreciation confluent with powerful structures of governance, control and regulation. The psychological effects of stigma power produce shame and this provides an understanding of the impact of stigma on the individual. This important conceptual development of stigma draws attention to further dimensions of stigma power by moving beyond stigma as a mark of a spoiled identity and understanding it also as a form of patriarchal power which reinforces girls’ structural position within the social world. For Williams (1993, p.  90) shame is prompted by something that evokes dislike, disdain and uneasiness from others; this could be ‘an act or omission’ or it may be ‘some failing or defect’, which ultimately results in diminished self-respect. Retzinger and Scheff (1996, p. 319) refer to shame as ‘a large family of emotions and affects’, which impact negatively upon an individual’s self-esteem and self-respect (Lewis, 1992; Tangney & Dearing, 2002; Tomkins, 1963), resulting in avoidance, feelings of

62 

J. Hodgson

rejection, ‘embarrassment, humiliation, shyness, modesty, discomfort, awkwardness, inadequacy, insecurity and a lack of confidence’ (Retzinger & Scheff, 1996, p. 319). Bartky (1990, p. 85) contends that women are ‘typically more shame prone than men’ and there are gendered patterns in the way males and females experience shame due to the differential perspectives they hold with regards to social and interpersonal relationships (ibid., p. 85). Thus, shame can be understood as an emotion, that when internalised, has a different meaning for females (ibid.). For Manion (2003, p. 22) the associations between ‘femininity and shame persist’ because shame is regarded as stereotypically more ‘affective’ in women’s lives. This is because there is a tendency to regard shame ‘as indicating vulnerability to and powerlessness in response to negative judgements others make of us’ (ibid., p. 23). Therefore, based upon the distinct stratification between masculinity and femininity, this dichotomy establishes shame as an emotion aligned with femininity (ibid.). Compounding this understanding, Bartky (1990, p. 85) suggests that the shame women experience moves beyond the typical shame experienced as a single emotion and is instead a ‘pervasive affective attunement to the social environment’, which extends to the wider patriarchal structures of social relations and produces profound implications for the self. This type of shame, Bartky suggests, is not consciously recognised and is likely to be suppressed and visible only as a sense of disempowerment and inadequacy and those who shame others are ignorant to their shaming behaviour. Manion (2003) contends that women are more susceptible to shame when the context, in which shame is likely to be evoked, is concerned with issues of moral integrity concerning their ability to live up to standards of femininity. For example, Brown (2007) refers to gendered experiences of shame within the context of conflicting and competing expectations associated with the ideals of femininity, which she describes as a ‘web of shame’ (ibid., p. 46). Focusing on individual narratives of shame, she undertook qualitative research with 215 adult women in the United States, examining why women experience shame, how it impacts upon their lives and the various coping strategies they employ to manage these experiences (ibid.). The research informed a collective definition of

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

63

shame as ‘an intensely painful feeling or experience of believing we are flawed and therefore unworthy of acceptance and belonging’ (ibid., p. 46). Brown also identified that the presence of such emotions induces feelings of powerlessness and behavioural changes in order to manage the negative emotions associated with feelings of shame (ibid.). Bartky (1990, p. 96), furthermore, provides an additional dimension to the impact of shame for women: Shame, for the shame-ridden and shame-prone, is not a penance that restores the proper moral equilibrium. … For such persons, there is no equilibrium to which to return: “Feeling inadequate” [therefore] may colour a person’s entire emotional life. [Thus] under conditions of oppression, the oppressed must struggle not only against more visible disadvantages but against guilt and shame as well. (Bartky, 1990, p. 97)

Thus, the impact of shame can be understood as a form of unwavering, ‘unconstructive’, ‘self-destructive’ disempowerment (Bartky, 1990, p. 97). However, the individual who is subject to the analysis of ‘moral psychology’ is presented with the ‘capacity not only to be judged but to judge’ (ibid., p. 97). Such individuals, according to Bartky, have avoided the ‘psychological oppression on which modern hierarchies of class, race and gender rely so heavily’ (ibid., p.  97). What is apparent from this analysis is that shame cannot be explained homogeneously, as a consequence of individual shortcomings or transgressions, as the structures of oppression, marginalisation and subordination to which women are subject cannot be disconnected from the self-conscious emotions they experience (ibid.). Effectively, it can be argued that such structural inequalities determine individual experiences within the social world. It is clear that a common feature throughout society is for women and girls to adopt a certain moral integrity, determined by discourses of femininity, which emphasise feminine ideals of domesticity, emotionality, fragility and sexuality (Carlen & Worrall, 1987). When women fail to adhere to these ideals they are faced with feelings of shame. For Mann (2018), gendered shame is a principal instrument that sustains the subordinate status of women and their oppression across multiple axes of social division built on gender, age, race, class, sexuality and ability/disability

64 

J. Hodgson

within Western capitalist society. A central concern in the analysis presented in this book is to make visible the experiences of shame and stigma for girls involved in the justice system and how these experiences, imbued within discourses of ideal femininity, permeate RJ conferencing and situate it as part of a continuum of harm and injustice to which girls are subjected. RJ discourse fails to adequately consider the importance of patriarchal power relations to girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. Browne (2014, p. 14) citing Howie has suggested that an understanding of patriarchal power relations remains necessary for analysing ‘the depth, pervasiveness, and interconnectedness of different aspects of subordination’ to which women and girls are subject. For Browne (ibid., p.  16), patriarchy is mobile and shifting, like gender, and remains crucial for understanding ‘different kinds of privileges and constraints’ amongst subjects. Focusing on gender, power and patriarchy can provide new insights into how patriarchy and the exercise of power shape girls’ experiences of RJ.  In this context, RJ can be understood as part of a continuum of patriarchal state power connected to the broader and diverse forms of oppression of women and girls. The construction of ‘truth’ relating to dominant discourses of femininity and masculinity has a direct relationship to the application of stigma for girls who transgress the expectations these discourses produce, and the feelings of shame experienced as a consequence of their transgressions. This relationship highlights that RJ policies and practices, operating within the state, are implicated within the politics of gender and the direct and indirect reinforcement of the gender order in various ways. This is because stigma occupies a central role in the manufacturing and proliferation of unequal power relations which results in the devaluation of women and girls as members of a marginalised group. Stigma is, therefore, linked to the production and maintenance of social inequality (Parker & Aggleton, 2003; Tyler, 2020a). The understanding of women and girls as marginalised groups which carry stigma because of their devalued status in the gender order situates female stigma as part of ‘a political economy of social exclusion’ (Parker & Aggleton, 2003, p.  19). Such a political economy of stigmatisation highlights how the social construction of gender, as a macro-level form of

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

65

power, fuels stigmatisation to ensure conformity and reinforces social difference, marginalisation and inequality. This argument conceptualises both shame and stigma as profoundly rooted within patriarchal power relations. This book draws upon the dominant construction of truth relating to discourses about acceptable femininity to conceptualise the power of shame and stigma to shape girls’ experiences of RJ. Thus, providing alternative truths about girls’ experiences of RJ and their lived realities. In doing so, it draws attention to RJ as one of the diverse processes which amplify social stigma and shame as part of a continuum of the machinery of patriarchal power. It conceptualises RJ as a tool which enables the amplification of stigma for girls and entrenches mechanisms of gendered social control to which they are subject. The argument presented situates RJ, not in terms of serving the interests of men but as an aspect of the patriarchal state’s response to girls involved in the justice system. Ultimately it is argued that RJ forms part of a continuum of patriarchal state power due to the ability of RJ to exacerbate the stigma related to girls’ offending and the evocation of shame which is intrinsically connected to transgressions of constructed discourses of acceptable femininity.

Muting Girls’ Voices Due to the dominance of patriarchal power relations in shaping societal relations, the experiences of women and girls have often been excluded from the production of knowledge (Renzetti, 2018). One of the central focuses of this book is to uncover subjugated knowledge relating to justice involved girls’ experiences of stigma and shame and the significance of these issues in relation to RJ conferencing. In doing so, alternative knowledge is produced which challenges the marginalisation of girls’ voices from dominant discourse related to RJ. In 1990, Worrall argued that the voices of women and girls ‘are muted within the criminal justice system’. She contends that the muting of their voices forms part of a broader process of ‘multiple discursive oppression which is subtle and sophisticated’ (Worrall, 1990, p. 162). She argued that the muting of women’s voices reflected a systemic refusal by those in

66 

J. Hodgson

authority to accept alternative narratives of female experiences which do not align to their own ‘professionally legitimated modes of expression about female conditions of existence’ (1990, p.  162). Further to this Sommers (1995, p. 3, cited in Barr, 2019, p. 231) argued that ‘women are rarely credited with having any real knowledge, even knowledge of themselves’. They argue ‘people in conflict with the law are rarely granted credibility. On these two counts, female lawbreakers have been silenced. Experts tell us who these women are and why they break the law, while the opinions of women themselves are usually ignored or discredited outright’ (Sommers, 1995, p. 3). Contributions made by feminist scholarship have further highlighted how processes of muting and marginalisation continue to persist in contemporary state responses to criminalised women and girls. Barr (2019), for example, in her study on adult women’s experiences of desistance, challenges the marginalisation of their experiences from desistance literature and the ways in which desistance practice promotes dominant discourses of appropriate femininity. Whilst research undertaken by Monk et  al. (2019)  has drawn attention to acts of ‘sexualised violence and harassment’ used by the police against female anti-fracking protesters at Barton Moss Community Protection Camp. Although more recent contributions relating to girls in the youth justice system are less available, Tosouni (2019), in her research on girls detained in custodial institutions, has drawn critical attention to the ways in which the incorporation of gender-responsive programmes has served to contribute towards the continuum of harm, neglect and injustice detained girls are subject to. Although research continues to be produced, the lived experiences of girls in the justice system and outside of it continue to be supressed. Shew and Garchar (2020, n.p.) for instance have argued more recently that ‘though we may wish to think it otherwise, women and girls are still routinely silenced and excluded from positions of power, expertise, leadership, and full participation in the public sphere’. For women and girls in the justice system, their voices are often subjugated and they are subjected to subtle and discursive forms of oppression, dependent upon the continued existence of patriarchal power relations, which serve to subject girls to harm and injustice and they ‘continue to be neglected and

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

67

overlooked’ in the context of youth justice and social policy (Agenda, 2021, p. 11). This book demonstrates further processes of muting and the subjugation of alternative knowledge by providing an insight into the ways in which girls’ voices have been ‘muted’ in the context of RJ conferencing and critical insight into how RJ practices used with justice involved girls serves to reinforce constructed truths relating to dominant discourses of masculinity and femininity. Therefore, central to this book is ‘the insurrection of subjugated knowledge’ (Foucault, 2003, p.  7). For Foucault subjugated knowledges mean ‘a whole series of knowledges that have been disqualified as nonconceptual knowledges, as insufficiently elaborated knowledges, naive knowledges, hierarchically inferior knowledges, knowledges that are below the required level of erudition or scientificity’ (Foucault, 2003, p. 7). The muting of girls’ voices and the neglect of their lived experiences demonstrate the need for the insurrection of girls’ subjugated knowledge. This insurrection is vital in order to produce alternative forms of knowledge which,  as Foucault (2003, p.  7) notes, have been ‘disqualified’. Centralising girls’ testimonies of their experience of RJ and producing alternative narratives based on knowledge which has been deemed ‘hierarchically inferior’ serve to challenge the suppression of further ‘disqualified knowledge’ (ibid., p. 7). Of further importance to the ‘insurrection’ of girls’ subjugated knowledge is to focus critical attention on the role of the justice system as an institution of the state and how its practices serve to supress girls’ narratives and reproduce the ‘heteropatriarchal social order’ (Ballinger, 2009, p. 33). This point will be considered further in Chap. 7.

 xercising Agency: Resistance to Shame E and Stigma As will be explored in subsequent chapters of the book, resistance to the social process of stigmatisation, feelings of shame and discourses of femininityS which serve to socially control girls’ behaviour is possible and

68 

J. Hodgson

such resistance can be used as a strategy to reformulate gender subjectivities. Bartky (1990, p.  95), for example, argued that the ‘feelings’ that establish women’s shame ‘do not reach a state of clarity we can dignify as belief ’ as they constitute ‘nothing less than women’s subordinate status in the hierarchy of gender’. What overcomes such contexts, in which shame is manifested, is the challenging of women’s beliefs about themselves and the understanding that the beliefs upon which such feelings are constituted are in fact false. This means embodying resistance to the imposed subjectivities that the gendered nature of shame and stigma inflict upon women and girls. Through resistance to shame and stigma power, women and girls are able to reformulate their gender subjectivities and challenge dominant discourses of femininity inherent within the social construction of gender. Moreover, Worrall (1990, p.  10 citing Kristeva, 1975, p.  52) argued that those who are the subject of such constructed discourses of acceptable femininity have the power to ‘infringe the code in the direction of allowing the subject to get pleasure from it, renew it or even endanger it’. The exercise of such power allows alternative meanings to emerge and in doing so knowledge and accepted truths, built upon these discourses, can be contested and rethought. Agency is ‘socially realised’ and determined within a societal context, whereby one’s capacity to act with autonomy is restricted by social norms operating through discourses of power, which shape experiences and situations (McNay, 2016, p. 39). Agency therefore ‘is not inseparable from the analysis of power and, thus, is not so much a thing in itself as a vehicle for thinking through broader issues [of ] freedom and constraint’ (ibid., p.  39). Feminist theoretical insights concerning agency are especially attuned to these issues, as women have generally been denied the capacity to act with autonomy due to the social construction of ‘female embodiment’ as fundamentally subordinate (ibid., p. 41). Feminist criminological research has successfully contested androcentric theories of female offending in addition to contextualising women’s experiences of victimisation as being interrelated to their offending behaviour. Despite such contributions, it has been suggested that this connection, between offending and victimisation, has resulted in the nature and embodiment of women’s agency and resistance predominantly remaining unaccounted for (Burman & Gelsthorpe, 2017). Discourses

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

69

surrounding women’s agency, resistance and power have become salient in contesting the conceptualisation of women as passive recipients of unequal societal structures but also in terms of contributing to more ‘nuanced understandings of the dimensions of power’ (ibid., p. 219). Agency is often conceptualised as the ability of an individual to be ‘independent or relatively autonomous’ and act with ‘free will’, ‘choice’ or ‘reflexivity’ (McNay, 2016, p.  40). Agency within this context is not determined within the individual and is dependent upon ‘social interdependence and the associated idea that individuals are formed through embodied interaction and social norms, rather than pre-exist [ing]’ (ibid., p. 41). For women, this understanding provides a more accurate account of gendered agency as it disregards sovereignty and allows for gendered structural inequalities, between males and females, to be considered alongside the ways in which such inequalities have regulated women’s lives (ibid.). Feminists are thus ‘in broad agreement’ that agency requires conceptualisation ‘as a situated, embodied and relational phenomenon’ (ibid., p. 41). Furthermore, agency cannot be understood from an ‘exclusively objective perspective but must also be grasped from the subjective perspective of the individual’s own experience of the world’ in order to understand the way these experiences determine action (McNay, 2016, p. 42). Thus, agency also has an ‘affective’ dimension, which, for women, is inherently implicated within their experiences of social control. Resistance, as an expression of agency, is therefore concerned with relations of power and the opportunity for action (ibid.). According to Gonick et al. (2009, p. 6) ‘gendered agency is practiced within normative social, economic and political processes of creating and reproducing gendered identity. The constraints of gender and normative femininity are always a factor in its production, expression and resistance.’ Although constructions of ‘femininity’ are internalised as part of one’s identity they are, however, ‘still mutable, dynamic, immanent and open to transformation’ (ibid., p.  6) and, thus, exercising agency and resistance reveals how their embodiment is ‘contingent and ambiguous’ (ibid., p.  6). Therefore, ‘new forms of autonomy and constraint’ have emerged, which transcend ‘dichotomies of male domination and female subordination’ and focus upon relationships of inequality which emanate across race, class and ‘generational’ divisions amongst women (McNay,

70 

J. Hodgson

2000, p. 1). This has led feminist theory to reconceptualise notions of ‘gender, identity and agency’ which reveal gender identity as ‘durable but not immutable’ (ibid., p. 2). This idea has, according to McNay, ‘prompted a rethinking of agency in terms of the inherent instability of gender norms and the consequent possibilities for resistance, subversion and the emancipatory remodelling of identity’ (ibid., p. 2). Such theoretical insights concerning agency and the fluidity of gender subjectivity suggest that gender identity is not exclusively ‘imposed through patriarchal structures, but as a set of norms that are lived and transformed in the embodied practices of men and women’ (McNay, 2000, p.  15). Thus, ‘resistance demonstrates that empowered agency need not involve an outright rejection of oppressive norms but rather operates through displacement from within’ (McNay, 2016, p. 45). For individuals to be understood as active agents and not simply ‘docile subjects or passive bearers of pre-given social roles, then “purposive agency” must be a fundamental and self-evident property of personhood’ (McNay, 2016, p. 40). However, agency and resistance, demonstrated in this way, are not pre-determined and instead emanate in an unforeseeable way, depending upon ‘the multifarious ways in which individuals enact gendered and other cultural norms’ (ibid., p.  45). These accounts of ‘agency as resistance’ (ibid., p. 44) demonstrate the variable ways in which women and girls have the capacity to (re)construct their identity and challenge the norms and ideals, which have determined their disadvantaged status within society. The embodiment of agency in order to resist the negative implications of gender, as a social construct, involves interrogating the construction of deviance and the application of stigma and exploring the ways in which stigma and shame can be managed and contested. Thus, new ways of empowering those subject to inequality, and in turn reducing the negative impact of stigma by allowing the individual to manage their own identity ‘through the creation of oppositional spaces and “pathways” to empowerment’, are created (ibid., p. 45). This issue is explored more fully in Chaps. 4 and 5 through the testimonies of the girls who were interviewed.

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

71

Conclusion This chapter has presented a theoretical argument, which explores how the social construction of gender is deeply embedded in the application of stigma to deviant female identities and feelings of shame. The conceptual developments to the sociology of stigma can be used as a framework in which to explore how stigma power operates in the lives of girls. Analysing stigma as a form of social control enables the process to be understood as a dehumanising form of power which is rooted within the devaluation of women and girls. This analysis links shame, produced by stigma, to broader, complex, multiple structures of power inherent within the social construction of gender that discursively and persistently constrain, alter and damage interactions, experiences and opportunities for transformation. Thus, shame and stigma can be used as an analytic for theorising gender power and act as a framework for understanding girls’ experiences of RJ through a gendered lens. A theoretical account of gendered agency has been presented in order to examine how the temporal and variable nature of gender creates the potential for women and girls to form their own subjectivities which resist the confines of the social construction of gender and its role in determining their experiences and their psychology in line with their devalued and unequal status within society. The next two chapters illustrate how these theories worked in practice to reinforce the subordination of the girls and how that subordination was resisted and contested.

References Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. (2021). Young Women’s Justice Project Literature Review. Alliance for Youth Justice. Alder, C. (2003). Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative Justice. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes, & L.  Westmarland (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical issues (pp. 117–126). The Open University. Atkinson, K. (2020). ‘An Amplified Space’: A Feminist Poststructuralist Analysis of Sexual Violence at University. [PhD thesis] Liverpool John Moores University

72 

J. Hodgson

Ballinger, A. (2009). Gender, Power and the State: Same as It Ever Was? In R. Coleman, J. Sim, S. Tombs, & D. Whyte (Eds.), State (pp. 20–34). Sage Publications. Barr, Ú. (2019). Desisting Sisters: Gender, Power and Desistance in The Criminal (in)Justice System. Palgrave Macmillan. Bartky, S. (1990). Shame and Gender. In S.  Bartky (Ed.), Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (pp.  83–98). Routledge. Brown, B. (2007). I Thought it was Just Me: Women Reclaiming Power and Courage in a Culture of Shame. Gotham. Browne, V. (2014). The Persistence of Patriarchy: Operation Yewtree and the Return to 1970s Feminism. Radical Philosophy, 188, 9–20. Burman, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2017). Feminist Criminology: Inequalities, Powerlessness and Justice. In A. Liebling, S. Maruna, & L. McAra (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (pp. 213–238). Oxford University Press. Cain, M. (1989). Feminists Transgress Criminology. In M. Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp. 1–18). Sage Publications. Carlen, P. (2008). Gender, Class, Racism and Criminal Justice: Against Global and Gender-Centric Theories, for Poststructuralist Perspectives. In K. Evans & J.  Jamieson (Eds.), Gender and Crime a Reader (pp.  181–190). Open University Press. Carlen, P., & Worrall, A. (1987). Gender, Crime and Justice. Open University Press. Carrington, K. (1993). Offending Girls. Allen and Unwin Pty Ltd. Collier, R. (1998). Masculinities, Crime and Criminology: Men, Heterosexuality and The Criminal(ised) Other. Sage Publications Ltd. Connell, R. (2014). Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Polity Press. Connell, R. (2020). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Routledge. Connell, R., & Pearse, R. (2015). Gender: In World Perspective (3rd ed.). Polity Press. Connell, R.  W. (1990). The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal. Theory and Society, 19(5), 507–544. Connell, R.  W. (1994). The State, Gender and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal. In H. L. Radtke & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/Gender (pp. 136–173). Sage Publications. Connell, R. W. (2008). Gender and the State. In K. Nash & A. Scott (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (pp. 117–126). John Wiley and Sons.

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

73

Cox, P. (2003). Gender, Justice and Welfare: Bad girls in Britain, 1900–1950. Palgrave Macmillan. Dahl, T. S., & Snare, A. (1978). The Coercion of Privacy: A Feminist Perspective. In C.  Smart & B.  Smart (Eds.), Women, Sexuality and Social Control (pp. 8–26). London. Daly, K. (1997). Different Ways of Conceptualizing Sex/Gender in Feminist Theory and their Implications for Criminology. Theoretical Criminology, 1(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480697001001003 Daly, K. (2008). Girls, Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 109–137. Foster, J. (1999). An Invitation to Dialogue: Clarifying the Position of Feminist Gender Theory in Relation to Sexual Difference Theory. Gender & Society, 13(4), 431–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124399013004002 Foucault, M. (2003). Society Must be Defended. Penguin Books. Gelsthorpe, L., & Worrall, A. (2009). Looking for Trouble: A Recent History of Girls, Young Women and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 209–223. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall. Gonick, M., Renold, E., Ringrose, J., & Weems, L. (2009). Rethinking Agency and Resistance: What Comes After Girl Power? Girlhood Studies, 2(2), 1–9. Hannem, S., & Bruckert, C. (2012). Stigma Revisited: Implication of The Mark. University of Ottawa. Heidensohn, F. (1996). Women and Crime (2nd ed.). Macmillan Press. Hodgson, J. (2020). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A Critical Analysis. Youth Justice https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420967751 Hudson, A. (1989). Troublesome Girls, Towards Alternative Definitions and Policies. In M.  Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp.  197–219). Sage Publications. Hudson, B. (1984). Femininity and Adolescence. In A. McRobbie & M. Nica (Eds.), Gender and Generation (pp. 31–53). Palgrave Macmillan. Hutter, B., & Williams, G. (1981). Controlling Women: The Normal and the Deviant. In B. Hutter & G. Williams (Eds.), Controlling Women: The Normal and the Deviant (pp. 9–39). Croom Helm. Kantola, J. (2015) State/Nation in L. Disch, and M. Hawkesworth, (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. : Oxford University Press. pp 915–933. Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving Sexual Violence. Polity Press. Kusow, M.  A. (2004). Contesting Stigma: On Goffman’s Assumptions of Normative Order. Symbolic Interaction, 27(2), 179–197.

74 

J. Hodgson

Laws, J. (1979). The Second X. Elsevier North Holland, Inc. Lees, S. (1983). How Boys Slag off Girls. New Society, 13, 51–53. Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The Exposed Self. The Free Press. Lewis, M. (1998). Shame and Stigma. In P. Gilbert & B. Andrews (Eds.), Shame Interpersonal Behaviour, Psychopathology, and Culture (pp. 126–140). Oxford University Press. Link, B., & Phelan, J. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. (2014). Stigma Power. Social Science and Medicine, 103, 24–32. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press. Mann, B. (2018). Femininity, Shame and Redemption. Hypatia, 33 (3), 402–417. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1996). Understanding Masculinities: Social Relations and Cultural Arenas. Open University Press. Manion, J. (2003). Girls Blush, Sometimes: Gender, Moral Agency, and the Problem of Shame. Hypatia, 18(3), 21–41. Masson, I., & Österman, L. (2017). Working with Female Offenders in Restorative Justice Frameworks, Effective and Ethical Practice. Probation Journal [online], 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517728784 McNay, L. (2000). Gender and Agency Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory. Polity Press. McNay, L. (2016). Agency. In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory (pp. 39–60). Oxford University Press. Miles, R. (2013). Restorative Justice: Female Offenders in Restorative Justice Conferences. http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/restorative-­justice-­female­offenders-­restorative-­justice-­conferences Monk, H., Gilmore, J., & Jackson, W. (2019). Gendering Pacification: Policing Women at Anti-fracking Protests. Feminist Review, 122(1), 64–79. Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2016). Making Restorative Justice Work for Women Who Have Offended. The Restorative Justice Council. https://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/files/Research%20Report% 20WEB.PDF Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-Related Sigma and Discrimination: A Conceptual Framework and Implications for Action. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 13–24. Paton, K. (2018). Beyond Legacy: Backstage Stigmatisation and ‘Trickle-Up’ Politics of Urban Regeneration. The Sociological Review, 66(4), 919–934.

3  An Explanation of Gender, Shame and Stigma Power 

75

Pescosolido, A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The Stigma Complex. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 87–116. Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual Violence in a Digital Age. Springer Nature. Renzetti, C.  M. (2018). Feminist Perspectives. In W.  S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 74–82). Routledge. Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (1996). Strategy for Community Conferences: Emotions and Social Bonds. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative Justice International Perspectives (pp. 215–336). Criminal Justice Press. Scheff, T. (2003). Shame in Self and Society. Symbolic Interaction, 26(2), 239–262. Schur, E. (1984). Labelling Deviant Behaviour: It’ Sociological Implications. Harper and Row. Scott, J. (1986). Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis. The American Historical Review, 91(5), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.2307/1864376 Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2009). Engendering the Agenda: Girls, Young Women and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(13), 195–208. Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2015). Girls, Crime and Justice. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 49–64). Sage Publications. Shew, M.  M., & Garchar, K.  K. (2020). Girls, Women, and Intellectual Empowerment: Oxford University Press Blog. https://blog.oup. com/2020/11/girls-­women-­and-­intellectual-­empowerment/ Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the Power of the Law. Routledge. Smart, C., & Smart, B. (1978). Women, Sexuality and Social Control. Routledge and Kegan Paul Books. Sommers, E. K. (1995). Voices From Within: Women Who Have Broken the Law. University of Toronto Press. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and Guilt. Guilford Publications. Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, Imagery Consciousness: Volume 11: The Negative Affects. Springer. Toor, S. (2009). British Asian Girls, Crime and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 239–254. Tosouni, A. (2019). Gendered Injustice: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Detained Girls. Routledge. Tyler, I. (2013). Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. Zed Books. Tyler, I. (2020a). Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Zed Books.

76 

J. Hodgson

Tyler, I. (2020b). The Double-Consciousness of the Stigmatised. Stigma Machine. https://stigmamachine.com/2020/08/13/the-­d ouble-­c onsciousness-­ ssssssof-­the-­stigmatised/ Tyler, I., & Slater, T. (2018). Rethinking the Sociology of Stigma. The Sociological Review, 66(4), 721–743. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing Patriarchy. Blackwell Publishers. Whiteford, L.  M., & Gonzalez, L. (2005). ‘Stigma: The Hidden Burden of Infertility. Social Science and Medicine, 40(1), 27–36. Williams, B. (1993). Shame and Necessity. University of California Press. Worrall, A. (1990). Offending Women: Female Lawbreakers and The Criminal Justice System. Routledge. Worrall, A. (2004). Twisted Sisters, Ladettes and the New Penology: The Social Construction of Violent Girls. In C. Alder & A. Worrall (Eds.), Girls Violence: Myths and Realities (pp. 41–60). New York Press.

4 Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting Perspectives and Alternative Narratives to Dominant Discourses

It was negative. The whole thing was negative. We were constantly reminded what we done and how wrong it was and fair enough that’s what the point of the meeting was but it was the way they said it, it was horrible. Just the way they spoke to us and the way they looked at us, it was pathetic. (Sarah, 17) I live and breathe restorative justice, so the positive elements are fantastic to me. … I see victims healed and young people making amends. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Introduction Notwithstanding the establishment of an international evidence base, which supports the use of RJ interventions, it has been proposed that RJ does in fact have ‘different effects on different kinds of people especially when it is delivered in different kinds of offences by different kinds of staff’ (Strang & Sherman, 2015, p. 11). As discussed in Chap. 2, the use of RJ as an intervention for girls in the youth justice system has also been challenged, because little attention has been paid to the salience of gender to RJ practice (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015; Daly, 2008; Hodgson, 2020). The lack of attention paid to gender and RJ is perplexing as it is now firmly established that girls who come into the remit of the youth justice © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_4

77

78 

J. Hodgson

system experience higher levels of social exclusion, physical and sexual victimisation, poverty and mental health problems. They are also subject to higher levels of social control and stigmatisation. As explained in Chap. 2, it is recognised that girls involved in the youth justice system have different needs to those of boys and in order to achieve outcomes that are equal for them gender-specific approaches are required. Although there has been some progression in terms of gender-­ specific provision for girls, ‘the currently expanding field of RJ has remained firmly outside of these advancements’ (Österman & Masson, 2017, p. 5). Despite the substantial gap in knowledge concerning girls and RJ, the ‘informal strategies of mediation, family conferencing, and programmes informed by the underlying principles of shame and re-­ integration have been put forward as viable alternatives’ to working with young female offenders (Batchelor & Burman, 2004, p. 281). The validity of such claims, however, remains undetermined. This chapter explores the narratives of 15 girls who have participated in a RJ conference and 13 youth justice practitioners. Focusing specifically on the operations, dynamics and outcomes of RJ conferencing used with girls who have offended, the findings introduced within this chapter will be discussed in relation to the following themes: conflicting perspectives of RJ in practice, issues of power and control, the victim-offender paradox and the silencing of girls’ subjectivities. The findings presented provide alternative narratives to dominant discourses concerning the application of RJ policy and practice to offending girls. Such alternative narratives highlight the fundamental conflict between girls’ subjective experiences of RJ conferencing and practitioners’ perspectives of those experiences.

J uxtaposing Positions: Juxtaposing Girls’ and Practitioners’ Perspectives and Experiences of Restorative Justice Conferencing Since the introduction of RJ within England and Wales, a significant amount of empirical research and corresponding literature, critiquing and advocating the contemporary manifestations of RJ policy and

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

79

practice within the youth justice system, has been established. For example, the use of RJ practices with young offenders has been widely critiqued due to concerns relating to net-widening, proportionality and principled sentencing (see, e.g., Crawford, 2002; Goldson, 2000, Gray, 2005; Wonnacott, 1999). On the other hand, a body of knowledge and an evidence base, emerging from empirical research, which supports the use of RJ with those who offend, have also been established. The construction of RJ as an alternative paradigm of justice, which restricts punitive state intervention and enhances restitution, has contributed to the widespread support RJ has gained in recent decades. Notions of ‘inclusivity, reparation, resolution and, ultimately, healing and satisfactory closure’ have become attached to RJ policy and practice (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015, p. 139). Such concepts and ideas now frequently appear in governmental and third-sector discourse relating to RJ practices and claims of procedural justice, victim satisfaction and recidivism are now routinely drawn upon to illustrate the effectiveness of RJ and its potential for transforming the delivery of criminal justice (ibid.). Reflecting such conflicting discourse, the empirical data collected during the interviews with both the girls and the practitioners was distinguished between predominantly positive attitudes towards RJ conferencing, on behalf of practitioners, and comparatively antipathetic attitudes expressed by the girls. The quotes presented at the beginning of this chapter emphasise this theme. They conceptualise the contention between girls’ experiences and practitioners’ perspectives of RJ conferencing in practice. The stark contrast concerning perceptions of RJ, reflected in these quotes, not only mirror the divergent discourses encompassing RJ policy and practices, effectuated within the youth justice service in England and Wales, but they also provide an original insight into the ways in which the ideals and reality of RJ fundamentally conflict.

80 

J. Hodgson

 estorative Justice Conferencing in Practice: R Antithetical Narratives and Alternative Discourse The findings, from the interviews undertaken with the girls, indicated that they did not value RJ conferencing to the same extent as the interviewed practitioners. A number of the girls implied that their participation in the conference was a negative experience, which they associated with negative emotions. [Interviewer: Did you find it a positive or a negative experience?] Really, really negative. She [facilitator] brought my whole history up with the police and I felt really ashamed because that was private. (Sam, 14) It wasn’t a positive meeting but I would rather go to a meeting like that and feel like I have had all my human rights broken than go to court. … Basically she [victim] got free flowers and free chocolates and she got to say what she wanted to say and then it was over … it wasn’t a positive meeting. … I didn’t find it helpful but it was definitely eye-opening. … The way that they arranged it. It was just a circle, there was no table in the middle of us or anything there was just a circle and chairs. … A table breaks the heat really because I could have said something she didn’t like and she flies across the room. At least there would be a table to like block it and give me space to like protect myself. (Jenny, 14) I don’t know … a bit [negative] because it made me feel uncomfortable. … Just talking about it … going over it again … it just made me feel sad … it was just like them against me. (Becky, 14)

As noted, the practitioners interviewed were all advocates of RJ and were enthusiastic about RJ interventions used with young people in the youth justice service and their local youth offending team. I don’t think it can ever have a negative effect. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) I think it’s good. … I think it works. … I haven’t come across any negatives currently. … I have never known it to become negative. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker *Previously Restorative Justice Worker)

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

81

I love RJ, the positives for me are that it really helps young people and it helps victims. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

Such enthusiasm and advocacy of RJ practice contributes to a wider consensus inherent within RJ discourse which presents it as an ‘unequivocally positive [and] progressive mechanism for facilitating inclusivity, reparation [and] resolution’ (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015, p. 139), which is suitable to be used with young people at any stage in the youth justice system (Haines & Case, 2015). However, it emerged that ‘practitioners’ colleagues, who were not responsible for delivering RJ interventions, did not share such avid commitment to RJ practice held by the practitioners interviewed. Practitioners revealed that youth offending team case managers were often reluctant for the young people they were working with to participate in RJ conferencing. The case manager’s shutters come down and they say this girl is too complex or too vulnerable or too damaged to get involved in RJ. … Female case managers, I think, have a tendency to want to protect their client from the RJ process and to work with them in more of a vacuum really. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

Practitioners conceptualised this reluctance as a lack of understanding of RJ and the potential benefits it can have for young people who participate. Whilst the antithetical relationship between girls’ negative experiences and practitioners’ positive perspectives of RJ conferencing represents the dominant viewpoint with regards to the empirical findings, practitioners also discussed specific problems regarding the variable delivery of RJ interventions across the youth justice sector. It is very variable delivery across the 156 youth offending teams, very variable in relation to resources. I think some services have bureaucratised their restorative interventions … there are too few managers other than recognising the term, that fully understand it. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

Discontent was expressed by one practitioner who suggested that the Restorative Justice Council fails to adequately consider risk factors within

82 

J. Hodgson

restorative practice. This was because the Restorative Justice Council’s training and guidance only refers to high-risk cases, such as domestic violence and sex offences, as complex cases. Thus, it was perceived that the risk posed by an offender was not adequately considered within cases deemed by the Restorative Justice Council as ‘complex’. It was felt that RJ practices delivered within the context of such training and guidance, outside of a multiagency organisation, in which practitioners do not have access to police intelligence, could lead to implications for both the victim and the facilitator. RJ is just one tool in the box. I get quite frustrated with the Restorative Justice Council and some of the training they are putting out there because they refer to things like complex cases, whereas we might refer to them as high-risk cases but risk seems to be left standing at the door with RJ. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

Additionally, some of the girls interviewed stated that they felt certain components of the conference were positive. For example, Jade felt that her participation in the conference helped her to forget about the offence. Positive … because I could forget about it really and not have it play on my mind. [Interviewer: Did it stop playing on your mind?] No … it stopped after like a few weeks. (Hannah, 13)

The findings presented thus far reveal that the majority viewpoint, from the sample of practitioners, situates RJ interventions as beneficial for all stakeholders. However, the findings presented below, generated from the girls’ interviews, predominantly conflict practitioners’ support for RJ interventions.

 ilencing Subjectivities: Examining Girls’ S Experiences of Restorative Justice Practitioners conceptualised the outcomes produced by RJ interventions as holding young people accountable for their offending behaviour in a neutral environment, which allows victims closure and young people an

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

83

opportunity to make amends with those harmed as a consequence of their offence. I think it is vital to use restorative justice. I am a big believer in restorative justice. … It gives the young person the opportunity to be forgiven and not persecuted. … It’s a fresh start, it’s an opportunity. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

However, the majority of the girls interviewed perceived their participation in the RJ conference as a punishment. Jenny, who caused the victim of her offence to fall off her bike because she tied a rope across the promenade in her local area, perceived the guilt she felt during the conference as a form of punishment for the harm she caused to the victim. Whilst Sarah and Jade felt that having to ‘face’ the victim of their offence was a punishment. I dunno (sic) really it wasn’t a punishment but at the same time it was because they like made us feel guilty but like the guilty that we deserved, if you get what I mean? (Jenny, 14) [Interviewer: So, seeing her [victim] was a punishment?] Yeah. … Because I nearly killed her, so I don’t really want to see her … what we did was wrong wasn’t it? But I don’t know, it was a punishment like they treated us like we wanted to do it, but that wasn’t the outcome for that to happen. (Sarah, 17) [Interviewer: Why did you see it as a punishment?] Because we had done something bad, which we shouldn’t have done. (Amy, 12) [Interviewer: Why did you see it as a punishment?] Because like you had to face the person that you did it to. (Jade, 14)

Their association with RJ as a form of punishment conflicted with practitioners’ views on RJ.  This was because practitioners regarded RJ conferencing as a form of restitution that is victim-led and repairs the harm caused by offending behaviour. Such perspectives resonate with the proponent literature on RJ (see, e.g., Braithwaite, 1989; Barnett, 1977; Galaway & Hudson, 1996; Zehr, 1990).

84 

J. Hodgson

It [RJ] gives you that option to feel good … to put things right. … To repair what you have done so it isn’t hanging over you for the rest of your life. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) It is always for the benefit of the victim, we always do it like that, so not for the benefit of the offender it’s always for the benefit of the victim. That is what all the RJ emphasis is on, for the benefit of the victim. (David, Restorative Justice Officer)

The data indicated that the positive regard for RJ, shared amongst practitioners, was partly attributed to the opportunity RJ conferencing provides to victims and offenders to share their own subjective accounts of offending behaviour and victimisation. It [restorative justice] gives you the opportunity to say ‘yeah I did it and I am really sorry’. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) I have had victims who have come out of there feeling like they have had a voice and it has made a massive impact on them. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

The importance of participation amongst all parties in RJ conferencing is emphasised throughout existing literature (O’Mahony & Doak, 2017). It is argued that RJ processes should ‘seek to maximise a sense of agency through the active participation and involvement of offenders in the decision making process’ (ibid., p. 93). All practitioners contextualised RJ conferencing as a conflict resolution practice in which victims and offenders are afforded a participatory role. However, this opportunity to share their own narratives was not provided for a number of the girls interviewed. Sarah and Becky, for example, both indicated that they felt they were not given equal opportunity to explain their behaviour and feelings about the offence, whilst Naomi explained that she did not speak during the conference and felt pressured to agree with the victim and facilitator. I found it absolutely useless because we didn’t get our point across, we were targeted all the way through it. … If I probably had to do one again, I wouldn’t. I would choose court because you get your point across in court, it is fairer in court. … You actually get listened to. … It’s funny because they didn’t listen to me. They didn’t listen to what I had to say … we were

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

85

there to say sorry and explain our side of the story … she [victim] didn’t even listen to our events, she just went straight in there and every single one of them had a go at us. (Sarah, 17) They was all pointing the finger at me. Like they were saying you shouldn’t have hit her and all that … but she is the one who touched me first and I don’t like getting touched. … I found it bad because they was all pointing it at me. … I didn’t really get my point across though because I couldn’t look at her. (Becky, 14) I just switched off. I never even said anything I just had to agree with everything they said. (Naomi, 13)

These responses do not depict RJ conferencing as an intervention in which girls can share their narratives with regard to their offending behaviour but rather as an experience which silences their subjectivities.

Emotions, Suitability and Outcomes Practitioners did identify gendered differences between boys’ and girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. For example, some practitioners’ perceived girls to have a heightened emotional response to RJ conferencing which they felt attributed to their differential experiences in comparison to boys. The quotes from the practitioners provided below reflect the perception that girls are more empathetic than boys are and are better able to articulate and express their emotions. I think girls have been more kind of fearful, a bit more fearful and apprehensive. So, kind of emotional, very tearful, more so with girls than it would be with the lads. So, more emotions, whereas the lads might kind of clam up and it is more taken for, you know, they might just think they are cocky and don’t care really but with the females they show more emotions. So more tearful and things like that. They kind of find it more upsetting in that aspect you know. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) I think generally there is more emotion and there is more preparation for girls. They go on a bigger journey I think. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

86 

J. Hodgson

On the whole they are more emotional so you will get tears whereas boys not so much. In terms of expressing guilt and remorse you will get more emotions. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer) I think girls probably see it differently. I think girls have a better understanding of empathy, they are much more emotionally in tuned with themselves, definitely. So, they are much more empathetic in conferences. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Practitioners felt that the gendered differences in terms of the emotional responses evoked within girls, during the conferencing process, resulted in better outcomes for girls. Stan, a senior youth offending team officer, expressed that girls are often more willing to engage in a conference if they perceive that their participation will support the victim in overcoming the impact the offence had on them. If we tell a young woman perpetrator that the victim of her offence doesn’t go out the house anymore, they have stopped going to school, is drug ­taking, has lost a lot of confidence, is scared for her life, you know mentally or physically, you do get female offenders feel regret for that. They wanted to take part in the attack, they were angry, they were happy about the violence at the time they just didn’t want to leave lasting damage. Then they might put all these different things in about ‘she had been sleeping with my fella’ or whatever, you know. If you tell them that by coming to this conference we are hoping to get this girl to start going out the house again and going into town, they readily, I find, engage in that more so than boys. They want to help achieve that outcome. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

The majority of practitioners supported the assumption that girls express emotions more frequently than boys during a conference, and the emotions they experience are more intense. Predominantly practitioners maintained that girls are more likely to embrace the emotional aspect of a conference and are more likely to display emotions, such as crying. It was expressed by some practitioners that there was a close association between the frequency and intensity of emotions experienced by girls during a conference and a likelihood that a positive outcome would be achieved.

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

87

One male RJ officer said that ‘the victim seeing that kind of display of emotions may make the conference run a lot more smoothly because we have already had an admission of “I’m sorry, I feel guilty, I feel awful”’. A further male practitioner articulated that girls are ‘less confrontational than boys’ and are more mature for their age which leads them to be ‘more conciliatory’ and ‘more ready to right a wrong using a restorative approach than males’. Such opinions concerning girls’ increased emotionality were expressed by a number of other practitioners, as highlighted in the following extracts: I think girls have different outcomes because they are showing more emotion than lads. When I have done conferencing with a boy they have had reparation as an outcome, whereas girls have sort of had an emotional outcome. It has been more of a ‘I am saying sorry’ kind of thing not ‘I am going to pay back for what I have done’, so I think so, yeah. (Rebecca, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) I think that girls generally understand and get it and value it, they embrace the emotional side of it. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) Maybe the more physical emotions side may lead the victims to think they are more remorseful, than perhaps what a male would be. There is an old saying that if you go into a RJ conference and the offender starts getting upset and crying its job done. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) I think girls see it differently, I think girls have got a better understanding of empathy. (Rebecca, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) I think they [girls] are more emotionally in tuned with themselves definitely, so therefore that would make them more empathetic in a conference I think yeah. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

The dichotomy between women’s moral reasoning as being guided by an ‘ethic of care’ and men’s moral reasoning being guided by an ‘ethic of justice’, developed by Gilligan (1982, p. 74), can be drawn upon to understand practitioners’ conceptualisation of girls as suitable participants for RJ conferencing. A feminine ‘ethic of care’ is distinguished as being specifically concerned with communication, responsibility and interpersonal relationships (Gilligan, 1982, p. 74). The ‘ethics of justice’ concept is considered to be defined by a focus on rules and rights and is constructed based on a hierarchy of values and power, which resolve

88 

J. Hodgson

conflict through objective means (Gilligan, 1982, p. 74). Gilligan (1982) argued that the male-centred ‘ethics of justice’ (p. 74) is perceived to be superior to the moral reasoning associated with females, resulting in women’s voices being marginalised. The core values of the ‘ethic of care’ principle, identified by Gilligan, have, according to Daly (2003, p. 202), contributed to the development of a ‘gender-linked association’ which distinguishes the core values of RJ, as an informal model of justice associated with feminine values. Such arguments may be situated more broadly in relation to the social construction of masculinity and femininity as organising features of social life which shape social norms and expectations that regulate the behaviour of males and females (Renzetti, 2018). The data reflects the problematic assumption that girls’ moral reasoning is situated within a feminine ‘ethic of care’ (Gilligan, 1982, p. 74). Practitioners suggested that such differences in girls’ moral reasoning positioned them as more responsive within RJ conferencing due to having heightened emotional and social capacities and increased levels of empathy compared to boys. This reveals a tendency, amongst practitioners, of deterministic thinking, underpinned by normative expectations relating to the socially constructed ideals of femininity The girls’ narratives contrast such perspectives held by practitioners and provide a more nuanced and complex account of their experiences of RJ conferencing. Their narratives present alternative accounts of RJ conferencing which oppose the conception of them as receptive and empathetic participants of RJ conferencing and therefore challenged practitioners’ perspectives, which appear to be shaped by discourses of femininity and stereotypical assumptions concerning male and female dichotomies of moral reasoning. For example, Becky (14) said she felt like she ‘never really had a choice’ to participate in the conference. A further three girls expressed that their participation in the conference was necessary to avoid the escalation of their offence through the youth justice system. Basically, the restorative justice meeting was so we didn’t end up going to court and getting it on our record. That was supposed to be the other way. (Sarah, 17)

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

89

He [police officer] just said if I didn’t do it [RJ conference] it could lead to more serious things. (Jemma, 14) [Interviewer: Did you feel like you had any choice to go?] No because they said if we didn’t go to this meeting then we would be sent to court. (Jenny, 14)

Moreover, some of the girls interviewed were reluctant or unwilling to apologise to victim. Primarily, their reluctance to apologise to the victim of the offence, as illustrated in the quotes below, is because of the hostility they felt towards them. Such hostility can be explained in relation to the girls’ perspectives concerning the context in which the offence occurred. Many of the girls interviewed felt that others, including the victims, should also be held accountable for their behaviour. For example, Chloe said that she was assaulted first by the victim of her offence. [Interviewer: Did you say sorry?] No … Because she was speaking about my little cousin’s grave. … I don’t like her. (Jemma, 14) She hit me first, she shouldn’t have got involved in that fight, but I had to say sorry to her and everyone else, even though I didn’t even start it, she did. (Chloe, 14) In the middle that was when they said they were threatening [sic] for their lives and that’s when I got dead angry. I was then, I was like fuming and I was about to like stand up and proper fume. That’s what I felt like doing but I didn’t I just held it back and then yeah. (Jade, 14)

A position of antipathy, as opposed to empathy, towards the victim of their offence was expressed by some of the girls and it was also revealed that in certain cases reconciliation was not achieved during the conference. This position can be understood in relation to conflicting perspectives between them and the victim, concerning the nature, context and circumstances of the offence. [Interviewer: How did it make you feel seeing the bruise the teacher showed you?] Nothing I was trying to keep me from laughing … because I couldn’t stand her. I hated her. [Interviewer: How did it feel saying sorry to someone you didn’t like?] Annoying. (Becky, 14)

90 

J. Hodgson

No, it was like she was just there for like ‘oh poor me’ she wasn’t bothered about saying sorry or whatever just like ‘oh poor me’. I hope she chokes on the chocolates. (Jenny, 14)

A number of the girls interviewed, however, did state that the reason for their participation in the RJ conference was to apologise to the victim(s) of their offence and they contextualised their apologies as necessary to change negative opinions of them. They did not, however, contextualise their participation in the conference, exclusively or predominantly, as a means to repair harm caused to the victim. Instead, they viewed their participation as an opportunity to share their own accounts of the offence and manage the negative perceptions associated with their identity. Such responses dispel the assumptions made by practitioners, which suggest girls may be more receptive to RJ. This is further highlighted by the continuing existence of interpersonal tensions between victims and offenders, which were not reconciled during the RJ conference.

Victim-Offender Paradox The ‘victim-offender binary’ prescribed by RJ discourse is perceived within critical literature as particularly problematic because it serves to create a paradox which considers the victim and offender as independent statuses within RJ conferencing. Young people in contact with the youth justice system do not solely occupy an offender status and many have been subject to forms of victimisation which expand across experiences of poverty, exclusion from education, violence and exploitation (Lynch, 2010; McAra & McVie, 2010; Webster, 2019). For offending girls their experiences of victimisation and criminalisation are often interlinked when considered within the ‘broader context of their victimisation and harassment … or their social and economic disadvantage’ (Daly, 2008, p. 133). Researching girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing in Australia, Daly highlights the complexity of assigning victim and offender statuses to girls involved in violent offences (ibid.). In Daly’s study all of the girls believed the victims ‘provoked’ their behaviour and there was a ‘history of conflict between the girls [making] it difficult to discern the balance of offending and

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

91

victimisation’ (ibid., p. 133). Daly suggests that in such cases, where the facts of the offence ‘diverge’ or are ‘contested’, caution must be taken in determining the appropriateness of facilitating RJ (ibid., p. 133). The empirical data provided by the girls shows their reluctance to be viewed solely as an offender and highlights their desire to make known their experiences, in a context, which resists the victim-offender binary they are subject to. Nine of the girls interviewed stated that they felt they had been subject to victimisation. A number of the girls contested the circumstances surrounding the offence and contextualised their feelings of victimisation as resulting from being assaulted first or being provoked by the victim. Additionally, two of the girls conceptualised their experiences of participating in the RJ conference as leading to feelings of victimisation. Becky who assaulted a teacher while being physically restrained defended her actions by explaining that the restraint she was subject to caused her pain and she felt the actions of the teacher who restrained her were not justified. Sam who also assaulted a teacher who was restraining her rationalised her behaviour by explaining that she does not like being touched and retaliated as a reaction to this. [Interviewer: What happened at the meeting?] They was all pointing the finger at me. Like they were saying you shouldn’t have hit her and all that … but she is the one who touched me first and I don’t like getting touched … [Interviewer: Do you think you were able to make it up to her?] I still can’t stand her. I hate her. (Becky, 14) I flung a chair and he put me in a restraint, and he held me down and it really hurt, so I was like get off me … he started struggling and then me hair went in me face. … I honestly didn’t know his face was behind me and flicked me head back and I have head butted him and he has took me down to the floor and he has hurt my ribs and that … [Interviewer: How did you feel when you were on the floor?] Really frustrated … other girls hit the staff as well but they don’t get the police called. (Sam, 14)

Additionally, two of the girls expressed that they felt victimised as a result of their participation in the RJ conference. Yeah because they were putting news articles on Facebook and that and tagging us in them and stuff. … My mates that I was with, when we done

92 

J. Hodgson

it, they all turned on us and that, saying we deserved to be killed and we deserve the same thing happening to us and we should have went to prison. … Through the whole meeting, I was victimised through the whole meeting and during the custody suite, the whole meeting, just the whole time, the start of the incident, well just after the incident to when it all ended. (Sarah, 17) [Interviewer: Who did you feel victimised by?] Family, papers, police, friends, people who didn’t even know us, there was loads of stuff on Facebook. No one even met us and that and they (newspapers) were writing pure stuff about us … but they didn’t have a clue because they lied about it as well … they lied in the papers, they said that we videoed it but we never. … It was like even though she was the victim there, it was like we were made to be the victims it was like she was targeting us, like proper bad, like fair enough we could have killed her and all that and I know this is like nasty but like even though we wasn’t the victim there and she was, she was proper like laying into us. (Jenny, 14)

These quotes also illustrate that Sarah and Jenny felt victimised as a result of the treatment they received from their friends, as well as the media following their offence. Both Jenny and Sarah were involved in the same offence and participated in the same RJ conference. Throughout their interviews they described how they felt unfairly treated by the media’s response to the offence they committed. This was because they believed the local newspaper did not provide accurate information about what happened. Narratives of victimisation were also articulated by Charlene who discussed how the police officer arresting her, for assaulting her mother, was ‘twisting’ her arm when putting her in handcuffs and ‘ramming them’ up her back. Such findings are significant in contributing to alternative discourse surrounding the treatment of, and responses to, girls who offend and RJ discourse. RJ discourse typically delineates a view of victims and offenders, which conceptualise both labels as homogeneous, universal categories (Cunneen, 2010) that are ‘ontologically distinguished’ (Maglione, 2017, p. 410). Such a dichotomy does not afford a space within RJ conferencing to acknowledge the experience of an offender who is harmed or a victim who has harmed (Acorn, 2017; Maglione, 2017).

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

93

Considering marginalised girls as stakeholders in a RJ conference, this victim-offender dichotomy becomes complicated further. Feminist scholars have illustrated how victim and offender identities, reflected in traditional criminal justice approaches, are not beneficial for women as victims or offenders (Nelund, 2017). Furthermore, as discussed in Chap. 2, feminist pathways research has successfully obscured the labels of victim and offender for women and girls in conflict with the law. This body of research rejects the polarity of the social construction of victim and offender labels by establishing that women and girls’ offending pathways are intricately connected to their experiences of victimisation. The binary representations of victims and offenders within RJ discourse provide no space for relational subjectivity whereby girls can be seen as both victims and offenders. Instead, RJ discourse considers this ‘victim-offender binary’ (Cunneen & Goldson, 2015, p. 143) as independent components, which are not mutually exclusive. This binary provides only a polarised construct of girls’ offending behaviour. It also serves to subjugate girls’ narratives and their experiences of injustice and powerlessness.

 ower and Control in Restorative P Justice Conferencing Many of the existing discussions on RJ and power imbalances centre on the appropriateness of RJ in responding to cases of domestic and/or sexual violence (Hoyle, 2010). Aside from such concerns, there are other nuanced factors, such as gender, age and ethnicity, that can also contribute to power imbalances within RJ conferencing. There is, however, a relative absence of critical discussions, within official RJ policy and practice, concerning the effects that institutionalised systems of oppression and marginalisation have on RJ interventions. Specific issues and needs arising out of gender-related power imbalances continue to be neglected. This has meant that the potential for RJ conferencing to (re)produce and exacerbate manifestations of unequal power relations and inequality for girls who are already marginalised within the youth justice system remain empirically underexplored. As one practitioner highlighted ‘there are a

94 

J. Hodgson

number of issues to consider for girls’ when it comes to their participation in RJ conferencing. The gender of the victim, the gender of the facilitator and co-facilitator. If you don’t consider those things then there is a risk of it being unbalanced and disadvantaging the female who has offended. I think definitely and if particularly they have had negative and or abusive experiences of male power and they find themselves in a room full of males that is not helpful. Is this taken consideration of generally and widely enough? I suspect not actually. If there are gender issues, gender imbalance, previous experience, that has to be considered, otherwise whilst it might still work it won’t work as well as it could have done, I think is the truth. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

The practitioner above suggested that attention should also be given to the gender of the victim, the gender of the facilitator and girls’ previous experiences in order to ensure they are not disadvantaged during the RJ conferencing process. It was also acknowledged by some practitioners that professionals delivering RJ interventions should take cognisance of issues surrounding vulnerability, self-esteem and emotional difficulties, with regards to the impact such issues may have in relation to girls’ experiences of power and control dynamics, within a RJ conference. The ways in which power functions as a mechanism of social control and shapes gender subjectivity is integral to understanding girls’ experiences of RJ conferences. Other scholars have recognised the potential for unequal gendered power relations to play a problematic role in RJ conferencing, in terms of their participation and experience, particularly given the double standard of behaviour upon which women and girls’ offending is judged (Elis, 2005; Field, 2004). Age is a further component which adds to such complexity. For example, Suzuki and Wood (2018) suggest that age-related power imbalances in RJ conferencing are a further issue which raise concerns regarding RJ approaches used with young people. They highlight that young people who participate, by virtue of age and other intersecting divisions, hold less power than adults. Whilst Willis (2020, p. 187) argued that RJ privileges ‘middle-class forms of communication’ and thus those from

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

95

disadvantaged backgrounds are negatively affected by class-based power imbalances. Predominantly, however, practitioners expressed that the potential for unequal power and control dynamics to be present during the conference was minimal as RJ conferencing follows a specific script, which secures the neutrality of the conferencing process by ensuring the focus is solely on the young person’s offending behaviour. They suggested that a gendered power imbalance would only occur if the conference facilitator deviated from the script or failed to undertake the appropriate assessments of the victim and the offender prior to the conference. I stress all the time; I say we are not there to discuss the person we are there to discuss that behaviour that day and the harm that is caused and who has been affected. If you stick to that you can’t go far wrong. (Joanne, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) If the facilitator uses the script properly, then it should all go well. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer) One party shouldn’t have more control than the other, there should absolutely be a balance because I mean we use the … restorative practices script in the conferences that we do. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager) The script gives everybody an equal chance to have their say. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) The script alleviates that power struggle. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker) Girls may experience power and control differently but in the way that women and girls control situations in different ways. Girls can be more manipulative in how they control these situations than boys. (Marie, Senior Practitioner)

Predominantly the claims by practitioners, which conceptualise RJ conferencing as a neutral process, fail to acknowledge the extent to which girls’ identities and subjectivities are formed through social norms and interactions, confined by gendered scripts. Existing research has drawn attention to how existing power dynamics can be internalised and externalised through hesitancy in expressing emotions and nervousness (Choi et al., 2011; Suzuki & Wood, 2018). The existence of power imbalances

96 

J. Hodgson

for young offenders participating in a RJ conference may also result in coerced apologies and participation (Suzuki & Wood, 2018). Some of the girls who participated in this study indicated that their apologies were coerced by other conference participants. Chloe (14), for example, said the facilitator tried to persuade her to apologise to the girl she assaulted. Chloe said ‘I just put my head down and everyone sat there waiting for me to say sorry … she [facilitator] just kept saying “when you are hungry you eat”. … She said it 6, 7, 8, times … It took like ten minutes, and I just said sorry, and they made me say sorry to everyone.’ Whilst Becky (14) said she found it ‘annoying’ that she had to apologise to the girl she assaulted because she ‘couldn’t stand her’. The indication that some of the girls were coerced to apologise demonstrates the girls’ experiences of issues of power and control operating during RJ conferencing. The girls’ narratives provide various insights into their own experiences of power and control, which challenge practitioners’ accounts specifically, in relation to the neutrality of RJ conferencing secured through the adherence to a specific script. I felt proper frustrated because I wanted to say something but it wasn’t my turn to say something and I wasn’t allowed to butt in and other people were butting in but if I had done that, I would have just been told to shut up so. … We had to sit there and explain our side of the story as well as getting looks off all of her family and it was intimidating because the way they sat the seats, it was me and Sarah were here, her family were there and the rest of them were there, and the lifeguard and the rest of them were there, so we were physically facing each other. [Interviewer: If you had more control … do you think you would have got more of a chance to say what you wanted to say?] Yeah I reckon I would have participated a bit more, do you know. Took more notice of what was going on and like I said, I don’t know because if they had given me that like chance … I could have went ‘excuse my nervous laugh, I don’t mean it’ but it was the fact I was never allowed. … Tim [facilitator] knew that I had a nervous laugh but he told me that I wasn’t allowed to laugh or smile but he could have easily went in and explained it for me, so I didn’t feel more on edge when I had to put my head down and my thumb in my mouth to stop me from laughing. (Jenny, 14)

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

97

It was like funny in a way because we were there to say sorry and to explain our side of the story and to actually get across what we did wasn’t our intention to do but it was funny for the simple fact they was speaking down to us and we were the ones there saying sorry, do you get what I mean? And she didn’t even listen to our events first, she just went straight in there and every single one of them had a go at us. They targeted us basically, like all of them sat back and let it happen and every time we tried to explain our version of events she was allowed to butt in but when she was speaking we was not allowed to butt in. … I reckon her and her family, in the whole of that room, her and her family had the most power. … Basically, if we were back in Tudor times we would be poor and they would be first class. … Yeah they were first class, we were the poor, we were third class, they were first. (Sarah, 17)

Sarah refers to ‘Tudor times’ and class relations to explain her sense of powerlessness during the conference. Whilst Jenny talks about feeling ‘intimidated’ by others at the conference and experiencing a nervous laugh which made her feel uncomfortable. These quotes indicate the power imbalances presented during their participation in the RJ conference. A number of the girls also stated that their offence was not the only focus of the RJ conference. Kim (14) for example said that during the conference participants were ‘going on about stuff in [her] past’. She expressed frustration that those in the conference were ‘talking about all this other stuff’. Becky (14) talked about how she was embarrassed when the conference facilitator disclosed to others that she had previously been involved with the police. She said she felt upset that staff in the school would now know that she ‘was in a cell overnight’. She felt that this information should not have been shared at the conference and challenged the facilitator when this happened by stating ‘that happened when I was younger’. The reason why I hate the police, all my child life until I was 7, my dad was in prison ok and like he was in and out, in and out, and every time somebody asked me like ‘has your dad been in prison?’ I was like ‘no he’s been good’ and she told everyone about that. I wouldn’t mind but like it affected my confidence and it was really private and it really affected me, like my

98 

J. Hodgson

dad’s been in jail and all that. My dad got sent down near enough over 10 years and he was running for ages and then in the end he got caught and in the end he just got put in jail. … I didn’t want anybody knowing about it. I didn’t really want the staff to know about it and I just said, ‘there is no need to say that it happened when I was younger’. (Becky, 14)

Jenny, when talking about her experience, discussed how she felt the victim and their family were making ‘sly comments’ about her family background after she had disclosed to them, during the conference, that she was ‘in care’. She also described how she felt personally attacked by others at the conference and that she was resentful towards the facilitator as he did not intervene and instead ‘just sat back and let it happen’. It felt like they were attacking me personally, not only for what I had done but personally they were attacking me. (Jenny, 14)

These findings oppose practitioners’ accounts of RJ conferencing as an intervention which focuses exclusively on the offence committed. They also demonstrate the conflicting perspectives between practitioners’ perspectives and girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. In doing so they reveal girls’ subjectivities in relation to experiences of power and control dynamics operating in the RJ conference. They indicated that they did not experience the conference as a neutral process. Further to this, girls’ anger, frustration and opposition to their treatment during the conference provides an alternative truth to that provided by practitioners’ perspectives.

 xploring the Need for Gender-Specific E Provision and Practice As explored in Chap. 2, seminal work on gender-responsive approaches to female offending has highlighted how the formative experiences of women and girls have crucial implications for interventions which are designed to respond to their offending behaviour. Thus, it is argued that responding to girls’ offending requires a holistic and alternative approach which recognises the broader structural inequalities and social injustices

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

99

they experience and the ways in which such injustices are shaped by class, ethnicity and gender (Bloom & Covington, 1998). Practitioners’ perspectives regarding the need for gender-sensitive or -specific approaches to RJ conferencing to be used with girls in the youth justice system was a further topic explored in the interviews with practitioners. Many practitioners discussed differences with regards to their experiences of facilitating, observing or supporting RJ conferences with girls compared to boys. Despite this, when asked if they believed there are gender-specific differences with regards to conference outcomes for girls, the majority of practitioners maintained that girls’ experiences of participating in RJ conferencing would largely remain the same as their male counterparts. With the exception of one senior practitioner, Marie, who acknowledged that ‘it is difficult to know for sure’ if there are differential outcomes on the basis of gender, many practitioners explicitly stated that gender does not shape restorative processes. Predominantly practitioners believed that RJ conferencing produces individual outcomes for young people, and to differentiate across genders would not be effective in determining individual experiences. No, I don’t, it’s the same process. They go through the same things and it’s the same process. Some boys are willing, some boys are scared. Some girls are willing, some girls are scared. … I would say we need to be very good at meeting the needs of each individual person no matter what their gender. … Personally I think we do because we treat each person as an individual and that probably doesn’t happen in the wider world. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) I don’t think gender has a place really when it comes to it. The outcomes are not really gender related; you know it’s not really a focus on gender. Restorative justice I would say, is quite genderless, in terms of that. I have had boys cry at conferences and I have had girls cry at conferences. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker) I don’t think they do no because it is quite a specific process … and we treat everyone the same. (Rebecca: Restorative Justice Victim Worker) My immediate response would be no I don’t think there would be any difference in how they experience conferences. … I think that’s going to be more individualistic than gender-specific to be honest. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager)

100 

J. Hodgson

I judge every individual on its merit basically. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer) I think as a practitioner, for every RJ conference, it is down to the individual as to what they take away from it, so I don’t think it is gender-based. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

Practitioners, however, did identify that the youth offending teams they worked within held an all-round awareness of girls’ individual needs and delivered gender-specific interventions to address these needs. Such gender-specific provision for girls included female-only intervention groups and a same-sex worker allocation protocol. However, there appeared to be a consensus amongst practitioners that the need to incorporate gender-specific provision into the delivery of RJ interventions was not prioritised in the same way. The omission of gender-specific guidance with regards to facilitating RJ conferencing was acknowledged by practitioners and it was revealed that they were instead using their own best practice initiatives in order to meet the individual, as opposed to gender-­ specific, needs of each young person participating. Practitioners felt that alongside the neutrality of RJ conferencing the gender-specific needs of girls would be determined by the assessments undertaken prior to the conference and addressed during the planning and preparation stage for the conference. It was also felt that the assessments used by practitioners in preparation for conferences, which identified complex and high-risk cases, were sufficient in determining if a young person is suitable to participate in a RJ conference regardless of their gender. As I said the preparation is key and you know we do use assessments which are based around sensitive and complex assessment of appropriate bits of restorative justice. So, we use a number of different assessment tools in order to gain the attitude and the willingness and the appropriateness of these people coming together. We don’t want to re-victimise any victims; we don’t want to traumatise any young people. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager)

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

101

It was felt that equality and diversity training alongside best practice guidelines for supervising complex, high-risk cases addressed the gender-­ sensitive needs of both young males and females. Furthermore, it was discussed how RJ practitioners are trained by RJ service providers, such as the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), and all practitioners have undertaken Assessment Intervention Moving on (AIM) training which is an assessment procedure designed to be used with young people who display sexually harmful behaviour. It was suggested that such training provides practitioners with the skills to undertake risk assessments for RJ conferencing and identify any relevant, gender-specific issues which raise concerns. The training and guidance that they (Restorative Justice Council) provide, it is genderless. Therefore, it is important that we access any training about sensitive and complex assessments that we can, and some of our staff have, used AIM training to, you know, look at how any comparisons between doing assessments for particularly sexually harmful behaviour and d ­ omestic abuse cross over into preparation for restorative justice conferences. So, you know making sure that we treat the majority of our restorative justice conferences as sensitive and complex as opposed to not. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager)

While the findings of this study revealed that gender is considered only in the context of managing complex or high-risk cases, five practitioners stated that they felt gender was not an issue which has been neglected in RJ policy and practice. With regards to the restorative justice council, I think their defence would be … that all staff are trained properly. You have a choice of a male or female facilitator and if the facilitator uses the script properly, then it should all go well. … I think it is not about gender in isolation, it needs to look at diversity as a whole and we need to accept that sometimes restorative justice just isn’t the answer. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer) No, I don’t think it is neglected because it is a fair process. So no, I don’t think so. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

102 

J. Hodgson

Six practitioners stated that they felt gender was an issue which has been neglected in RJ policy and practice, and two practitioners refrained from giving a direct answer to the question. Yeah I think perhaps, maybe, because when you are looking at offenders you probably think working with males, that is just the way it is. … So, I suppose the focus on getting RJ out there may be more leaning towards focusing RJ to male offenders rather than female offenders. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) There is a gap there that needs to be addressed, I think, because as a practitioner if they did do that I would feel more confident in delivering what I do, instead of just using my own initiative because some practitioners will, some wont and pretty much some practitioners will just tick the boxes but if those boxes aren’t there, then they are not going to get ticked. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer) I wonder whether it could, yes, because by definition offender case holders get far more experience of males than they do of females, that’s because of the numbers. Are they cognisance enough or skilled enough in gender issues? Probably not. Suppose I would have to say that probably, gender has not been looked at properly either but I think it is probably one of a whole range of things that has not been properly looked at. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

Ten practitioners out of 13 identified that there is a need for gender-­ sensitive approaches to RJ practices used with girls who offend. Although not all ten of these practitioners felt gender was an issue, which has been neglected in RJ policy and practice. Practitioners contended that due to there being a need for gender-sensitive approaches in other youth justice interventions, RJ should be no different. Yes, I do because I think there is a need for gender sensitive approaches across all our interventions, so therefore I am not going to say no for restorative justice. (Graham, Restorative Justice Co-ordinator) I think there is a need for gender sensitive approaches in all facets of the criminal justice system and the YJB have told us that. They have told us to do that. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

103

Three practitioners stated that they did not feel there is a need for gender-sensitive approaches to RJ practices, used within the youth justice service. No not really no. … I don’t think they need to start adjusting or doing anything like that. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) Personally, I think we treat each person as an individual. … I would like to think we treat girls like girls and boys like boys and that’s appropriate. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) No, I don’t, I think generally it is like I say, it is kind of a genderless issue really. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker)

All practitioners stated that there are gender-specific differences in terms of girls’ offending behaviour. Furthermore, practitioners acknowledged that girls, prior to their offending, often experience higher levels of trauma and victimisation and their offending behaviour is subject to scrutiny and regulation due to gendered discourses of appropriate female behaviour. However, these observations did not appear to be integral to their perspectives concerning the need for gender-sensitive approaches to RJ conferencing.

Conclusion This chapter has provided an integrated and reflective account of the key findings inherent within the empirical data generated from the interviews undertaken with 15 girls and 13 youth justice practitioners. The subjective accounts provided by the girls interviewed have allowed an insight, from a unique point of view, with regards to how RJ conferencing is subjectively experienced by girls involved in the youth justice system. These accounts have revealed how a number of the girls internalised the RJ conference as a negative experience and felt that they were not given the opportunity to share their own narratives with regards to the offence. The findings in relation to practitioners’ perspectives concerning the nature and exercise of power during RJ conferencing have provided the opportunity to contextualise the functions of RJ in relation to wider

104 

J. Hodgson

issues of power, patriarchy and social control. These issues will be explored further in Chap. 6. By providing a comparative account of practitioners’ perspectives and girls’ narratives of participating in RJ conferencing, this chapter has drawn attention to the disconnect between RJ rhetoric and reality. The findings presented have revealed the extent to which girls have presented themselves as active subjects with agency to define their own narratives, as well as allowing an insight into how their subjectivities precede the narratives prepared by RJ discourse. The analysis of data, provided by practitioners, presents their perspectives concerning the need for gender-sensitive approaches within, or as an alternative to, the use of RJ conferencing with girls who offend. What the data has overwhelmingly revealed is the conceptualisation of RJ by practitioners as a gender-neutral intervention. Reflecting upon this finding, it has become apparent that the social construction of gender, operating as a variable within RJ practice, is subject to a process of reductionism whereby the complexity and hybridity of one’s gender identity has been neutralised and replaced with individualistic considerations, despite the fact that it detrimentally determines girls’ experiences within the social world. The following chapter will explore the themes of shame and stigma emerging from the findings of this study.

References Acorn, A. (2017). Reclaiming a Restorative Understanding of the Victim–Offender Dichotomy. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 5(3), 468–480. Barnett, R. (1977). Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice. Ethics, 87(4), 279–301. Batchelor, S., & Burman, M. (2004). Working with Girls and Young Women. In G. McIvor (Ed.), Women Who Offend (pp. 266–287). Jessica Kingsley. Bloom, B., & Covington, S. (1998). Gender-Specific Programming for Female Offenders: What is it and Why is it Important? Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, November 11-14, 1998, Washington, D.C. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

4  Restorative Justice with Girls Who Offend: Conflicting… 

105

Choi, J. J., Green, D. L., & Gilbert, M. J. (2011). Putting a Human Face on Crimes: A Qualitative Study on Restorative Justice Processes for Youths. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 28(5), 335–355. Crawford, A. (2002). The Prospects of Restorative Justice in England and Wales: A Tale of Two Acts. In K. McEvoy & T. Newburn (Eds.), Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice (pp. 171–207). Palgrave Macmillan. Cunneen, C. (2010). The Limitations of Restorative Justice. In C. Cunneen & C. Hoyle (Eds.), Debating Restorative Justice (pp. 101–189). Hart Publishing. Cunneen, C., & Goldson, B. (2015). Restorative Justice? A Critical Analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 137–155). Sage Publications. Daly, K. (2003). Restorative Justice the Real Story. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes, & L.  Westmarland (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical Issues (pp. 195–214). The Open University. Daly, K. (2008). Girls, Peer Violence, and Restorative Justice. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 109–137. Elis, L. (2005). Restorative Justice Programs. Gender, and Recidivism, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, 375–389. Field, R. (2004). Victim – Offender Conferencing: Issues of Power Imbalance for Women Juvenile Participants. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 11(1), 1–18. Galaway, B., & Hudson, J. (1996). Introduction. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives (pp.  1–16). Criminal Justice Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Oxford University Press. Goldson, B. (2000). The New Youth Justice. Russell House Publishing. Gray, P. (2005). The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and Social Control. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 938–957. Haines, S., & Case, S. (2015). Positive Youth Justice Children First, Offenders Second. Policy Press. Hodgson J. (2020, November). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A  Critical Analysis. Youth Justice. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1473225420967751 Hoyle, C. (2010). The Case for Restorative Justice. In C. Cunneen & C. Hoyle (Eds.), Debating Restorative Justice (pp. 1–100). Hart Publishing. Lynch, N. (2010). Restorative Justice through a Children’s Rights Lens. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18(2), 161–183.

106 

J. Hodgson

Maglione, G. (2017). Embodied Victims: An Archaeology of the ‘ideal victim’ of Restorative Justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(4), 401–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895816677172 McAra, L., & McVie, S. (2010). Youth Crime and Justice: Key Messages from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(2), 179–209. Nelund, A. (2017). The Marginalised Woman: Thinking Beyond Victim/ Offender in Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 5(3), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2017.1392774 O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining Restorative Justice, Agency and Accountability in the Criminal justice Process. Hart Publishing. Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2017). Restorative Justice with Female Offenders: The Neglected Role of Gender in Restorative Conferencing. Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 3–27. Renzetti, C.  M. (2018). Feminist Perspectives. In W.  S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 74–82). Routledge. Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2015). The Morality of Evidence: The Second Annual Lecture for Restorative Justice: An International Journal. Restorative Justice, an International Journal, 3(1), 6–27. Suzuki, M., & Wood, W.  R. (2018). Is Restorative Justice Conferencing Appropriate for Youth Offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817722188 Webster, C. (2019). ‘Race’, Ethnicity, Social Class and Juvenile Justice in Europe. In B.  Goldson (Ed.), Juvenile Justice in Europe: Past, Present and Future (pp. 148–161). Routledge. Willis, R. (2020). ‘Let’s talk about it’: Why Social Class Matters to Restorative Justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(2), 187–206. Wonnacott, C. (1999). New Legislation, the Counterfeit Contract – Reform, Pretence and Muddled Principles in the New Referral Order Contract. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 11(3), 271–288. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus on Crime and Justice. Herald Press.

5 Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding Structural Inequalities in Relation to Gender

… it was like they were trying to bring shame upon us (Sarah, 17) ‘I am absolutely disgraced in myself ’ (Jenny, 14)

Introduction Shame can be internalised as a ‘self-reflective emotion of negative global assessment [involving] a painful, sudden awareness of the self as less good than hopes for and expected, precipitated by the identification of others’ (Manion, 2003, p. 21). In Chap. 3, the significance of shame as a consequence of women’s oppression within patriarchal society, as well as its role in the unequal production of gendered power relations was discussed. The connection between shame and patriarchal power relations can be used to understand how shame is manifested differently and ‘distributed unevenly among different subjects, privileging some and putting others in a precarious, or even impossible, positions’ (Guenther, 2011, p. 25). Shame is rooted in issues of social injustice, normative expectations related to femininity and masculinity and is embroiled within other intersectional oppressions such as class, ethnicity, sexuality and disability. As discussed in Chap. 3, shame and shaming practices operate within micro and macro structures of power to reinforce unequal social power © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_5

107

108 

J. Hodgson

and control within the social order. As Shefer and Munt (2019, pp. 145–146) have argued, ‘shame and shaming processes are personal and political, constituting powerful material and discursive performances of the long-­standing and still salient feminist dictum, “the personal is political”’. The micro-and-macro-level injustices produced by shame construct a politics of shame which can be used to understand the relationship between shame, the social construction of femininity and the exercise of power. This relationship being that shame is embroiled within socially constructed truths related to dominant discourses of femininity, which function at the interpersonal and structural level to exercise heteronormative, patriarchal power over women and girls in order to perpetuate social divisions and inequalities. As emphasised in Chap. 3 stigma is enmeshed with power relations at both the interpersonal and structural level and as Tyler (2020, p. 118) argued, it is ‘“a form of power”, embroiled within histories of capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy’. The understanding of stigma as a form of power which controls, oppresses, and reproduces inequalities can be employed to understand how the stigmatisation of girls is pervasive in maintaining gender relations in line with hetero-patriarchal power relations. Thus, stigmatisation and shame cannot be disconnected from the same gender regimes and patriarchal power relations that reinforce the gender order (Connell, 2009). The existing literature and the theoretical insights presented within Chaps. 2 and 3 have emphasised how shame is bound up within normative expectations of femininity and these insights have provided a framework in which to contextualise the salient role shame and stigma play in shaping girls’ experiences of participating in RJ interventions which are theoretically linked to reintegrative shaming practices. This chapter will present further empirical data from interviews undertaken with girls and practitioners, focusing on the themes of shame and stigma. The chapter will initially discuss the girls’ experiences of stigmatisation following their offending behaviour and then move on to consider shame and the implications a stigmatised identity may have for girls’ participation in a RJ conference.

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

109

 irls Offending and Gendered Discourses G of Acceptable Femininity As emphasised in Chap. 3, feminist theoretical perspectives on gender have argued that the social construction of gender is an organising structure that determines normative expectations associated with dominant discourses of femininity. These normative expectations serve as a mechanism of social control which shapes an individual’s behaviour in line with a binary gendered identity which is produced and reproduced by state institutions. For those who do not conform to the prescribed expectations associated with their gender identity, they are often considered ‘deviant’ and their behaviour viewed as a transgression of the ideals of femininity or masculinity. Girls’ offending behaviour can be viewed as a transgression of acceptable femininity as it conflicts with dominant discourses of femininity which determine normative expectations for women and girls to be passive, nurturing, caring and submissive. Therefore, girls who are criminalised are viewed as not only offending against the law but also against the ideals of femininity, resulting in stigmatisation (Hutter & Williams, 1981).

Narratives of Stigma Experiences of stigma were present in the narratives of the girls interviewed. The impact of stigma appeared to evoke specific emotional reactions from the girls and feelings of guilt, exclusion and injustice were evident in their narratives. In addition, processes of othering and deflation of sense of self were also indicated. These feelings and experiences have salience to stigma theory conceptualised by Tyler (2020) and Goffman (1963). The findings presented below emphasise the need to examine how stigmatisation functions as a form of ‘dehumanisation’ and devaluation (Tyler, 2020, p. 118) and how stigma power operates within RJ conferencing.

110 

J. Hodgson

I felt like an outsider, I well and truly did feel like a criminal. Like, I felt like I literally just murdered her when I never and it was like because of the newspapers and that it was getting publicised. Even though my name weren’t in it, it wasn’t hard to tell it was me because, well, it’s like Chinese whispers around here for god’s sake … There was no way we could hide from it. (Jenny, 14) My mum said she was disgusted in me … She started calling me everything. She was like I am vile and I am disgusting and all that. (Chloe, 13) I am not the same girl they thought I was before… It made me feel bad. (Hannah, 13) They all thought I was violent and horrible. They think you are a bad person because you have done something … It’s not fair because it doesn’t make me a bad person. (Nicole, 16) They was sending me nasty messages. It was making me feel guilt for what I had done. (Leanne, 15) I couldn’t hide from it I was getting called a murderer, it was like I just didn’t receive abuse in the meeting I had to again face abuse in my local school. I lost all my mates, before that I was just that kid that was never in trouble or something and then after that everyone was just saying you tried to murder someone and that I meant to do it. (Sarah, 17)

All the girls felt they were treated differently either at home, in school or within the community, following their offence. Furthermore, the findings revealed powerful accounts of the ways in which family and friends expressed disapproval of their behaviours. The girls discussed how they felt perceptions of them changed following their offence. Sarah (17), for example, revealed that she was ostracised from members of her family. She noted: ‘my nan pushed me out even further and one of my cousins stopped speaking to me for a while. She said I was a murderer’. Becky (14) also recalled how one of the teachers who restrained her during an incident at school, which led her to assaulting another teacher who was also restraining her stated: ‘now we know what you are really like’. Becky felt that this comment by the teacher was because they now viewed her as ‘aggressive’. She also added that ‘they were nervous because I hit her’. Jade (14) and Jenny (14) discussed how they felt the behaviour and attitudes of others changed towards them following their offence. They both described how their peers reacted to them at school:

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

111

Yeah, like in school at one point, even though like I had pure mates and that, I was getting called a murderer and told I should have been sent to juvi … I ended up saying things I didn’t mean. I was like ‘listen if you want me to go to juvi that much I will be killing you and then I will be sent off’ … I just had murder with everyone basically. (Jenny, 14) People think that when I walk past them I am just going to hit them … Some people say that I am scary and like don’t mess with her because she will just hit you … Like I wouldn’t hit them because I am not like that … They make me feel like a bad person. (Jade, 14)

The quotes above describe the ways in which Jenny and Jade believed perceptions of them changed negatively following their offending behaviour. Their narratives indicated the stigma applied to their identity. The girls’ responses, presented above, arguably demonstrate their understanding of the impact their offending had upon how they were perceived negatively by others which, for some of the girls, transferred into a negative self-perception. Such experiences of stigma, discussed above, cannot be solely understood in relation to their conflict with the law but also in relation to their failure to conform to dominant discourses of femininity which position offending for girls as a transgression of appropriate female behaviour. Stigmatisation in this context is a social sanction for a failure to comply with the normative expectations of femininity. The findings presented below highlight the significance of informal labelling and stigmatisation in relation to female offending and socially constructed truths relating to the ideals of femininity.

 tigma and Gendered Constructs S of Appropriate Behaviour As discussed, there is a plethora of expectations, inherent within the social construction of femininity, which function as gendered structures of oppression, discrimination and subordination (Batchelor & Burman, 2004; Gelsthorpe & Worrall, 2009; Hudson, 1989). These structures constitute mechanisms of social control, which serve to regulate girls’

112 

J. Hodgson

behaviour in line with discourses of appropriate femininity. Such discourses increase the opportunity for girls to be stigmatised when they fail to conform to the extensive range of gender norms and expectations associated with the ideals of femininity (Cox, 2003; Hutter & Williams, 1981; Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015). As discussed in Chap. 3, girls who engage in offending behaviour are more susceptible to being stigmatised as their offending is viewed as a transgression of gender norms ascribed to their identity (Chadwick & Little, 1987; Schur, 1984; Shacklady Smith, 1978; Smart, 1976) and their offending evokes differential reactions compared to the same behaviour in men and boys (Estrada et  al., 2019). During their interviews, the girls revealed an understanding of gendered constructs of appropriate female behaviour and how these constructs had implications for others’ perception of their offence. They also discussed how they felt they were treated and perceived differently compared to boys. Many of the girls demonstrated an understanding of the differential responses to and perceptions of girls’ offending compared to boys. Chloe (14), Leanne (15) and Sam (14), for example, all spoke about violence. Chole said that ‘people think it is horrible, girls fighting… [and] it’s not decent that girls go out fighting’. Leanne said her youth offending worker told her that she was a ‘pretty girl’ and she doesn’t ‘need all the violence’. Sam talked a lot about how she often felt treated differently by others because she was a girl. It’s different for boys. Girls get treated different. With a lad he would have used a knife and it would still be different even though I only hit her … It’s not lady like don’t you think? I hit someone and people think that’s not right when really it shouldn’t be no different for me … They [teachers] all changed. Like their attitudes towards me changed because of what I did … like he [boyfriend] would have been forgiven and all of his mates would have still been by his side but because I am a girl, I get really treated differently and that’s not even right. They think girls are violent. They think girls are just for fun but they aren’t just for fun. It’s not right … just to treat girls differently anymore and I am putting it from my point of view. Sometimes we all wish we were lads so we can go out and just do what we want for a bit. Like because we are girls we are told what to do. Like it’s not easy for us… Like sometimes all girls just wish they were like boys … Because we

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

113

get treated differently all the time. Like in shops, the shopkeeper clicks on to one of the lads, but they won’t acknowledge girls as a person. (Sam, 14)

Nicole (16), Sarah (17), Naomi (13) and Jenny (14) also shared their perspectives relating to differential treatment and/or perceptions of girls’ offending. Teenage lads now days, everybody’s opinion of them is ‘thugs’ they commit crimes and all that stuff but they don’t think that about girls … They think girls are sluts. (Nicole, 16) It’s not every day girls are in the custody suite and restorative justice meetings; do you know what I mean? So, it was like I must have been this horrible, horrible girl. That’s what they treated me as do you know what I mean? [Interviewer: So, you think they don’t expect that from girls then?] No because girls are supposed to be prim and proper aren’t they? Like, when it happens with a lad it’s like ‘oh yeah’ when it’s a girl it’s like ‘what? Really? No?’ Do you know what I mean? It’s like they take it more as a shock. (Sarah, 17) It’s not proper girls going round smashing windows, is it? (Naomi, 13) It was like they wouldn’t expect this from girls it is more boys definitely, definitely, definitely. (Jenny, 14)

Theorising stigma through a distinctly sociological approach Link and Phelan (2001) identified four stages of stigmatisation which considers more precisely the exercise of power in the process of stigmatisation. The four interdependent and simultaneous stages consist of: (1) ‘distinguishing and labelling human differences’; (2) ‘associating human differences with negative attributes’; (3) the separation of ‘us from them’; and (4) ‘status loss and discrimination’ (ibid., pp. 367–370). The girl’s narratives relating to their treatment by others following their offence resonate with the four components of stigmatisation identified by Link and Phelan (2001). Link and Phelan (2001, p. 367) argue that most ‘human differences are ignored and are therefore socially irrelevant’. However, some differences, such as race, ethnicity, sexuality or ‘gender are highly salient’ (ibid., p. 367). Firstly, gender is socially relevant in terms of distinguishing difference and young female offenders are distinguished from the majority of the offending population due to their low representation within the

114 

J. Hodgson

criminal justice system. Furthermore, girls’ offending does not conform to societal norms and expectations associated with appropriate female behaviour and thus they may be distinguished from their peers and labelled as different. This resonates with Nicole’s comment below: They always think of lads doing stuff to do with crime and not girls. (Nicole, 16) Link and Phelan (2001, p. 367) assert that the significance of this initial stage is the process of ‘social selection’ society engages in when determining which differences are considered important and ‘matter socially’. They suggest that the ramifications of determining human differences are often disregarded as ‘once differences are identified and labelled, they are typically taken for granted as being just the way things are’ (ibid., p. 367). ‘The second component of stigma occurs when labelled differences are linked to stereotypes’ (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 368). Central to this stage of stigmatisation is the application of a label and stereotype. Being female can be understood as a negative attribute manifesting from differences which have determined gender inequality within society. The social construction of femininity has been afforded many negative attributes which disadvantage women and girls within the social world. Furthermore, it is suggested that those labelled as different are subject to scrutiny and judgement when they do not conform to stereotypical assumptions associated with their label (Link & Phelan, 2001). Therefore, they are arguably subject to further negative attributes as a result of their transgression (ibid.). For girls this can involve transgressing expectations associated with femininity and is reflected in the quotes below. It was like I must have been this horrible, horrible girl … The papers they called us yobs. (Jenny, 17) They just thought I am a bully. (Jade, 14) She was like I am vile, and I am disgusting. (Chloe, 14)

Being labelled with a deviant female identity results in rejection from those within society who conform to social norms, as the deviant label distinguishes the female as a transgressor. The deviant label therefore ‘becomes the rationale for believing that negatively labelled persons are fundamentally different from those who don’t share the label, thus creating a distinction between “us and them”’ (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 370).

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

115

The separation of ‘us’ from ‘them’ through the application of ‘social labels’ is the third feature of the stigma process described by Link and Phelan (2001, p. 370). The connection between labels, determining difference and the association of the label with negative attributes ‘become the rationale for believing that negatively labelled persons are fundamentally different from those who do not share the label’ (ibid., p. 370). As such when a label determines someone as ‘distinctly different’ stereotypes can be readily used to attach negative attributes to ‘them’ (ibid., p. 370). The quotes below illustrate the negative attributes others associated them with: I felt like an outsider, I well and truly did feel like a criminal. (Jenny, 17) Now we know what you’re really like. (Becky, 14) I am not the same girl they thought I was before. (Hannah, 13) They called me a molly head and everything. (Kelly, 17)

The final stage of the stigma process is ‘status loss and discrimination’ (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 372). At this stage the individual is ‘disadvantaged’ and their ‘life chances’ are reduced (ibid., p. 371). In terms of this fourth component of stigmatisation, the girls’ deviant label and the ‘undesirable’ attributes associated with their identity, have arguably resulted in negative implications for their status as their identity is devalued in the eyes of others, leading to discriminatory behaviours (ibid., p. 372). My mates… they all turned on us … They just assumed we were bad people … I lost all my mates. (Sarah, 17) The fact that they all changed. Like all their attitudes changed towards me. They started being a bit snappy, favouring other girls in here … Some of the girls started taking a disliking to me and started bullying me a lot. (Becky, 14) They [friends] just don’t want to speak to you. (Jade, 14) I was getting called a murderer. (Jenny, 17)

Stigma is a negative attribute which is applied when there is a discrepancy between the expectations attributed to an individual’s identity and

116 

J. Hodgson

their actual behaviour (Goffman, 1963). In addition, stigma induces negative implications for the individual, such as: ‘rejection, exclusion and discrimination’ (Link & Phelan, 2001, p. 367). The girls’ narratives indicate such implications which would constitute a devaluation of their identity. For example, Chloe’s mum said she was ‘disgusted’ by her behaviour and Charlene talked about being ‘disgusted’ at herself. Many of the girls talk about feeling of shame for their actions which, as noted by Bartky (1990, p. 87), consists of a feeling of ‘distressed apprehension of oneself as a lesser creature’. Amy (12), Jade (14) and Jenny (14), also discussed feeling like a ‘bad person’. I felt bad because we had done something, which we shouldn’t have done, … I had never done something like this before, not this bad anyway … I was there and I watched it and it was just bad … Just bad and horrible on myself … Like Patricia and her mum and her friend’s mum, they saw me as a bad person … Like I said again bad, it made me feel bad … Ashamed, bad and sly. (Amy, 12) They made me feel like a bad person. (Jade, 14) I just felt like a horrible person. (Jenny, 14)

The girls’ quotes suggest that the negative perceptions of their behaviour have been internalised as a negative self-perception, illustrating the implications of stigma and a spoiled identity has for their self-reflection. However, Bruckett and Hannem (2012, p. 2) note that stigma is ‘not only interpersonally realised but structurally embedded’ and rooted in power structures. Whilst the girls’ narratives resonate with the interpersonal implications of stigma as a mark of a spoiled identity, stigma is evident in the girls’ narratives as a productive force that marks out and classifies them as a means of subjugating them. In this context stigma can be viewed as a form of power which is inscribed upon girls’ bodies as a result of the social and cultural construction of femininity and enforced through various formal and informal mechanisms of policing and control. For Tyler (2020), this imprint of power on girls’ bodies amounts to stigmatisation. Moreover, the devaluation of girls on the basis of ascribed binary

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

117

constructs of gender, as discussed in Chap. 2, subjects them to stigma which is independent of other social differences (Falk, 2001; Laws, 1979) and indicates that further stigmatisation following their offending behaviour may serve to exacerbate the devaluation of their identity on the basis of being female alone. Moreover, the societal stigma of being female may also restrict their opportunity to resist the negative implications of stigma.

 ffending Girls and Stigma: O Practitioners’ Perspectives Practitioners’ perspectives supported the argument that girls who offend are responded to differently on the basis that their behaviour is viewed as a transgression of appropriate female behaviour. The findings indicated that interrelated factors such as welfare concerns, vulnerability, the type of offence committed, community reactions to girls’ offending and professional integrity shape the differential societal responses to girls’ offending. The quotes below demonstrate such findings: [Interviewer: Do you think girls are reacted to differently in terms of their offending behaviour?] Yes, I certainly do, there are expectations, which actually start fairly early, don’t they, you know sex role socialisation … They would be dealt with very differently and there are different expectations, so it starts really early on I think and there is an inevitability to that and these ideas are so deeply rooted in our cultures in different ways. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator) You have to look at exploitation and things like that. So, in that sense the offence isn’t really looked at it is more the welfare of the girl that is looked at. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) Yes, definitely, they are much harsher sentences. I mean the girl who committed the robbery, it was her first offence and she got a custodial sentence and we’ve had boys who have committed many, many, many robberies before they get a custodial sentence. I think pffft [sic] that wouldn’t have happened if it were a boy. So yeah, I would say most of the time definitely, 90% more than that even. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer)

118 

J. Hodgson

I think possibly the community see girls quite differently. A few victims within the local area, the shopping centres, are quite disgusted by their behaviour and maybe there would be an expectation that the lads would do something like that and you wouldn’t expect it from a girl. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Furthermore, all practitioners acknowledged during their interviews that girls who offend are subject to a gender-specific stigma, as their offending behaviour is perceived by society as a transgression of dominant discourses of femininity. I mean it is a sexist society, there is still portrayals in the media of girls’ binge drinking and you know it’s more severe for a girl to be stumbling down the street or collapsing in the street as a result of taking too much alcohol than it is for a lad … You know there is probably still that element of you are offending against your gender, as well as offending. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager) Yes, I think it’s frowned upon in our culture anyway and I think in a lot of cultures it is frowned upon anyway when girls offend. (Rebecca, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) Yeah definitely, going back to the dirty divas right that’s stigma. I mean even the bloody title you give them ‘dirty divas’, it’s very female and it’s got very derogative female connotations coming out of that as well. So yeah, definitely, from the media, the community, the magistrates. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer) I have supervised reparation for years and on a Saturday morning the lads will be like ‘what are you doing here’ especially if they recognise them from their community. So, it is harder for girls, there is a bigger stigma for them being in the criminal justice system. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

The findings presented, thus far, indicate that the girls who participated in this research were subject to stigma prior to their participation in the RJ conference. Furthermore, they provide an insight into the girls’

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

119

subjective understandings of the ways in which they are treated on the basis of dominant discourses of acceptable behaviour for women but also the ways in which their offending transgressed such discourses. In this context stigma can be understood as deeply rooted within patriarchal power relations and a mechanism of gendered social control. The data, which supports this analysis, is significant because it indicates that narratives of stigma were present during the girls’ participation in the RJ conference. Therefore, consideration needs to be given with regard to the impact such a stigmatised identity could have for girls’ experiences of a RJ conference, specifically in relation to shame, power and control, and how they internalise their experience. Such issues are salient to understanding RJ conferencing through a gendered lens and will now be considered further.

 xamining Experiences During the Conference: E Girls and Practitioners’ Perspectives At an interpersonal level the process of stigmatisation has been explored in relation to girls’ offending behaviour and the implications that occur from transgressing discourses of acceptable femininity. The social context of stigmatisation and the personal effects of stigma on social interactions and experiences are embedded within social policy, practice and institutions which serve to socially control and regulate those stigmatised (Bruckert & Hannem, 2012). For Hannem (2012), the presence of a stigma can produce an imbalance of power in interactions between those stigmatised and those who are not, even if the non-stigmatised person is unaware of this. The girls’ narratives indicated that they experienced stigma following their offence, suggesting that these narratives of stigma would have continued to operate during their participation in the RJ conference. Thirteen of the girls interviewed felt that those attending the conference held negative opinions about them, suggesting that they carried their stigmatised identity into the RJ conference. Kim (13), for example, expressed that she sensed others in the conference had negative opinions

120 

J. Hodgson

of her. She stated: ‘I could tell the minute I walked in there, the way they were looking at me because I hit someone, because I am violent’. This indicated that Kym believed her offender status to be part of her identity and that those in the conference responded to her on the basis of this identity characteristic. Similarly, to Kim, Sarah (17) felt that her offender status in the conference dominated perceptions of her because, for many of the people there, this was the first time they had met her: Everyone that was there because they didn’t know us before the meeting. They didn’t know us before the incident because obviously if you hear something about someone their first opinion of them is like ‘wow, they’re this’. But they had never met us before the meeting, so they didn’t know what we was like before any of this even happened. So, they just assumed we were bad people because we done this one bad mistake but, basically, I’m not. (Sarah, 17)

Jenny (14) felt that because she had committed an offence, this determined the negative opinion others at the conference had of her. She explained that she felt the negative perception of her was based on the belief that she intended to cause harm to the victim despite this not being the case: Yeah, I think they genuinely thought we done it to intentionally hurt her but we actually never [sic]. We done it just to make someone fall off their bike and get a chase off them. We totally didn’t mean to like make her come off. (Jenny, 14)

Kelly (17) said that even though the facilitator didn’t verbally express he had a negative opinion of her, she felt that ‘he probably did, he didn’t say it, but he probably did’. Amy (12) felt that those in the conference perceived her as a ‘bully’: They just thought I am a bully, something bad about me, at the time they probably thought I was a bully because I was with Jade. Yeah, a bully, yeah. (Amy, 12)

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

121

Hannah (13), who attempted to collect donations from her neighbours for a charity which did not exist, said that she felt that others at the conference did hold negative opinions about her and that she believed these negative opinions were justified: ‘they weren’t bad opinions, they was true opinions’. This response indicates that she internalised the negative perceptions of her as part of her own self-reflection. These quotes reveal an insight into their perspectives concerning the ramifications that their stigmatised identity may have had for others’ perception of them during the conference. The concept of ‘stigma consciousness’ (Pinel, 2004) resonates with this finding. This refers to the extent to which an individual is focused on their stigma and how it shapes their interactions with others. Despite them not identifying stigma explicitly, the findings indicate that they are conscious that the deviant label of ‘offender’ has shaped perceptions of them and their interactions with others.

Practitioners’ Perspectives on Stigma Practitioners acknowledged that there is a likelihood that girls would enter a RJ conference with a stigmatised identity. They believed the stigma attributed to girls, because of the double deviancy surrounding their offending, would continue to operate during the conference. [Interviewer: In your experience do you think those taking part are already stigmatised then?] Well, I suppose going by my previous answer I would have to say yes … I mean you can’t remove from the participants the same sort of attitudes that prevail and that’s the same for sexism, racism or classism. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager) Yes, there is a stigma there related to their offence. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) Ah well I think probably yes because society does stigmatise them. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

122 

J. Hodgson

It does depend on the time of entry into the system and the restorative conference time and whether it is a catalogue of the same offence. (Joanne, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) I think they will go in with that stigma because they are females… I mean my role is not to judge but I do think it happens, especially with the victims who attend. (Rebecca, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Practitioners also discussed what the potential effects and implications are for girls entering a RJ conference with a stigmatised identity. The implications and effects practitioners discussed were all connected to dominant discourses of femininity. At an interpersonal level some practitioners spoke of how the label of ‘female offender’ could impact on the girls’ self-esteem and shame may arise if girls are aware that they should ‘know better’. I suppose it could impact on their own self-esteem, couldn’t it? So, I think it’s about how they view themselves. We have a big thing at the youth offending service about labelling kids. You won’t hear me use the word offender; I say the words young people. Offender is how society would see people isn’t it? Hooligans and hoodies and all that kind of stuff but realistically they are just young people aren’t they? That have done something stupid. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) Yeah, I do think if they have got a reputation it will go before them, more so probably with girls and I can stick my neck out with that one and think more so with girls. What’s coming to me now is that you kind of like know the lad with a reputation and yet that fades into the background but yet if it is a girl coming through it sticks in your mind. (Joanne, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) Yeah, I do because again it depends on other people’s perceptions of how girls should act. That is another thing, isn’t it? Say if you have got a RJ and the victim is a seventy-eight-year-old male then his way of looking at females would be totally different then if you have someone who was in their thirties because it is a generational thing with females isn’t it? (Elaine, Youth Offending and Family Intervention Worker)

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

123

Some practitioners also felt that gender norms and expectations would play a role in the victims’ reactions and perceptions of girls participating in a RJ conference. One of the things you get from the victim is that ‘you know you are a young girl; you will have children yourself one day and you can’t be behaving like this’ and so on … If it’s a more serious offence then I think stigma would definitely play a role in the conference. If it is a female committing a burglary over a male then I think it is definitely going to be there … it depends on the seriousness of the offence. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) I think the victims feel that girls should know better. ‘You would expect that from lads maybe but you wouldn’t expect that from you’ … I think the victims probably struggle more with girls because they think they should know better. I do think I have experienced it. Girls should know better [Interviewer: How do you think that impacts on girls?] Well, I suppose it is that vision of shame, the body language. It is not always about what they are saying it is about how they are presenting as well and then I suppose they look at themselves and think ‘yeah I should know better’. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Hannem (2012, p. 11) notes that stigma is ‘symbolically realised’ in social interactions but also structurally emersed in social norms, cultures and institutions resulting in stigmatised people being routinely regulated across all aspects of society. This results in the systematic devaluation of their identity which has an impact on how they are treated in social interactions and how they respond in social interactions. Certain practitioners felt that experiencing stigma could influence the ways in which girls presented themselves in a RJ conference and their participation would allow them to challenge and manage the stigma applied to their identity. Stan (Youth Offending Team Senior Officer) for example believed that girls attempt to portray a ‘more positive side’ to their identity. A further practitioner indicated that girls would attempt to manage their stigmatised identity by putting up a barrier to protect themselves (Marie, Senior Practitioner). Shelly and Lynn felt that girls’ behaviour would change in a RJ conference as a result of being stigmatised:

124 

J. Hodgson

It probably does, people’s perceptions and judgments and it gives that offender the chance to challenge that as well. So, when you are meeting people and having those conversations your judgments are changing because you are going in with a judgment but it is changing and the young person is changing those judgements themselves. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) If you have got, for example, the group that was causing mayhem, the gang, they weren’t a gang they were just a group. They were in a clique, they buzzed off egging each other on, and half of them only did half of what they did because of the expectations of them to conform to that label, so it was like a self-fulfilling prophecy to begin with. So, once they have gone through that system to begin with and have had that stigma attached to them they get to a point where they feel like they have got to live up to it because they are young people at the end of the day. So, in terms of answering that last question just to make sure I have done, if they are in that stage where I have just given you those examples, are they going to respond ­differently to me as a facilitator in a room? Yes, I think so. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

The findings presented thus far suggest that stigma would have an impact on how girls presented themselves during the conference. These findings lend support to the vast body of feminist criminological literature which highlights that offending for women and girls is a particularly problematic path to take due to the extent to which discourses of femininity and the spurious levels of social control they are subject to position their offending as a transgression of ideological discourses femininity (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013; Smart, 1976; Worrall, 1990). As discussed in Chap. 3, the devaluation of stigmatised girls’ identity, resulting from their perceived transgression of socially constructed gender norms, produces feelings of shame which not only exacerbate the negative interpersonal impact of stigma, but also strengthen the ‘political economy of social exclusion’ (Parker & Aggleton, 2003, p. 19) on the basis of gender. It is therefore important to comprehend how the social construction of gender affects girls’ experiences of stigmatisation, and how their stigmatisation impacts on the emotions they experience during a conference. This chapter will now move on to explore girls’ feelings of

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

125

shame evoked during their participation in the RJ conference and practitioners’ perspectives on the importance and impact of shame in relation to RJ conferencing.

Girls’ Narratives of Shame As discussed in Chap. 1, the use of RJ conferencing in the contemporary youth justice system is theoretically underpinned by Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989; Young & Goold, 1999). For Braithwaite (1989), expressions of disapproval evoke remorse within the person subject to shaming. He argued that shaming offenders, undertaken by ‘individuals within interdependent communities of concern’, should play a central role in crime deterrence (ibid., p. 101). The process is concerned with the reintegration of the offender into their community ‘through words or gestures of forgiveness’ which provide a platform for the offender to remove their deviant label (ibid., p. 101). It is suggested that evoking shame within an offender is sufficient to deter them from reoffending whilst also facilitating their reintegration into the community. Within the context of RJ conferencing, the process of reintegrative shaming involves evoking shameful feelings and emotions within offenders by making them aware of the harm caused by their offence (Wallis, 2014). Eleven of the girls interviewed referred to experiencing feelings of shame during their participation in the RJ conference. The emotions they discussed were evoked during various stages of the conference, which the girls identified as significant to their experience. Amy (12) spoke of how she felt ashamed when she learnt that the girl she assaulted felt anxious leaving the house. She said: ‘I felt ashamed of myself when she said that’. Charlene, who was participating in the conference because she had physically attacked her mother, said that talking to her during the conference made her feel ashamed for what she did and said that she felt like she had ‘let everyone else down’ because of what she did. [Interviewer: What did you have to do at the meeting] Like I don’t know, like show it to her. Like talk to her properly … To show her that I felt bad yeah [Interviewer: What did you say?] Like I felt ashamed because I am not

126 

J. Hodgson

letting me down, I am letting everyone else down … I don’t know just ashamed, upset and annoyed at myself, it were a mad feeling. The feeling were mad. (Charlene, 17)

Similarly, Jade’s feelings of shame were also related to other’s opinions about her. [Interviewer: How did you feel in the meeting if you thought they all had bad opinions of you?] Just dead angry and sad [Interviewer: did you feel ashamed?] Yes [Interviewer: why did you feel ashamed?] Because they think I am a bad person when I am not. (Jade, 14)

In her interview Jade referred to being a bad person five times. She spoke about how she felt others viewed her as a ‘bad person’ and she viewed herself as a ‘bad person’ because she assaulted a girl who she believed had been bullying her younger sister. Although Jade said she felt better after the meeting, as she was able to ‘clear the air’, she said it ‘still makes me feel bad because they think I am a bad person’. Sam described how she felt ashamed when the facilitator shared with others at the conference that she had previously been arrested Yeah well I did feel ashamed once because I had been arrested before. It was when I was 13 and I had a joint on me and they put me in a cell overnight and found drugs on me and like my mum told me not to tell anybody that they put me in a cell when I was 13 but that got shared at the meeting and I hated that … She (police facilitator) told the school that I was in a cell overnight when I was 13 and I felt really ashamed because that was private and the fact they said my dad had been in prison. I wouldn’t mind but like it affected my confidence and it was really private and it really affected me like my dad’s been in jail and all that. I didn’t want anybody knowing about it. I didn’t really want the staff to know about it and I just said there is no need to say that, it happened when I was younger … I just feel like some people are ashamed of me sometimes and they don’t want to know me and that. (Sam, 14)

At a micro-level, symbolic interactionists have argued that shame is a self-conscious emotion which occurs as a reaction to being viewed

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

127

negatively by others when they become aware of behaviour which transgresses normative values and expectations accepted within society (Cooley, 1902; Goffman, 1971). This analysis allows an understanding of how shame is produced within micro-social interactions. For Jade and Charlene, this account emphasises the importance of others’ reactions to their behaviour in evoking feelings of shame. Although not all the girls referred directly to feelings of shame during their interviews, the narratives they provided may be understood in relation to feelings of shame. This is because shame can be manifested and expressed in different ways. For example, Lewis (1971, p. 426) contends that ‘there are many variants of shame phenomena. Mortification, humiliation, embarrassment, feeling ridiculous, chagrin, shyness, and modesty are all different psychological states [of shame]’. Reactions to experiencing shame often include a lack of eye contact, withdrawal, self-­ consciousness and physical changes in body language, such as lowering one’s head (Tomkins, 1963). The ways in which some of the girls described their behaviour and feelings during the conference indicate such variants of shame. Jenny, for example, talked about how she was ‘disgraced’ in herself and ‘truly ashamed’ for causing a woman to fall off her bike and injure herself. Well yeah, I explained the story and I was like ‘I genuinely didn’t mean to do it’. I admitted to it, I said I only done it expecting someone to come off their bike and give us a chase. I said I was not expecting you [victim] to come off your bike and not get back up, like I am truly ashamed of what I have done … At the end of the day, I was like, what, only 13 at the time. I can’t even remember however old I was and I was like, ‘I’m only 13 and I have took you off a bike with a rope like I am a child’, I was like ‘I am absolutely disgraced in myself ’. I was like ‘I am really sorry I didn’t mean to do it, will you forgive me?’. (Jenny, 14)

Sarah, who was involved in the same offence as Jenny, said that she felt those at the conference were ‘trying to bring shame upon us’ because the victim and her family attended the conference. She also described being on the front page of the local newspaper three times as an attempt to shame her and Jenny for what they did.

128 

J. Hodgson

[Interviewer: How do you feel about being called a young yob?] I don’t know I was ashamed and embarrassed really because I didn’t really know what a young yob was. [Interviewer: Do you understand now?] Like a naughty child but I am not naughty. It’s the fact though like say if yob actually did have a meaning and, erm, say if I went to her ‘yob’ or something, like that would have been put in the newspaper and used against me but the fact that they are allowed to call us through the newspaper but we can’t say nothing about her… It is like the newspaper didn’t even know what was going on. They didn’t have our sides of the story. At the end of the day, we were just two teenagers. [Interviewer: So, it was difficult for you to see her [victim]?] Yeah, well obviously because what we did was wrong wasn’t it? But I don’t know it was a punishment but to bring her family there that was like, it was like they were trying to bring shame upon us as well, do you get what I mean? Like they treated us like we wanted to do it but that wasn’t the outcome for that to happen … They treated us like we wanted to do it. Like we personally wanted to do it. Like they wanted to bring shame upon us and that, like they kept like putting it in the newspapers. We hit front page three different times yeah and then two days later after the meeting it was on the third page in the Standard and they said in the meeting they weren’t going to go to the papers no more. The woman said in the meeting that she didn’t even want to speak to the newspaper people and she won’t be planning on speaking to them again and she done a video online and everything and basically called us yobs or thugs, like yobs tried to kill me. (Sarah, 17)

These quotes arguably reveal girls’ narratives of shame. According to Braithwaite (1989) these experiences of shame function as an important element of reintegrative shaming theory by facilitating ‘rituals of reintegration into the community’ (Braithwaite et al., 2009, p. 397). As noted in Chap. 1, however, Braithwaite (1989, p. 55) acknowledges that shaming is problematic ‘when it shades into stigmatisation’ and distinguishes between shaming that is reintegrative and shaming that is disintegrative (stigmatisation). As discussed in Chap. 1, reintegrative shaming involves the community’s expression of ‘disapproval’ followed by ‘reacceptance into the community’ (ibid., p. 55). Disintegrative shaming refers to ‘shaming where the wrongdoer is treated disrespectfully’ and is not reintegrated into the community (Braithwaite et al., 2009, p. 397). Although these quotes suggest that girls are experiencing shame during the RJ

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

129

conference it cannot be determined that these feelings of shame functioned in a reintegrative manner. This is because the presence of stigma, for its transgressions of femininity, has the potential to exacerbate feelings of shame associated with such transgressions, thus increasing the potential for ‘stigmatic shaming’ (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 105).

 ractitioners’ Perspectives on Girls’ P Experiences of Shame Supporting existing literature which emphasises shame as a central and salient emotion evoked in a RJ conference (Maruna et al., 2007; Masson & Österman, 2017; Miles, 2013; Österman & Masson, 2017; Wallis, 2014), practitioners identified shame as one of the most common emotions evoked during girls’ participation in RJ conferences, followed by anger and embarrassment. Just shame, embarrassment. I would say shame and embarrassment more. Obviously then it leads on to more, the physical emotions … crying and things like that. Their head down and things like that and finding it a little bit more, perhaps, difficult … because they are showing their emotions, whereas a lot of males won’t sit there and start crying openly in a RJ conference. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) Girls get very emotional and very tearful and quite upset … Boys tend to be more blasé about it. It might have the same effects inside but they are like ‘I don’t care about that’ … (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer)

Practitioners regarded shame as a naturally occurring part of the RJ process. Certain practitioners felt that shame is a positive experience for all young people who participate in a RJ conference as it enables them to reflect upon the harm caused as a result of their offending behaviour. The meetings are designed to bring about shame … It is a natural part of the process that people will feel shame and it would be worrying if they didn’t. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

130 

J. Hodgson

Shame should always come out and be experienced as part of the process and the reason for that is because that is the emotion that brings about behavioural change. (Marie, Senior Practitioner) For me it (shame) is a positive thing but there is that bit about informing people that it is not an easy process, and they might actually feel worse at the end of the day for a little while and the young people are likely to feel worse for a while because they are hearing about the impact of what they did on other people. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

Existing research has found shame to be a common emotion experienced as a result of criminalisation and victimisation. Researching women offender’s desistance from crime, Rutter and Barr (2021, p. 15), for example, found that shame [and stigma are] ‘exponentially’ increased for criminalised women due to the ‘double deviancy’ associated with their offending. Five practitioners felt that girls were more likely to experience shame during a RJ conference compared to boys and some suggested that girls would internalise and externalise feelings of shame differently than boys. It is more specific in that it brings out different types of emotions in the different genders … you know females are obviously very emotional during it, whereas males may kind of sit with their head down, clam up, look perhaps somewhat that they are not shameful of what’s happened but that’s just an expression of how they are dealing with it … whereas females have the emotion of letting it out so that’s more specific. (David, Restorative Justice Officer) I think girls readily evoke shame even before the restorative justice conference, ‘oh I couldn’t, I feel ashamed’ you hear girls say that all the time, ‘I feel ashamed’. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer) Right issues of shaming, feeling ashamed, even if it is re-integrative shaming they are more likely for females than males. Possibly because I think there is more … readiness to accept responsibility. So actually, there is probably a little more inclination to feel ashamed for what they have done. (Jim, Prevention and Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

131

I think you probably see it [shame] more in girls than boys. Boys are quite focused on moving forward and getting it done. Girls are more ashamed and embarrassed. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) I think it is all about the emotions again though. Shame comes through people in different ways. I think young lads are more likely to withdraw and they are more likely to attack rather than girls and I think girls are more likely to withdraw, but not fully, and I think girls can sort of, I think girls sort of take it out on themselves and I think that they, I haven’t seen any blaming sort of thing, it is more self-blame rather than blaming the victim. It is not attacking the other person; it is attacking themselves. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker) The conferencing that I have done, there has been quite a clear difference where the girls have sort of been self-blame and the lads have been blaming others but as we go through the process they are all quite similar outcomes. (Rebecca: Restorative Justice Victim Worker) It is different for a girl and it is different for a guy because it depends on what it is in terms of what they are ashamed of … you have got to look at the background. (Sam, Restorative Justice Victim Worker)

What these responses predominantly indicate is that practitioners regarded girls’ differential experiences of shame as resulting from increased emotional responses to their participation in the conference. Although a number of practitioners did identify girls and boys are likely to experience shame differently, indicating that shame is a gendered emotion, none of the practitioners connected girls’ experiences of shame during a RJ conference to their experience of stigma for transgressing gender norms and expectations in relation to appropriate female behaviour. This was predominantly because they felt RJ conferencing to be a neutral process, which focuses solely on the young person’s offending behaviour and to distinguish experiences between gender would be counterproductive to the process. For those that felt that girls’ experience of shame would not be impacted by their gender, their responses reflected attempts to neutralise the role of gender in RJ interventions. These practitioners suggested that girls would

132 

J. Hodgson

either experience shame in the same way as boys or that they would experience shame in an individual context as opposed to a gender-specific context. Boys will experience that [shame] as well depending on where they are in their life. We have got some very vulnerable boys as well that come through haven’t we? … I don’t think it is gender-specific at all. (Gary, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) I have had boys cry at conferences and I have had girls cry at conferences they are both feeling the same thing. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) It is going to be individualistic rather than gender-specific to be honest. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager) I think it would be the same for males. I think shame as a concept is the same for anybody really regardless of gender. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

Such quotes are significant as they reveal certain practitioners’ reluctance to acknowledge the social construction of gender and dominant discourses of femininity as a variable present during RJ interventions.

 ractitioners’ Perspectives on the Negative P Implications of Experiencing Shame This chapter will now move on to considering some of the negative implications experiencing shame may have for girls who participate in RJ conferencing. To begin there is a body of existing literature, which links girls’ experiences of shame to physical and sexual abuse, substance abuse and harmful behaviour (Gold et al., 2011; Lewis, 1992; Milligan & Andrews, 2005; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Research further suggests that girls who come into the remit of the youth justice system experience much higher levels of abuse in their formative years compared to their male counterparts (Bateman & Hazel, 2014; Sharpe, 2012; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). Such existing research provides a knowledge base with

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

133

regard to understanding and contextualising girls’ experiences of shame in relation to their gender. Shame has been linked to ‘a perceived failure to meet standards’ as well as ‘adjustment following trauma’ (Gold et al., 2011, p. 2). It is suggested that if an individual holds a degree of self-blame, following a traumatic experience, negative feelings of shame are likely to be manifested into ‘depressive or aggressive symptoms’ (ibid., p. 2). Furthermore, anxiety, low self-esteem, substance abuse, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder have been linked to individual attempts to manage experiences of shame (Elison et al., 2006; Nathanson, 1992; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Examining the experience of shame and guilt for children and adolescents in America, Tangney and Dearing (2002) report that feelings of shame are predictive of suicide attempts and substance abuse in adolescents. They discuss how in the face of negative events young people internalise self-blame for these events, increasing their vulnerability to feelings of shame for their transgressions, and producing negative implications for their self-esteem (ibid.). Furthermore, research undertaken in the United Kingdom by Milligan and Andrews (2005) has linked shame to experiences of physical and sexual abuse, depression, bulimia, self-­ harming and self-destructive behaviours by females. Such insights highlight the importance of considering the significance of shame to young people’s lives, beyond the concept of reintegrative shaming. Existing research highlights the negative impact experiencing shame may have on young people and the findings generated from this research study further exemplify the potential for feelings of shame to be manifested in harmful ways for girls. The data suggests that this is particularly the case when they hold a degree of self-blame for their offending in addition to having experienced shame in their past. As discussed, practitioners regarded shame as a necessary part of the conferencing process which resulted in positive outcomes for young people who participate. However, they also acknowledged that experiencing shame could have negative effects for girls: I certainly think there could be negative implications, but I again would say that that is down to poor facilitation, if that happens, and the skills of the facilitator. (Jim, Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

134 

J. Hodgson

It’s not just you know the victim having their say or the young person being able to apologise for their actions it’s about being able to repair that relationship, that harm and if you can’t get to that point it’s going to be a negative experience. For a girl would it be any more? Well, if they are already suffering from low self-esteem then yeah it would, it would have a big impact on them. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer) I mean it’s not an exact science is it? Don’t get me wrong but again it is about the skill of the workers doing the business, really armed with the assessments, armed with the understanding and their training and their life experiences themselves and you know it’s important that we have women staff doing the conferences and working with the girls you know. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager)

Practitioners acknowledged that girls’ experiences of shame during a RJ conference could be associated with previous negative experiences such as abuse and victimisation in their formative years. It was agreed that such negative effects would be as a result of reinforcing girls’ negative feelings they may hold about themselves for their offending behaviour. It was also agreed that girls could connect their expression of shame within the RJ conference with negative experiences of guilt and shame in their formative years, which may adversely impact their emotional and physical wellbeing. I think if you have had some degree of difficulty in your life going through a process like that it will bring that back for you and evoke similar emotions to that period. (Marie, Senior Practitioner) Yes, definitely and I think it is the same for boys as well. Its transference isn’t it? And it’s the same for victims isn’t it? And again, in your assessment you have to be aware of that. (Joanne, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) Yeah more than likely because that’s what you do isn’t it? When something happens to you, if you are upset, you tend to reflect or if you are empathetic it reminds you of something that has happened to you so, yeah, definitely. (Scott, Substance Misuse Worker)

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

135

It is further suggested that the association of shame with previous negative experiences could in turn instigate strategies to cope with such feelings, such as self-harming and self-destructive behaviours. Practitioners suggested that such behaviours could be used as a means to manage the emotional pain associated with feelings of shame. [Interviewer: What effect do you think this expression of shame has on girls?] It could make them go out and self-harm and feel really bad about themselves … I would hope not but that could be true for boys because we have boys who self-harm so I think it depends a lot on where they are from and what kind of experiences they have already gone through. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer) Self-harm, self-abuse might be there, well it is probably there, but don’t forget in the conference process it is not our job to be therapeutic. So, if those issues are there, and those issues are most likely there, that’s not the facilitator’s role to explore that or go into that. That is the issue for the case manager working with that young woman. That is when it will get dangerous as those issues will undoubtedly be there. Shame manifests itself through self-harm, drug abuse or whatever but it is not the facilitator’s role to get into that … Yes, I think a lot of young women could internalise self-­ harm and express the shame that way more so than young men. (Stan, Youth Offending Team Senior Officer)

This is a key finding and an integral argument to this research study as it highlights important contextual arguments with regard to the suitability of a form of justice which establishes itself on the expression and demonstration of shame.

Reducing the Negative Implications of Shame Despite their acknowledgements, concerning the potential for negative implications to arise from the expression of shame, all practitioners felt RJ conferencing was a suitable intervention to be used with girls who offend. Practitioners, however, stated it would only be suitable on the

136 

J. Hodgson

condition that the appropriate preparation is undertaken and the required assessments are completed. Making sure that the groundwork is done appropriately and there is enough preparation before, during and then you have got the after stuff they should be alright. (Elaine, Youth Offending and Family Intervention Worker) I think if they didn’t do the restorative justice process and preparation I think they would probably hang onto that shame for too long, very long, forever and that’s what brings your self-esteem and your confidence and everything down. I think by being able to look at it and see it as ok and doing something about it is a healthy way to manage it … Yeah I think if shame isn’t dealt with then they will hang on to it. If it is not dealt with like any negative feeling it will just bring you down and affect your judgements and your choices. (Lynn, Restorative Justice Victim Worker) As I said the preparation is key and you know we do use assessments which are based around sensitive and complex assessment of appropriate bits of restorative justice. So, we use a number of different assessment tools in order to gain the attitude and the willingness and the appropriateness of these people coming together. We don’t want to re-victimise any victims; we don’t want to traumatise any young people. (Graham, Restorative Justice and Volunteers Team Manager) The risks are higher, just as the risks for the way a female victim may see herself are higher for re-victimisation or fear of re-victimisation. So, I think there are gender-specific issues there but I don’t think that’s anything that couldn’t be addressed through a properly administered restorative process. (Jim, Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

It was generally felt amongst practitioners that the potential for negative implications associated with shame would be addressed during the planning and preparation they engage the young person in prior to their participation in the RJ conference. Practitioners felt assured that the assessments and preparation they undertake would provide them with all the necessary information concerning the young person in order to make an informed decision with regard to their suitability to participate.

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

137

You would be picking all of this up when you are doing your assessments for whether or not an RJ is suitable. When you have got a young person coming through the YOT you have many people doing assessments, vulnerability assessments, risk assessments, you will be getting in touch with all the services the young person has been involved in. So, when I come to doing my own assessments I have got all that information ready. So, whether they disclose that to me, or not, I have already got that information. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

The use of Asset as an initial assessment tool, used to formulate individualised action plans to meet the needs of girls, was criticised by one practitioner as being inadequate. If the Asset is the basis for the individualised action plan … if actually the initial assessment is flawed, the needs aren’t going to be satisfied … I think simply most services probably don’t have, or lack both, the experience and the resources to properly deal with the issues that present with young women who get into the system … and if a service tries to deal with girls in exactly the same way as it did with boys actually, it is just another example of the system discriminating on the grounds of gender in this case. (Jim, Restorative Justice Co-ordinator)

Predominantly practitioners asserted that any information, which would be relevant to their assessment of whether it would be suitable for a young person to participate in a RJ conference, would be shared with them by colleagues and other professionals working within a multi-­agency information sharing framework. Practitioners, however, did not acknowledge the potential for significant information to remain undisclosed from themselves or other professionals working with the young person.

Planning and Preparation for the Conference Drawing upon the insights provided by the girls it was revealed that the planning and preparation they engaged in prior to their participation in the conference was minimal. Eight of the girls interviewed said that that they did not undertake any preparation prior to the conference.

138 

J. Hodgson

There was no preparation for it at all. We just got told the date and time and place basically and we had to be there and if we wasn’t there we would have to go to court … The way she walked in there she looked like she was prepared, she had her whole family around her, me and Sarah didn’t even know what we were walking into for God sake. We just got told that we had to get a card and chocolates and flowers and we had to go in and face her. That’s all we got told, well I got told he would be out later in the week to come and explain what would go on and he didn’t so it was like hmmm’ … She looked like she had all the preparance [sic] in the world. (Jenny, 14) Nobody told me what was going to happen, I wouldn’t have gone. I just knew I was there because I hit Faye, I didn’t know what was going to happen. (Kim, 13) [Interviewer: How did you feel walking into that room?] Like I was confident and I was prepared to take what was coming towards me … Like I thought they were going to arrest me or just put me in YOT or something like that. They didn’t tell me what was going to happen. They told me it was because I head butted a member of staff, which was recorded as a crime she said. She was just bitchy and snappy and narky I guess. [Interviewer: So, you didn’t know what was going to happen?] Not really, I just knew I was in trouble. (Becky, 14) They just said you need to answer questions … speak the truth, everything had to come out. [Interviewer: So, did you have an idea about what was going to happen then?] No … I have never had to do anything like that. (Amy, 12) One [practitioner] came out to us before we went into the room … and was like telling us what to do. (Chloe, 14)

For the girls who stated that they did engage in preparation for the conference, this involved preparing apologies for victims. Erm, I just wrote out a little scrap piece of paper just writing down what I was going to say and did it. (Hannah, 13)

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

139

I did a worksheet with her [facilitator] to plan what I was gonna [sic] say. (Charlene, 17) Not a lot I just had to think things through with Carol [YOT worker]. (Nicole, 16) I had to write a letter to her [victim] or something like that. (Nicole, 16)

These quotes provided by the girls, predominantly reveal that they were not adequately prepared for their participation in the conference. Situating this finding in relation to the important emphasis practitioners placed upon engaging girls in planning and preparation highlights the potentially harmful consequences the girls were subject to. An additional finding, which exacerbates this concern, is exemplified by the girls’ lack of understanding with regard to what RJ is and the purpose of the conference they participated in. [Interviewer: So, what do you think restorative justice is?] I don’t know, it was this woman that told me and I couldn’t understand her … she was just saying all these weird words and I just didn’t understand. (Chloe, 14) Nothing I don’t understand any of it. (Sarah, 17)

This finding is significant because it suggests that girls do not fully understand the purpose or the process they are engaging in. If the girls do not fully understand the process and were not adequately prepared for it, then the potential for negative consequences to arise from the conferencing process are increased. Despite their perspectives suggesting that RJ conferencing is a suitable intervention to be used with girls, practitioners’ interviews also reflected concerns with regard to their understanding of the conferencing process. I mean they don’t have the maturity that’s why I say, ‘is the impact on a 14-year-old or is the impact going to happen later?’ I think sometimes the emotional maturity is difficult so they might not get what they have done but I certainly think they should still do it. (Debbie, Victim Liaison Officer)

140 

J. Hodgson

… In terms of their ability to articulate, I think our young people and especially the girls, you have got issues there already … you have got the shyness to overcome, and you have got the confidence. Self-esteem when it comes to girls is pretty low. You have got some that are displaying a nervous laugh and you have got to get that across to the victims because that is a slap in the face right? But they are young people and their ability to ­articulate, they struggle, and that nervous laugh is for different reasons. It is because they are uncomfortable. (Shelly, Victim Liaison Officer)

Practitioners stated that as the conference progresses the young person becomes assured that they have repaired the harm caused by their offending behaviour, which in turn resolves any negative feelings of guilt or shame. However, the empirical data from the girls suggested that they were not able to make amends with the victim. [Interviewer: Do you think you were able to make it up to the victim?] No, I wouldn’t want to either. (Chloe, 14) … She didn’t accept my apology but she was thankful for it. I said to her I am genuinely sorry for what I have done … I went through a lot of effort to say I was sorry and she didn’t even accept it. (Jenny, 14) I couldn’t see her, I couldn’t even see her face to face, even now, I couldn’t do it because obviously I don’t really want to see someone I have done that to … [Interviewer: But do you think by going to the meeting you were able to make it up to her?] If she had listened to me and actually listened to my point and what I had to say then maybe but she didn’t, so no. (Sarah, 17) I still can’t stand her. I hate her. (Becky, 14) They were all just there to have a go at me. After it all I wasn’t even bothered it made no difference to anything. (Kim, 13)

These findings raise multiple concerns. Firstly, comparing such findings in relation to practitioners’ perspectives, any negative feelings of shame and guilt evoked within these girls would remain unresolved. Secondly, the findings do not suggest that reintegration was achieved. The

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

141

girls’ narratives, however, arguably describe a process of ‘stigmatic shaming’ (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 105) due to either their reluctance to make amends for their offence, or their unsuccessful attempts to make amends.

Conclusion This chapter has presented an analysis of the empirical data, generated from this research study, in relation to the themes of stigma and shame. Drawing upon the data provided by practitioners, an argument has been formed which identifies the potential implications stigmatisation may have for girls who offend, due to their offending being viewed by others as a transgression of dominant discourses of acceptable femininity. This finding has provided a basis from which to critically interrogate the potential for girls’ experiences of stigma to have implications for their experiences of shame during a RJ conference. The data and analysis presented within this chapter are significant because they contribute to the construction of an alternative, original, account of how RJ conferencing is used as a youth justice intervention. This alternative account details the extent to which girls’ narratives function as a form of resistance to existing RJ discourse and the contradictions evident within the contrasting sets of data demonstrate the need to critically engage with alternative narratives of RJ discourse, which challenge dominant ways of thinking about girls, gender and justice.

References Bartky, S. (1990). Shame and Gender. In S.  Bartky (Ed.), Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (pp.  83–98). Routledge. Batchelor, S., & Burman, M. (2004). Working with Girls and Young Women. In G. McIvor (Ed.), Women Who Offend (pp. 266–287). Jessica Kingsley. Bateman, T., & Hazel, N. (2014). Resettlement of Girls and Young Women: Research Report. Beyond Youth Custody. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

142 

J. Hodgson

Braithwaite, J., Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2009). Shame, Restorative Justice and Crime. In F. T. Cullen (Ed.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (pp. 397–418). Transaction Publishers. Bruckert, C., & Hannem, S. (2012). Introduction. In S. Hannem & C. Bruckert (Eds.), Stigma Revisited: Implication of The Mark (pp.  1–6). University of Ottawa Press. Chadwick, K., & Little, C. (1987). The Criminalisation of Women. In P. Scraton (Ed.), Law, Order and the Authoritarian State (pp.  254–278). Open University Press. Chesney-Lind, M., & Pasko, L. (2013). The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crimes (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Connell, R. (2009). Short Introductions: Gender (2nd ed.). Polity Press. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. Scribners. Cox, P. (2003). Gender, Justice and Welfare: Bad girls in Britain, 1900-1950. Palgrave Macmillan. Elison, J., Lennon, R., & Pulos, S. (2006). Investigating the Compass of Shame: The Development of the Compass of Shame. Social Behaviour and Personality, 34(3), 221–238. Estrada, F., Nilsson, A., & Pettersson, T. (2019). The Female Offender  - A Century of Registered Crime and Daily Press Reporting on Women’s Crime. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.108 0/2578983X.2019.1657269 Falk, G. (2001). Stigma: How We Treat Outsiders. Prometheus Books. Gelsthorpe, L., & Worrall, A. (2009). Looking for Trouble: A Recent History of Girls, Young Women and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 209–223. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall. Goffman, E. (1971). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (2nd ed.). The Penguin Press. Gold, J., Sullivan, M. W., & Lewis, M. (2011). The Relation Between Abuse and Violent Delinquency: The Conversion of Shame to Blame in Juvenile Offenders. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(7), 459–467. Guenther, L. (2011). Shame and the Temporality of Social Life. Continental Philosophy Review, 44(1), 23–39. Hannem, S. (2012). Theorizing Stigma and The Politics of Resistance. In S. Hannem & C. Bruckert (Eds.), Stigma Revisited: Implication of The Mark (pp. 10–28). University of Ottawa Press.

5  Restorative Justice, Shame and Stigma: Compounding… 

143

Hudson, A. (1989). Troublesome Girls, Towards Alternative Definitions and Policies. In M.  Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp.  197–219). Sage Publications. Hutter, B., & Williams, G. (1981). Controlling Women: The Normal and the Deviant. In B. Hutter & G. Williams (Eds.), Controlling Women: The Normal and the Deviant (pp. 9–39). Croom Helm. Laws, J. (1979). The Second X. Elsevier North Holland, Inc. Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. International Universities Press. Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The Exposed Self. The Free Press. Link, B., & Phelan, J. (2001). Conceptualizing Stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. Manion, J. (2003). Girls Blush, Sometimes: Gender, Moral Agency, and the Problem of Shame. Hypatia, 18(3), 21–41. Maruna, S., Wright, S., Van Brown, J., Merle, F., Devlin, R., & Liddle, M. (2007). Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long Term Follow-up Study. ARCS. Masson, I., & Österman, L. (2017). Working with Female Offenders in Restorative Justice Frameworks, Effective and Ethical Practice. Probation Journal, 1-18, 1. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517728784 Miles, R. (2013). Restorative Justice: Female offenders in Restorative Justice Conferences. http://www.thegriffinssociety.org/restorative-­justice-­female­offenders-­restorative-­justice-­conferences Milligan, R.  J., & Andrews, B. (2005). Suicidal and Other Self-Harming Behaviour in Offender Women: The Role of Shame, Anger and Childhood Abuse. The British Psychological Society Journal, 10(1), 13–25. Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self. Norton and Company. Österman, L., & Masson, I. (2017). Restorative Justice with Female Offenders: The Neglected Role of Gender in Restorative Conferencing. Feminist Criminology, 13(1), 3–27. Parker, R., & Aggleton, P. (2003). HIV and AIDS-Related Sigma and Discrimination: A Conceptual Framework and Implications for Action. Social Science and Medicine, 57, 13–24. Pinel, E.  C. (2004). You're Just Saying That Because I'm a Woman: Stigma Consciousness and Attributions to Discrimination. Self and Identity, 3(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000031 Rutter, N., & Barr, U. (2021). Being a “Good Woman”: Stigma, Relationships and Desistance. Probation Journal, 68(2), 166–185. https://doi. org/10.1177/02645505211010336

144 

J. Hodgson

Schur, E. (1984). Labelling Deviant Behaviour: It’ Sociological Implications. Harper and Row. Shacklady Smith, L. (1978). Sexist Assumptions and Female Delinquency: An Empirical Investigation. In C. Smart & B. Smart (Eds.), Women, Sexuality and Social Control (pp. 74–86). Routledge and Kegan Paul. Sharpe, G. (2012). Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice. Routledge. Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2015). Girls, Crime and Justice. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 49–64). Sage Publications. Shefer, T., & Munt, S. R. (2019). A Feminist Politics of Shame: Shame and Its Contested Possibilities. Feminism & Psychology, 29(2), 145–156. https://doi. org/10.1177/0959353519839755 Smart, C. (1976). Women, Crime and Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing Reoffending by Ex-prisoners. Social Exclusion Unit. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and Guilt. Guilford Publications. Tomkins, S. (1963). Affect, Imagery Consciousness: Volume 11: The Negative Affects. Springer. Tyler, I. (2020). Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Zed Books. Wallis, P. (2014). Understanding Restorative Justice, How Empathy Can Close The Gap Created By Crime. Policy Press. Worrall, A. (1990). Offending Women: Female Lawbreakers and The Criminal Justice System. Routledge. Young, R., & Goold, B. (1999). Restorative Police Cautioning in Aylesbury: From Degrading to Reintegrative Shaming Ceremonies? Criminal Law Review, 1, 126–138.

6 Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising Restorative Justice Through a Gendered Lens

Evans et al. (2014, p. 12) assert that in order to effectively synthesise and distinguish the main contributions to knowledge research makes, it is essential to critically examine the research findings ‘in light of the previous state of the subject … and make judgments as to what has been learnt’ from the work undertaken. Prior to undertaking this research, girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing, within the context of youth justice practice within England and Wales, received little attention within criminological inquiry. On the whole, their experiences within the youth justice system have remained at the margins of academic analyses as well as policy and practice considerations. This chapter will reflect upon the overarching themes inherent within the research findings. The intention is to draw together each of the themes presented in order to consider the contribution to knowledge of this research, as well as the policy and practice implications arising from the interviews that were conducted.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_6

145

146 

J. Hodgson

 onflicting Perspectives Between Girls C and Practitioners The rationale underpinning this research study has centred upon bridging the gap in knowledge concerning young female offenders’ experiences of RJ conferencing, informed by girls, whose voices have remained excluded from existing RJ discourse. By building upon and contributing to the existing body of knowledge, concerning gender and RJ, one of the most consistent and reoccurring themes, which emerged during the process of data analysis, was the extent to which the girls’ subjective accounts of RJ conferencing fundamentally conflicted with practitioners’ views on conferencing with girls in the justice system. The discussion and analysis of the empirical data presented in Chaps. 4 and 5 have emphasised that this disconnect was most prominently reflected in the extent to which the girls viewed their participation in the conference as a negative experience, whilst practitioners conceptualised RJ conferencing as an inherently positive experience, which enabled young people to make amends with the victim of their offence and hold them accountable for their offending. Practitioners viewed RJ as an overwhelmingly positive intervention, particularly suitable for girls involved in the justice system because they perceived girls to have increased levels of empathy which enhanced their suitability for conferencing, due to its distinct focus on the emotional interactions and dynamics between victims and offenders. Chapter 4 argued that such findings resonate with the understanding of RJ as being associated with a feminine ethic of care developed by Gilligan (1982). This association is problematic and Daly (2003), for example, critiques the grounds upon which distinctions between male and female moral reasoning are used to contextualise and appropriate dichotomies of retributive justice and RJ. She has argued that incorporating an ethic of care principle, which is ideologically associated with the voices of women is problematic because it reproduces and maintains discourses of femininity which construct women and girls as subjects who are devoid of autonomy and rationality.

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

147

The findings resonate with broader arguments put forward by Lloyd (1984) who argued that the dualisms of emotionality and rationality are a key feature of the constructed dichotomy of masculinity and femininity. Lloyd (ibid., p. ix) critiqued the association of rationality and reason with masculinity as contributing towards, and reinforcing, ‘structures of dominance’ which align ‘reason’ and rationality with a superior mode of thinking and emotion as an inferior difference. Essentially, she argued that emotionality as the opposite of reason has become associated with femininity and this association contributes towards stereotypical assumptions regarding women as more emotional than men. By identifying girls as more ‘emotional’ and ‘empathetic’ than boys, practitioners’ perspectives reflect constructed discourses of acceptable femininity and highlight a tendency towards deterministic thinking regarding girls’ experiences of RJ.  Such findings represent an ongoing disregard for girls’ agency. As a result, their experiences are recurrently being subjugated by dominant discourses of femininity, which neglect the context of agency, power and subjectivity in their lives. The production of such discourse contributes to the continued marginalisation of the subjectivities of girls who offend and highlights a need for enhanced feminist engagement with RJ principles and practices, which can challenge existing constructs of knowledge that neglect to consider girls’ agency. Allowing and listening to girls’ subjective accounts of their own offending and experiences within the youth justice system are integral to feminist inquiry and the production of alternative forms of knowledge relating to the material and lived realities of girls’ lives and their experiences of RJ. By sharing their experiences, the girls who participated in this research study have provided alternative narratives to dominant discourse around RJ. These narratives provided a complex picture of RJ conferencing which contested the conceptualisation of girls as more suitable for RJ. They discussed how they were reluctant or unwilling to apologise for their offending, how they contested their status as an offender and refuted the positive and beneficial nature of RJ conferencing, constructed by practitioners. As Chap. 1 noted, RJ is perceived to be a process, which provides those who participate with the opportunity to ‘collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence’ (Marshall, 1999, p.  3). As such, in theory, RJ provides victims and offenders with a participatory role in

148 

J. Hodgson

addressing the conflict between them (Johnstone, 2011). Furthermore, advocates of RJ defend it as a comprehensive solution to conflict, which is meaningful to all parties (ibid.). However, the findings presented in Chaps. 4 and 5 have demonstrated that the girls’ voices were silenced during their participation in the conference. These findings demonstrate the importance of listening to girls’ subjugated knowledge in order to situate girls as producers of knowledge which challenges the privileged dominant discourse of policy makers, practitioners and the state, more generally.

 estorative Justice and the Marginalisation R of Structural Inequalities The production of new knowledge based on girls’ subjectivities, raises critical issues concerning the labels prescribed to those participating in RJ. Within RJ conferencing, two subjects are created: the ideal offender and  the ideal victim. The offender is a subject who is supposed to be ashamed about their behaviour and wants to make amends for the harm they have caused. The victim is a subject, who facilitates the offenders’ reintegration into the community, by allowing them to make amends. Ultimately, the empirical data revealed how the relationship between the girls and the structured processes of RJ was more complex than dominant discourse would acknowledge. Undoubtedly adding to such complexity is the nature of the offence committed and how this might shape girls’ experiences of the conferencing process. Although social structures and institutions, underpinned by patriarchal state relations function to shape the narratives of girls, their subjectivity is mediated by their own resistance to the pre-constructed narratives associated with RJ conferencing. Their narratives and subjectivities are formed in the context of resisting these constructions. Power relations function within hybrid paradigms, revealing that the relationships between the subjects and structures are not simply dictated by polarised perspectives that have been conceived in RJ conferencing. Girls’ subjectivities are in fact formed by complex expressions and motivations, which precede the scripted narratives prepared by RJ practitioners. In particular, as noted in Chap. 3, their experiences are mediated through their

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

149

construction as gendered subjects living in a society built on the exercise of patriarchal power at every stage of their lives. RJ conferencing creates an environment that is antipathetic to the socio-structural inequalities that characterise the material and lived realities of girls who enter the youth justice system. Experiences of both victimisation and criminalisation compound the social injustice girls are often subject to. The analysis of girls’ interview data indicated that they predominantly internalised their participation in the RJ conference as a negative experience. The data set revealed that the girls felt disempowered, neglected and targeted at various stages in the youth justice process. These findings and issues can be drawn upon to understand the dichotomy between girls’ subjectivities and practitioners’ perspectives concerning RJ as a strategy of resistance, on behalf of the girls, to RJ as another form of extreme non-interventionism into the broader, more complex problems within which their criminalisation is embroiled (Hodgson, 2020). RJ as a form of non-intervention into the structural inequalities which shape girls’ experiences in the social world, whilst at the same time responsibilising girls for an offence, can generate a sense of powerlessness while also generating strategies of resistance, in order to navigate their experience (Hodgson, 2020). Resistance is demonstrated in the ways that the girls opposed the facilitators’ responses during their conference, resisting reconciliation through the demonstration of agency and challenging the marginalisation of their subjectivity by providing alternative narratives. By resisting RJ discourse, through the expression of alternative narratives, the girls effectively challenged power dynamics intertwined within the process through reformulating their own subjectivities. Their narratives can be conceptualised as the embodiment of their capability to navigate and define their own experiences.

Restorative Justice and the Neutralisation Agenda Despite increasing recognition of the need for gender-specific provision for women and girls involved in the criminal and youth justice system, RJ discourse, informing a wide array of youth justice interventions,

150 

J. Hodgson

predominantly remains silent on issues of gender and RJ policy and practice and continues to operate within a gender-blind framework. The gender-­blindness of RJ fails to acknowledge how the significance of gender in relation to offending and victimisation may impact on a RJ conference. It also highlights that gender-specific provision and gender-sensitive approaches emerging from feminist pathways research have yet to be consolidated into RJ practice. As a result, the complexity, and often-­ detrimental impact, of gender as a variable relevant to RJ conferencing is neglected. As illustrated in Chaps. 4 and 5, there were inconsistences and complexities in terms of practitioners’ perspectives relating to RJ conferencing with girls who offend, particularly the extent to which conference outcomes are impacted by gender and the need for gender-sensitive approaches to RJ. There was a consensus, amongst practitioners, that the social division of gender did not impact upon the outcomes of a RJ conference. Moreover, all practitioners acknowledged that gender-specific provision was not extended to RJ practice being facilitated within their youth offending team. Whilst practitioners held different perspectives regarding whether gender was an issue which was neglected within RJ policy and practice, many practitioners felt that there was a need for a gender-specific approach to RJ practices used in the youth justice service. Such findings highlight the nuances and contradictions within the data set and reveal a lack of clarity when it comes to understanding the impact gendered factors can have on the experiences of girls participating in RJ conferencing and reveal that there is no standardised approach in the ways practitioners respond to gendered factors in the facilitation of RJ.  These findings are consistent with the gender-blindness of existing policy underpinning the use of RJ in the youth justice system. The gender-­blindness inherent within RJ discourse has contributed to inconsistences and ambiguity in terms of the extent to which gendered factors are recognised and responded to by practitioners when facilitating RJ conferencing. Despite the varying perspectives from practitioners relating to the importance and impact of gendered factors to RJ conferencing, the findings revealed that several practitioners were reluctant to acknowledge the importance of gender and the potential for it to shape girls’ experiences

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

151

of RJ conferencing. These practitioners referred to the ‘genderless’ nature, and the ‘neutral’ dynamics, of RJ and were confident that any experiences or outcomes would only be determined on an ‘individualistic’ level. State institutions support the patriarchal structures that shape girls’ experiences of social control, oppression and victimisation. These structures and the harms produced by them are still present today, but they remain absent from consideration of girls’ experiences of RJ, both in relation to practitioners’ perspectives and RJ discourse. Therefore, the ‘gender-­neutral’ or ‘genderless’ operations of RJ, as described by some practitioners. and gender-blind RJ policy do not enable the recognition of gender relations and the role they may occupy in relation to girls’ offending behaviour to be acknowledged. This is problematic because such gender-blindness fails to account for issues around agency and structure, when comprehending the context of girls’ offending behaviour, or how their choices are constrained by social relationships, that are often defined by patriarchal structures which themselves are dependent on the social construction of gender (Batchelor, 2005; Sjoberg, 2008). State institutions do not maintain the gender order in a ‘simplistic or conspiratorial way’ (Ballinger, 2009, p. 29). Although the state is recognised as ‘patriarchal and the law androcentric’ its role in the social control and oppression of women and girls is ‘subtle to the point where it appears to be gender-neutral’ (Ballinger, 2007, p.  474). Furthermore, ‘through the process of re-definition and gender neutralisation the state is able to present itself as more inclusive’ (Ballinger, 2009, p. 30). It can, therefore, be argued that the development of gender-neutral polices legitimises the state’s role in the oppression of women and girls and ensures the existing social order remains the same (McIntosh, 1978). This is because the more ‘objective’ the state and its agencies are ‘the more effectively patriarchal’ it can be (Connell, 1994, p. 145). Therefore, gender-neutral policies which ‘equate equality with sameness’ become an apparatus in the neutralisation of the politics of gender. In doing this, the state is embedding, maintaining and legitimising gender inequality (Ballinger, 2009, p. 30). It is argued that the presence of gender, as a variable within RJ practice, is suggested to be subject to a process of reductionism, in which its complexity and hybridity are excluded and replaced with ‘individualistic’ considerations, despite the fact that individual identity is negotiated and

152 

J. Hodgson

embodied on the basis of one’s gender (Butler, 1990; McNay, 2000). RJ is constructed as immune to the established consensus that youth justice interventions should be distinguished by gender-sensitive delivery. This gender-blind approach to the delivery of RJ, has the potential to subject girls to a process of ‘vengeful equity’ whereby they are treated in the same way as boys ‘in the name of equal justice’ (Chesney-Lind, 2006, p. 18). This is because they are being held accountable for their offending behaviour through interventions, which take no cognisance of the context in which structural inequalities, in relation to gender, shape their formative experiences or their offending behaviour. Therefore, to regard RJ conferencing as a ‘neutral’ ‘genderless’ process, operating within a youth justice system which is characterised and statistically dominated by young male offenders, neglects to consider how the social structures present within gender relations operate within RJ processes.

Shame and Stigma The presence of stigma during a RJ conference would affect the dynamics of the process. Whilst the findings from practitioners, presented in Chap. 4, suggested that the ‘neutral’ construction of RJ conferencing and the adherence to the conferencing script, may prevent unequal gendered power relations from functioning overtly, it cannot be assumed that such power relations do not continue to function in tenuous ways within individual subjectivities. The findings presented in Chaps. 4 and 5 have indicated that stigma, which is deeply rooted within the exercise of patriarchal power, is present for girls following their offence and during their participation in a RJ conference. Chapters 5 and 6 of this book have indicated that the girls who participated in this research study were subject to stigma because of their offending behaviour. This theme is significant because it reveals the presence of a gender-specific stigma for young female offenders participating in a RJ conference. As such, there is no guarantee that the collective norms and expectations associated with the ideals of femininity, identified within existing literature and the empirical data, will not be transported into the RJ arena, resulting in differential outcomes and experiences for girls

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

153

compared to boys. This argument necessitates the need to empirically and theoretically examine what the implications of being stigmatised with a deviant identity may have for girls participating in RJ conferencing. Drawing upon micro-social and macro-structural theorisations of stigma the arguments presented within this book have conceptualised stigma as not only a mark of a spoiled identity applied through social interaction resulting from transgressions of social norms and expectations associated with one’s identity but also as a form of power which is enmeshed within social policies and practices which serve to further marginalise the most disadvantaged within society. The feminist framework within which these arguments have been developed has articulated an integral link between stigma, shame and the social construction of gender which conceptualised the ways in which the micro-social and macro-­ structural process of stigmatisation produces gender-specific implications for girls in terms of their experiences of RJ conferencing and the broader state and societal responses to them. As discussed in Chap. 3, shame is an emotion, which arises from failure to conform to the social norms, and expectations associated with feminine ideals and thus plays a central role in conformity to gender scripts and expectations (Bartky, 1990; Brown, 2007). It is understood to be a ‘self-reflective emotion of negative global assessment [involving] a painful, sudden awareness of the self as less good than hoped for and expected, precipitated by the identification of others’ (Manion, 2003, p. 21). Further to this, Chap. 3 has situated shame as a consequence of women and girls’ oppression and structural inequalities resulting from the ‘gender order’ (Connell, 1990, p. 73). Thus, resulting in women and girls being more likely to experience shame than boys and men (Lewis, 1971, p. 421). It has also been acknowledged through existing literature that shame occupies a central place within the RJ processes used with young people in the youth justice system because of its association with Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory (Johnstone, 2011; Kim & Gerber, 2012; Maruna et al., 2007). Thus, the identification of shame as an emotion which is experienced as a result of transgressing dominant discourses of femininity highlights important considerations concerning the suitability of a youth justice intervention, which establishes itself on the expression

154 

J. Hodgson

and demonstration of shame. This is because the gendered nature of shame acts to socially control and stigmatise girls in ways, which it fails to do for boys. Therefore, the core principles of RJ conferencing, developed upon the premise of reintegrative shaming theory, represent gender-­ specific barriers to girls’ participation. Thus, it needs to be questioned whether such an intervention is beneficial for girls who take part. The empirical findings from both girls and practitioners distinguish shame as intrinsic to RJ conferencing. The data suggested feelings of shame, relating to their offending behaviour, were central to the girls’ narratives, whilst practitioners identified shame as one of the most common emotions evoked for girls during RJ conferences. Although all practitioners did acknowledge that girls who offend are likely to be stigmatised, as their offending is viewed as a transgression of social norms and expectations associated with appropriate female behaviour, they did not acknowledge that stigma, experienced within this context, would be associated with girls’ experiences of shame during a RJ conference. The arguments presented however suggest that once a stigma is applied, feelings of shame become intensified and exacerbated as the individual’s identity has become spoilt in the eyes of others. It is, therefore, not possible for practitioners to state, unequivocally, that the shame evoked within girls, during a RJ conference, would be exclusively experienced as a consequence of their offending behaviour. This is because they have also acknowledged that girls are stigmatised for their offending behaviour as it transgresses societal expectations associated with the ideals of femininity. Thus, to contend that girls are experiencing shame solely for their offending behaviour is contested. This is because the findings indicate that stigma, for transgressing appropriate female behaviour, was present for girls during their participation in the RJ conference. Stigma carries with it connotations of self-blame, guilt and shame. For girls participating in a RJ conference, if their feelings of shame are a reaction to their stigmatisation, then their expression of shame during the conference can be seen as enforcing the acceptance of an identity which is tainted by the stigma associated with their transgressions of gender norms. According to Scheff (2000, p. 97) shame is ‘pervasive in virtually all social interaction’ and individuals are ‘constantly anticipating it’. It is suggested that the need to seek approval in the eyes of others can be

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

155

understood as a motive to avoid shame and ensure ‘social bond[s]’ are maintained (ibid., p.  97). However, in a RJ conference, the process is underpinned by the demonstration of shame by the offender. For girls this demonstration of shame can be interpreted as confirmation of their deviant identity, confirming stigma as a reflection of their identity. RJ conferencing can arguably be seen as an apparatus which serves to confirm the spoiled identity of girls through the application of stigma. For those who are stigmatised, they are no longer viewed positively in the eyes of others and the presence of stigma impacts upon their experience of social situations, as such feelings of inadequacy, resulting from a spoilt identity, create a ‘shameful gap between one’s virtual and actual social identity’ (Goffman, 1963, p. 152). This transgression provides the opportunity for others to exercise discrimination against them (ibid.). Once an individual is aware that others perceive them negatively, feelings of shame are evoked within the individual (Cooley, 1902). For the girls who participated in this research, their identity was stigmatised and they were identified as deviant, not only for their offending behaviour, but also for their transgressions of acceptable femininity. By utilising the theoretical insights underpinning this research study, it is possible to provide an account of how the girls’ experience of stigma can become implicated within their experience of shame during the RJ conference. By utilising the theoretical insights discussed in Chap. 3 relating to shame, stigma and dominant discourses of acceptable femininity, RJ conferencing can be understood in terms of its capacity to reinforce the wider process of stigmatisation of girls’ experience as a result of their transgressions of dominant discourses of femininity. As opposed to challenging these discourses and the impact they have on treatment and responses to girls who offend, RJ conferencing can serve to legitimise them through the evocation of shame.

 ractitioners’ Perspectives on Power Relations: P Continuing the Neutralisation Agenda The absence of critical considerations of gender, and the social construction of masculinity and femininity within official discourse, policy and practice meant that the potential for RJ conferencing to (re)produce and

156 

J. Hodgson

exacerbate manifestations of unequal power relations and inequality for girls who are already marginalised, within the youth justice system, and characterised by their marginal position within the wider society, remains critically unexplored. Not only were some practitioners disinclined to recognise the presence or role of gender within the social processes of RJ conferencing, they were also resistant to accept the possibility that unequal power and control dynamics were present during a RJ conference. Claims by practitioners that RJ conferencing does not facilitate unequal power and control dynamics, fail to acknowledge the extent to which girls’ identity, subjectivity and narratives are formed through social norms and interactions, regulated by discourses of femininity. These perspectives also fail to acknowledge that gender relations are synonymous with power relations and that gender power is present in all relationships, operating at both an interpersonal and structural level (Radtke & Stam, 1994). As argued by Radtke and Stam (1994, p.  7) ‘the social position of women in relation to men is sufficiently unique to require special consideration in any account of power’. Power is therefore key to understanding how gendered mechanisms of social control institutionally operate (Ballinger, 2009). Practitioners have, however, failed to understand how the gender-defined contexts of power relations are transferred into the RJ arena and intertwined within girls’ subjectivities, through subtle formal and informal mechanisms of social control, inherent within the social function of stigma and shame. A Chap. 3 argued, a feminist account of how power functions as a modality of social control and shapes gender subjectivities is integral to understanding young female offenders’ experiences of power and control, within RJ conferences. Within the context of this argument, power is being theorised in relation to the gendered institutional relationship between young female offenders and RJ. Practitioners did not acknowledge this relationship and how girls’ experiences of power and control are inexplicitly intertwined within it. This leaves the exercise of patriarchal power in RJ practices excluded and unexplored. A reluctance to appreciate the ways in which the social construction of gender may shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing represents a reluctance to acknowledge gender as a complex, social and cultural product, which shapes girls’ subjectivities and in turn subjects them to

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

157

interventions, which are operating within highly gendered institutions, dominated by hetreo-patriarchal values (Connell, 2008; Miller & Mullins, 2009). Furthermore, the absence of gender within official policy and discourse has arguably served to neutralise the social division of gender, as well as the unequal power relations and structural inequalities emanating from it to the extent that those delivering and facilitating RJ interventions do not take cognisance of gender subjectivities within RJ practice. Therefore, the gender-neutral construction of RJ (re)produces and exacerbates manifestations of unequal power relations and inequality for girls who are already marginalised, within a male-dominated youth justice system. This may be perceived as a failure to recognise the reality and representation of girls’ subjugated knowledge and the need to embed this knowledge, and their truth, in RJ policies and practices.

Reintegrative or Disintegrative Shaming? The theoretical links suggested between shame, stigma and the social construction of gender highlight that girls’ experiences of shame as part of a RJ conference may not only be experienced in relation to their offending against the law, but also in relation to their offending against expectations of femininity. Efforts to reintegrate an individual, with a spoiled identity, into their community become tarnished due to the existing stigma. As RJ conferencing is supposed to focus only on the young person’s offending behaviour (Young & Goold, 1999), transgressions of femininity are not addressed during the proceedings. Thus, the opportunity to make amends for such transgression and to remove the stigma attached to their identity is not provided. Therefore, their experience of shame, during the RJ conference, functions to exacerbate their stigmatised identity, resulting in feelings of shame intensified by stigma. This argument challenges the extent to which reintegration can be achieved for girls, as their offending behaviour is inextricably linked to the stigma associated with their transgressions of gender norms and expectations. ‘Apology, forgiveness and reconciliation’ are required for RJ conferencing to successfully meet the aims of reintegrative shaming theory (Johnstone, 2011, p.  109). If the conference does not achieve these

158 

J. Hodgson

requirements then the shame the offender is subject to is likely to be ‘disintegrative’, resulting in a process of stigmatisation rather than reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 55). For girls participating in a RJ conference with a stigmatised identity, their stigma prevents their reintegration. This is because the conference is focused only on the offence committed and the stigma applied to their identity for transgressions of ‘acceptable’ femininity are not addressed. As such, the process of shaming girls for their offending behaviour is likely to emerge as ‘disintegrative’ (ibid., p. 55) as their spoilt identity remains. The purpose of the girls’ participation in the RJ conference is to provide an opportunity for them to make amends for their offending behaviour and repair the harm caused (Marshall, 1999). As discussed, RJ discourse and practitioners’ perspectives assert that RJ interventions should focus exclusively on the offence concerned. However, some of the girls’ narratives indicated that they did not understand that the focus of the conference was exclusively on their offence and thus they perceived the conference as an experience which denounced their entire identity. Wallis (2014) discusses how eliciting shame may become problematic for those who experience it. Furthermore, he discusses how there is the opportunity for practitioners or participants to neglect to acknowledge the distinction between deploring an individual’s behaviour rather than their identity (ibid.). As discussed in Chap. 3, girls’ lives are replete with stigma, most prominently due to how gender is stratified in a way which positions femininity as devalued in comparison to masculinity, resulting in an inferior social status and increased levels of sexism, social control and violence against women (Manne, 2017; Renzetti, 2018). Given the likelihood that girls may already be stigmatised due to their devalued and subordinate status within society, they will be unable to differentiate the stigma relating to their offending from the stigma connected to the subordinate social status of being female. The argument being that girls will not understand that it is just their offending behaviour that is being denounced during a RJ conference, and instead interpret the conference as an attack on their entire identity. Thus, if girls are unable to understand that the RJ conference is focused only on their offending then their experiences of shame will be inherently connected to the stigma they experience for

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

159

transgressing dominant discourses of femininity. In this context their experience of shame during a RJ conference will be inextricably connected to the exercise of patriarchal power and social control.

 he Gendered Nature of Shame T and Restorative Justice It has been established that shame is an emotion which plays a central role in girls’ conformance to gender norms and expectations. It is recognised as being articulated within women and girls’ oppression and can be identified as an apparatus and informal sanction of the social control of girls (Bartky, 1990; Brown, 2007; Fischer, 2018; Mann, 2018). Furthermore, experiencing shame will often evoke memories associated with previous experiences of shame, which draws individuals into a process of recollection, triggering specific coping mechanisms, such as ‘withdrawal’, ‘avoidance’, blaming others as well as the internalisation of shame through self-blame and self-directed anger (Nathanson, 1992, p. 312). Many girls who encounter the youth justice system often do so with complex problems and prevalent experiences of victimisation and disadvantage which are often compounded by structural inequalities in relation to gender (Batchelor, 2005; Sharpe, 2015; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). There is also a propensity for girls to hold a degree of self-blame for their offending and internalise the negative reactions their offending receives from others (Alder, 2003). Therefore, feelings of shame may become associated with self-blame for offending behaviour, resulting in self-harming behaviour as an expression of such feelings (ibid.). Self-harming behaviours have been identified as a response to feelings of shame associated with traumatic events (Gold et  al., 2011; Lewis, 1992; Milligan & Andrews, 2005; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). Considering this knowledge base, the role shame plays within RJ conferences can be conceptualised in relation to the potentially harmful impact it may have upon those girls who experience it. Thus, rather than focusing on the connection between shame and desistance, as suggested by Braithwaite (1989), the connection between shame and self-harm requires greater consideration in order to ensure that there is no detrimental impact for girls who participate (Alder, 2003; Toor, 2009).

160 

J. Hodgson

The empirical data reveals that practitioners have an understanding of the connection between shame and self-harming behaviours and they demonstrated an awareness of the association between feelings of shame and experiences of trauma and victimisation. It was acknowledged that shame, experienced during a RJ conference, would evoke memories associated with previous experiences of shame. Furthermore, practitioners acknowledged that if the young person experiencing shame was subject to previous negative experiences of shame in their past, the potential for them to engage in self-harming behaviours would be exacerbated. Practitioners also suggested that girls hold a greater degree of self-blame for their offending and they would internalise shame differently to boys. Despite this acknowledgement, practitioners predominantly felt that the potential for shame to have a negative impact upon girls was minimal and RJ conferences were a suitable intervention to be used with both young female and male offenders. This was because the planning and preparation young people are engaged in prior to the conference, alongside the mandatory assessments undertaken by youth offending teams, would determine if it was appropriate for a young person to participate or not. The two main reasons practitioners gave for this claim, however, are disputed within the girls’ narratives. A number of girls indicated that they did not take part in any preparation for the conference, whilst others indicated that they engaged in minimal preparation for the proceedings. For these girls, the opportunity for practitioners to identify the potential for the conference to have a negative or harmful impact on them was reduced. Furthermore, there are also problems with relying on youth justice service assessments to determine if it is appropriate for girls to participate in a RJ conference. It could be argued that the Asset Plus assessment has the potential to inform practitioners’ decision concerning girls’ suitability to participate in a conference because it ‘encourages case managers to look for evidence of trauma … and capture issues specifically relating to the young person’s risk of serious harm’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2017, pp.  17–27). However, it cannot be guaranteed that all relevant information would be contained within that assessment. The gendered contexts of girls’ offending and discourses of gender appropriate behaviour, which are implicated within girls’ experiences within the youth

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

161

justice system, further complicate the assessments undertaken with girls (Bateman, 2017). Asset as an initial assessment tool, used to ‘determine the intensity of contact’ for girls who are subject to both statutory and diversionary community-based interventions, ‘tends to systematically overpredict risk of recidivism’ due to increased levels of vulnerability being accounted for in the Asset score (ibid., p.  301). With regard to Asset Plus, there continues to be limited contributions to literature concerning its suitability as an assessment tool used with girls who offend. However, weaknesses have been identified in terms of its limited capacity to identify trauma as well as ‘measuring different forms and levels of trauma’, despite knowledge of such experiences being ‘crucial in providing individualised support to girls’ (Fitzpatrick, 2017, p. 139). Critiques have also arisen concerning the ability of Asset Plus to accommodate ‘for the equitable participation of young people’ as well as the potential for ‘social factors and artefactual risk factors’ to become privileged explanations for the causes of youth crime, as opposed to socio-economic structural factors, due to its excessive focus on information provided with regard to social, family and personal factors (Case, 2018, p. 259). As noted in Chap. 5, the possibility that any negative experiences in girls’ formative years could remain undisclosed was not considered by the practitioners who participated in the research. Considering the potential negative implications shame can have for girls, especially in relation to self-harming behaviours and the association of shame with experiences of trauma and victimisation, this raises some very important issues around theory, policy and practice as to the appropriateness of subjecting girls to RJ conferencing.

Agency, Resistance and Power As Chaps. 4 and 5 indicated, the girls in this study experienced stigma on the grounds that their offending behaviour was viewed by others as a transgression of gender norms, and consequently they were stigmatised. The findings have emphasised the need to examine how stigmatisation can arise and/or operate in social contexts which are characterised by unequal relations of power. The book, thus far, has focused on how stigma

162 

J. Hodgson

can be used as a tool in which to understand the processes in which gender power attaches itself onto women and girls as means of degradation and devaluation. In this sense stigma has been conceptualised as a productive force that marks out and classifies people as a means of subjugating them (Tyler, 2020) and insights have been drawn upon in order to understand girls’ experiences of stigmatisation and the social and interpersonal consequences it has for them as well as how stigma can be used as a form of power that is pervasive in maintaining gender relations in line with hetero-patriarchal power relations. However, experiences of stigmatisation can be usefully connected to the idea of resistance or ‘shameless defiance’ (Tyler, 2020, p. 224). This concept of shameless defiance may relate to actions or subjectivities which reject or reconstruct the collective norms and values imposed upon social groups and individuals, particularly those from social divisions. For such individuals and groups their stigma becomes a resource in which to resist the negative implications of stigma and defy feelings of shame reliant on stigma power. Coined by Tyler and utilised in a discussion on the stigmatisation of the working classes, the emphasis of ‘shameless defiance’ is relevant to how the girls navigated their experiences of the RJ conference. Further, Tyler (ibid., p.  240) suggests that ‘the double-consciousness’ which arises from being stigmatised also functions as a resource for resistance. This is because it prompts the questioning of how systems of oppression, injustice and domination produce hierarchical social statuses which may otherwise be accepted and unchallenged. By conceptualising the social construction of gender as a macro-level form of power, which fuels the political economy of stigmatization an extended analysis of shame, beyond its role of reintegration, has been produced which contextualised both shame and stigma as deeply rooted within patriarchal power relations. The girls’ narratives concerning shame and stigma provide an important insight into the ways in which they can shape gender subjectivity and function as oppressive forms of power, but also how they are subject to change and reconstruction based upon individual subjectivity. Drawing upon such a conceptualisation of power it is possible to understand how power functions over girls before, during and after their participation in RJ, but also how the exercise of gendered power relations

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

163

is embodied by them as a way of exercising agency and resistance to the process of RJ. All of these modalities of power can be seen to be present in the data discussed in Chaps. 4 and 5. Such findings highlighted how the exercise of power operated over the girls in the form of silencing, shaming and stigmatising them. The findings also reveal how power is asserted by the girls as a form of resistance. Moreover, these acts of resistance and demonstrations of agency by the girls highlight the potential for the exercise of power to function as a form of ‘collective empowerment’ (Allen, 1998, p. 35). It has been argued that shame and stigma are manifested in terms of gendered power relation (Harris & Maruna, 2006) and they play a role in conformity to, and transgressions of, social norms (Brown, 2007; Tangney & Dearing, 2002). They, therefore, become an apparatus and informal sanction of the social control of girls, highlighting their capabilities to shape gender subjectivity. Gender subjectivity is embedded within micro- and macro-relations of power (Oksala, 2016). However, as argued by Radkte and Stam (1994, p.  1) ‘power is both the source of oppression in its abuse and the source of emancipation in its use’. The existence of power within social relationships provides space for resistance, as it is not owned by any group or discourse and it is present everywhere, in all relationships (Cooper, 1995). Gender discourses, which inform individual identity, are structured in relation to cultural and other institutions, which are responsible for subjectivity. These subjectivities shape how individuals perform their gender and intertwined within these gender performances are power relations. However, resistance can contest ‘patriarchal power/knowledges and challenge institutionalized silencing of alternative discourses’ (Faith, 1994, p. 61). The power relations present within RJ conferencing, which serve to shape gender subjectivity, also provide a platform in which girls can reformulate their own subjectivities. The data suggests that the girls did resist constructions of femininity and the ways in which such constructions shape their subjectivity. By providing the girls with a voice to share their own narratives they have chosen to act in a way which challenges dominant discourse. The girls’ narratives highlight that they are able to resist the narrow confines of the power brought to bear on them. By resisting RJ discourse, through the expression of alternative narratives, the girls

164 

J. Hodgson

effectively challenged the dynamics of power inherent within the process and reformulated their own subjectivities. In the context of this study, the girls presented themselves as active subjects with agency, which they utilised to empower them to define their own narratives, within the confined structures they were subjected to. The girls’ narratives can be conceptualised as embodying their capability to act and shape their own experiences, thus limiting the negative implications of the social functions of stigma and shame.

Conclusion This chapter has provided a discussion of the key themes identified within the empirical data. By integrating such theoretical insights and empirical data, an informed, reflective, critical exploration of RJ conferencing used with girls who offend has been developed. The arguments underpinning the discussion have indicated that the relationship between the social constructions of gender, stigma, shame and social control have implications for girls who participate in RJ conferencing and places them at a structural disadvantage within the process. However, this chapter has also identified the ways in which the girls have exercised agency in order to challenge the process and outcomes of RJ conferencing and in doing so have demonstrated the various ways in which they have challenged the dominant discourse around RJ. The girls’ demonstration of agency has provided a space in which to critically explore alternative narratives to dominant discourse concerning RJ conferencing, which reflect girls as active agents with the capacity to act with autonomy and exercise resistance to youth justice, and the exercise of state power. By providing a critical, feminist-informed analysis of girls’ subjective experiences of RJ conferencing and developing a theoretical discussion, which conceptualises the significance of these findings in relation to the construction of alternatives narratives of RJ discourse, this chapter has provided an insight into the contribution to knowledge this research has made. There are a number of theoretical and policy implications arising from the findings produced from this research which provide a basis for which

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

165

to argue for expansive feminist engagement with RJ principles and practices, in order to challenge the continued subjugation of girls’ experiences and the ‘muting’ of their voices from RJ discourse. These implications raise broader considerations concerning the material and lived realities of girls’ lives and the treatment of, and responses to, them. The following chapter therefore contributes to broader debates relevant to youth justice policy and literature concerning the responses to girls who offend by advocating for structural change for girls through the development of radical, anti-carceral social policy alternatives in the form of a ‘girl-wise’ penology.

References Alder, C. (2003). Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative Justice. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes, & L.  Westmarland (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical Issues (pp. 117–126). The Open University. Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking Power. Hypatia, 13(1), 21–40. Ballinger, A. (2007). Masculinity in the Dock: Legal Responses to Male Violence and Female Retaliation in England and Wales, 1900–1965. Social and Legal Studies, 16(4), 459–481. Ballinger, A. (2009). Gender, Power and the State: Same As It Ever Was? In R. Coleman, J. Sim, S. Tombs, & D. Whyte (Eds.), State (pp. 20–34). Sage Publications. Bartky, S. (1990). Shame and Gender. In S.  Bartky (Ed.), Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (pp.  83–98). Routledge. Batchelor, S. (2005). Prove me the bam!’: Victimization and Agency in the Lives of Young Women Who Commit Violent Offences. Probation Journal, 52(4), 358–357. Bateman, T. (2017). England and Wales. In S.  H. Decker & N.  Marteache (Eds.), International Handbook of Juvenile Justice (pp.  287–304). Springer International Publishing. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press. Brown, B. (2007). I Thought it was Just Me: Women Reclaiming Power and Courage in a Culture of Shame. Gotham.

166 

J. Hodgson

Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge. Case, S. (2018). Youth Justice a Critical Introduction. Oxon. Chesney-Lind, M. (2006). Patriarchy, Crime and Justice: Feminist Criminology in an Era of Backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1(1), 6–26. Connell, R.  W. (1990). The State, Gender, and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal. Theory and Society, 19(5), 507–544. Connell, R.  W. (1994). The State, Gender and Sexual Politics: Theory and Appraisal. In H. L. Radtke & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/Gender (pp. 136–173). Sage Publications. Connell, R. W. (2008). Gender and the State. In K. Nash & A. Scott (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology (pp. 117–126). John Wiley and Sons. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. Scribners. Cooper, D. (1995). Power in Struggle, Feminism, Sexuality and the State. Open University Press. Daly, K. (2003). Restorative Justice the Real Story. In E.  McLaughlin, R.  Fergusson, G.  Hughes & L.  Westmarland, (Eds.), Restorative Justice Critical issues (195–214). Milton Keynes: The Open University. Evans, D., Gruba, P., & Zobel, J. (2014). How to Write a Better Thesis (3rd ed.). Springer. Faith, K. (1994). Resistance: Lessons from Foucault and Feminism. In H.  L. Radtke & H.  J. Stam (Eds.), Power/Gender (pp.  36–66). Sage Publications. Fischer, C. (2018). Gender and the Politics of Shame: A Twenty-First-Century Feminist Shame Theory. Hypatia, 33(3), 371–383. Fitzpatrick, C. (2017). What Do We Know About Girls in the Care and Criminal Justice Systems? Safer Communities, 16(3), 134–143. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Oxford University Press. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall. Gold, J., Sullivan, M. W., & Lewis, M. (2011). The Relation Between Abuse and Violent Delinquency: The Conversion of Shame to Blame in Juvenile Offenders. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(7), 459–467. Harris, N., & Maruna, S. (2006). Shame, Shaming and Restorative Justice: A Critical Appraisal. In D. Sullivan & L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective (pp. 452–462). Routledge. HM Inspectorate of Probation. (2017). The Work of Youth Offending Teams to Protect the Public. HM Inspectorate of Probation. Retrieved September 10, 2019, from https://gallery.mailchimp.com/

6  Deconstructing Dominant Discourse: Conceptualising… 

167

Hodgson, J. (2020). Offending Girls and Restorative Justice: A Critical Analysis. Youth Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225420967751 Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice, Ideals, Values and Debates (2nd ed.). Oxon Willan Publishing. Kim, H. J., & Gerber, J. (2012). The Effectiveness of Reintegrative Shaming and Restorative Justice Conferences: Focusing on Juvenile Offenders’ Perceptions in Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(7), 1063–1079. Lewis, H. B. (1971). Shame and Guilt in Neurosis. International Universities Press. Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The Exposed Self. The Free Press. Lloyd, G. (1984). The Man of Reason. 'Male’ and 'Female’ in Western Philosophy. Methuen and Co. Manion, J. (2003). Girls Blush, Sometimes: Gender, Moral Agency, and the Problem of Shame. Hypatia, 18(3), 21–41. Mann, B. (2018). Femininity, Shame and Redemption. Hypatia, 33(3), 402–417. Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. United Kingdom: Penguin Random House. Marshall, T. (1999). Restorative Justice: An Overview. Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Maruna, S., Wright, S., Van Brown, J., Merle, F., Devlin, R., & Liddle, M. (2007). Youth Conferencing as Shame Management: Results of a Long Term Follow-up Study. ARCS. Mcintosh, M. (1978) ‘The State and the Oppression of Women’, in A. Kuhn. And A. Wolpe, (eds.), Feminism and Materialism: Women and the Modesof Production, : United Kingdom. pp 254-289. McNay, L. (2000). Gender and Agency Reconfiguring The Subject in Feminist and Social Theory. Polity Press. Miller, J., & Mullins, C.  W. (2009). The Status of Feminist Theories in Criminology. In F. T. Cullen (Ed.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 217–250). Transaction Publishers. Milligan, R.  J., & Andrews, B. (2005). Suicidal and other Self-Harming Behaviour in Offender Women: The role of Shame, Anger and Childhood Abuse. The British Psychological Society Journal, 10(1), 13–25. Nathanson, D. L. (1992). Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex and the Birth of the Self. Norton and Company. Oksala, J. (2016). The Microphysics of Power. In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory (pp.  472–489). Oxford University Press.

168 

J. Hodgson

Radtke, H. L., & Stam, H. J. (1994). Introduction. In H. L. Radtke & H. J. Stam (Eds.), Power/Gender (pp. 1–14). Sage Publications. Renzetti, C.  M. (2018). Feminist Perspectives. In W.  S. DeKeseredy & M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Critical Criminology (2nd ed., pp. 74–82). Routledge. Scheff, T. (2000). Shame and the Social Bond: A Sociological Theory. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 84–99. Sharpe, G. (2015). Re-imagining Justice for Girls: A New Agenda for Research. Youth Justice, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225415570358 Sjoberg, L. (2008). Reduced to Bad Sex: Narratives of Violent Women from the Bible to the War of Terror. International Relations, 22(1), 5–23. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing reoffending by ex-prisoners. Social Exclusion Unit. Tangney, J. P., & Dearing, R. (2002). Shame and Guilt. Guilford Publications. Toor, S. (2009). British Asian Girls, Crime and Youth Justice. Youth Justice, 9(3), 239–254. Tyler, I. (2020). Stigma: The Machinery of Inequality. Zed Books. Wallis, P. (2014). Understanding Restorative Justice, How Empathy Can Close The Gap Created By Crime. Policy Press. Young, R., & Goold, B. (1999). Restorative Police Cautioning in Aylesbury: From Degrading to Reintegrative Shaming Ceremonies? Criminal Law Review, 126–138.

7 Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology

Introduction The arguments raised within this book, concerning shame, stigma and the exercise of patriarchal power form part of a much broader set of issues concerning the treatment, responses and representations of girls within society. As discussed in previous chapters, these issues relate more broadly to the problematic role of the heteropatriarchal state and its actors in the production and enforcement of inequality in terms of gender, race, class, sexuality and (dis)ability. This chapter therefore situates the structural inequalities and social injustice which disproportionately affect girls and young women, by virtue of age and gender, (notwithstanding those who experience additional social divisions of class, ethnicity, disability or sexuality) at the centre of debate and discussion. It intends to contribute to broader debates relevant to youth justice policy and literature concerning the responses to girls who offend. The chapter first critically considers the potential for ‘engendering’ RJ and the role shame occupies in relation to RJ practice. The chapter then moves on to advocate for radical micro- and macro-change for girls in the youth justice system through the development of a ‘girl-wise’ penology, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_7

169

170 

J. Hodgson

underpinned by an anti-carceral feminist response to the injustices they experience at the hands of the penal estate and beyond. Centred upon social policy alternatives, which are committed to radical and transformative change in responding to girls in conflict with the law, the ‘girl-wise’ penology framework introduced in this chapter builds upon the progressive and radical arguments for a ‘woman-wise’ penology put forward by Pat Carlen in 1990 (Carlen, 1990). Focusing on the relative absence of radical feminist responses from existing literature concerning girls embroiled in the youth justice system, the contributions from this chapter are intended to directly address the need for a radically informed shift in the existing treatment of, and responses to, girls in the justice system. The arguments presented form part of a broader discussion which contributes to the established and emerging arguments concerning abolitionist alternatives to state responses to criminalised women and girls and the subsequent injustices to which they are subject. The intention is to build upon abolitionist perspectives on injustices with a specific focus on the ways in which such arguments would extend to girls to improve the material and lived realities of their lives.

(En)gendered Restorative Justice The arguments presented in the book thus far have emphasised the problematic, and potentially harmful, nature of the gender-blind RJ practices used with girls and young women in the youth justice system. The findings generated pose the question of whether an engendered version of RJ would be sufficient to address problems raised with regard to the use of RJ interventions with girls involved in the youth justice system. Addressing the question of what an engendered version of RJ would look like in practice is, however, not solely concerned with making changes to the operational components of RJ assessments such as training, preparation and assessments. RJ must endeavour to respond to, and engage with, the struggles for social justice that girls who enter the youth justice system are faced with. This means accounting for power, resistance and subjectivity,

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

171

whilst recognising how each of these issues intersect and transgress from wider patriarchal society, into the RJ arena. Phoenix (2016, p.  135) contends that given the social, economic, ‘material and cultural’ inequalities, which feature prominently in the lives of those who form part of social divisions based upon gender, race, class, sexuality and disability, ‘the ideals of justice are not capable of being realised’. Young people are already subject to structural inequalities by virtue of age and these inequalities are often compounded by experiences of ‘victimisation and criminalisation’ (ibid., p. 135). Drawing upon this argument, Phoenix suggests that contemporary responses to young people’s offending behaviour have the potential to be ‘fundamentally unjust because they target the lawbreaking behaviour of young people already marginalised by class, gender and cultural inequalities while simultaneously practising a form of radical non-interventionism regarding the crimes … committed against them’ (ibid., p. 135). Sharpe (2015, p.  9) suggests that those researching girls and justice have, despite uncovering ‘micro and macro level injustices’ experienced by girls, continued to neglect the ‘“meso-level” interactions with state education and welfare institutions and similarities and differences in their experiences of governance and control’. As such, Sharpe supports the case for a ‘more expansive feminist research agenda, one which requires a ‘reconceptualization of “justice”’ that enhances knowledge surrounding governance and control across institutional boundaries (ibid., p.  12). Furthermore, she contends there is a need to critically examine the ‘practices’ and ‘consequences’ of intervening in girls’ lives, in addition to the ways in which they are ‘defined, assessed … managed … ignored and neglected’ within and beyond the youth justice system (ibid., p. 12). It could be argued that such visions for youth justice, which recognise and respond to the structural inequalities, inherent within the lives of those it intervenes in, could address the gender-specific needs of girls participating in RJ conferences. Restoration, however, is one of the principal goals of RJ intervention and if restoration is recognised as a core principle of RJ practices used within the youth justice system then a key question which needs to be asked is: ‘what is being restored, by whom and to whom?’ (O’Mahony & Doak, 2017, p. 23). Within RJ, it is only the conflict between key stakeholders, which is responded to (Nocella,

172 

J. Hodgson

2011). Restoration in this context does not address pre-existing inequalities experienced by the victim, offender or other key stakeholders and thus may only serve to restore existing conditions of powerlessness and inequality. This issue will be considered in more detail in Chap. 8. It may be argued that the neglect of gender from RJ discourse determines the need for reform that incorporates gender-sensitive approaches to RJ. However, due to the extent to which the structural inequalities in relation to social divisions of gender, race, class, ethnicity, disability and sexuality continue to shape the social world and individual experiences within it, the practical transference of gender-sensitive approaches into RJ policy and practice is not straightforward. This is because the current arrangement of society, established upon a hetro-patriarchal order creates a number of challenges and contradictions relating to the structural and material conditions affecting girls’ lives that gender-sensitive approaches are restricted in their ability to resolve. The crucial problem being that the principles upon which gender-specific provisions for girls are based, specifically ‘healthy relationships’, ‘self-esteem’ and ‘empowerment’ (Sharpe, 2015, p. 6), do not address the structural conditions which perpetuate girls’ marginalisation and oppression within society. Further to this is the argument that gender-specific programming ‘can backfire and end up supporting carceral expansion under the guise of gender-­ responsiveness’ (Musto, 2019). Thus, whilst reform to the current policy and practice underpinning the use of RJ in the youth justice system may seem the logical choice for implementing change for girls, reform, as argued by Cohen (1998, p. 110), can lead to ‘politically unsound short-term and expedient changes which leave the overall structure intact’. It is crucially important to recognise the problematic nature of incorporating changes to process and practice, without being aware of, and endeavouring to respond to, the broader structures of unequal power relations, operating within society. Restructuring power and instigating institutional and structural change is, therefore, first and foremost required in order to provoke change within the micro- and macro-levels of social life. Thus, it is contended that in order to transform the current treatment of, and responses to, girls who offend, ‘it is first necessary to critique patriarchal structures, redistribution and reconceptualisations of power’ (Malloch, 2016, p. 155).

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

173

Therefore, the central challenge to RJ is to ensure the oppression, marginalisation and disadvantage girls are subject to is recognised and responded to in an inclusive and ethnical manner. However, given the limitations of RJ interventions, as discussed within this book, it needs to be considered whether engendering gender-sensitivity within RJ practice is sufficient, whilst also questioning whether the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of justice, upon which it operates, have the capacity to achieve justice for girls. As such, it is important to consider alternatives to RJ, in order to ensure the lack of attention to the salient role gender plays in determining girls’ experiences, within RJ practice, does not obscure the harm girls endure or inflict further harm and injustice upon them.

Shame and Gendered Injustice A further point for deliberation is the role shame would occupy within an engendered approach to RJ. Chapter 2 discussed how shame is an ‘ubiquitous feature of feminine subject formation … [and] remains a central structuring feature of the lifeworld in which the becoming of women is undertaken and undergone’ (Mann, 2018, p. 403). The politics of shame is gendered and it is experienced differently by males and females (Bartky, 1990; Brown, 2007; Manion, 2003; Mann, 2018). This is because in a patriarchal society, shame is manifested in a way, which involves control and subordination through various patriarchal structures (Mann, 2018). Shame, however, is not just a gendered emotion. It also manifests differently and intersects with other social divisions such as ‘class, race, ethnicity, sexuality [and] nationality’ (Fischer, 2018, p.  371). Whilst the sample of white, working-class girls, with whom this research was conducted, does not allow for an intersectional analysis of shame in relation to race and ethnicity, the problematic and (potentially) harmful nature of shame has remained the principal concern and central focus of the critical analysis, presented theoretically and empirically within this book. Such analysis has contended that there is a relationship that persists between shame, gender, in addition to other intersectional divisions, and power. Bartky (1990) suggests that shame is ever-present within the lives of women and girls and functions, pervasively, to shape their experiences

174 

J. Hodgson

and interactions in the social world. The pervasive nature of shame implies that it is a relentless and unwavering ‘affective attunement’ interconnecting between female subjectivity and the social world (ibid., p. 85). Mann (2018, p. 409), however, distinguishes between two types of shame, ‘ubiquitous’ shame and ‘unbounded shame’. The first is a ‘shame-status that attaches to the very fact of existing as a girl or woman, or of having a female body’ whereas ‘unbounded shame … is a thick, relentless, engulfing shame—often catalysed by a shame-event—that snuffs out any hope for redemption’ (ibid., p. 403). Mann contends that both are structurally situated as deep-seated features of patriarchy and social control which ‘continue to mark gendered existence in our world’ (ibid., p. 403). However, ‘ubiquitous shame is not relentless’ and there is the potential for ‘redemption’ (ibid., p. 413). This is because the ‘abject’ position females recognise themselves to be in, evokes within them an ‘aspiration to power that makes liveable … ubiquitous shame’ (ibid., p.  413). However, redemption, within a heteropatriarchal society, is dependent upon male power, privilege and ‘desire’ and it is against these conditions that girls must struggle to achieve ‘self-worth’ (ibid., p. 414). The concept of redemption in relation to gendered shame is undoubtedly complex. The arguments made by Mann (2018) have been drawn upon as they contextualise an integral argument concerning the place of shame within an engendered approach to RJ. Given the prevailing, deep-­ rooted, systemic inequalities, emanating from the social construction of gender, inherent within a patriarchal society which privileges hegemonic masculinity over ‘emphasized femininity’ (Connell, 1987, p.  194), it becomes clear that there is no place for shame within an engendered approach to RJ. This is because for shame to function in an integrative manner, for girls, then the place it occupies within the politics of gender, control, powerlessness and oppression must be eradicated. In the current context of society, no encounter with shame can be experienced in a context isolated from gender and the harmful nature of shame will not be resolved until a holistic strategy for achieving social justice for women and girls is successful. In order to combat the regulatory and oppressive functions of shame, it is urgently necessary to ‘create the conditions for affective investments in other kinds of self-justification … so that self-­ worth and social recognition are not negotiated so intensely … through

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

175

gendered practices of risk, extortion, extraction and depletion’ (ibid., p. 415). Further to considering the place of shame within RJ, the findings presented within this book provoke further reflection with regard to whether shame can have any place in society. Due to the structural inequalities and the deeply divided social divisions of class, race, gender, age, sexuality and (dis)ability it is argued that shame will always be experienced differently, with harmful and devastating effects depending on the individual or social group experiencing it. Moreover, even if these divisions were removed there is still a convincing argument that shaming individuals would still continue to produce further harmful effects. Thus, ultimately it is argued that shame does not have a place within an engendered version of RJ or society itself. The chapter will now move on to advocate for a radical reconceptualisation in policy response to offending girls, informed by feminist praxis, which constitutes a reframing of youth justice intervention for girls, through the development and application of a ‘girl-wise’ penology.

Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology As Carlen (1990) recognises, the situation of women (and girls) must be understood within the larger social context of neo-liberal penality and structures of power more broadly. The current economic position of working-class families has plummeted, creating greater pathways to offending and criminalisation. Instead of being recognised as a product of deteriorating social conditions, young people are being brought into the remit of the youth justice service through policy and intervention which emphasises individual responsibility (Phoenix & Kelly, 2015). Meanwhile structural inequalities and violent forms of austerity continue to be unchallenged as a consequential factor of their offending behaviour. Like Carlen, this chapter focuses on radical change which is concerned with the criminalisation of a small number of youth justice involved girls, who have experienced social, economic and structural disadvantage and victimisation. As such, the chapter ultimately demands the abolition of youth justice jurisprudence for girls as it currently stands. It is a demand

176 

J. Hodgson

which is developed in line with a feminist conceptualisation of justice, underpinned by a commitment to radical and transformative societal change. These implications, in addition to the material and lived realities of girls’ lives, provide a basis and rationale in which to develop a feminist praxis, which recognises and responds to their social, economic and structural disadvantage that shapes their experiences in the social world. Stanley argued (1990, p. 15) feminist praxis is a framework in which to ‘change the world not only study it’. For Stanley, feminist praxis forms part of a continuum of ‘feminist commitment’ in which ‘knowledge is not simply “knowledge what” but also “knowledge for”’ (ibid., p. 15). It is intended that this recommendation mirrors the pioneering arguments put forward by Carlen (1990, p. 109) for a ‘woman-wise penology’ that incorporates the principles of ‘remedial action’, ‘resistance’ and ‘democratic exploration’ in the treatment of women [and girls] involved in the penal system. Overall, the intrinsic aim of a ‘woman-wise’ penology was, and is, to ensure that the treatment of female offenders does not serve to exacerbate their social and structural oppression within society. These three dimensions are explored further below.

‘Remedial Action’ As Carlen (1990, p. 114) states, remedial action should repair the ‘present wrongs’ that the criminal justice system has imposed upon women. As mentioned, there are three components in which a ‘girl-wise’ penology would progressively and radically differ from the gender-responsivity which is intended to inform the very limited policy response to girls in the justice system. Firstly, ‘girl-wise’ penology challenges the ways in which gender-responsivity, developing from feminist pathways research, has been appropriated in ways which legitimate state facilitated interventions that have failed to acknowledge the systemic inequality which characterises girls’ experiences or challenge the injustice they face. Current policy and practice shaping youth justice responses to young people in conflict with the law supports their diversion away from the formal justice system (Smith & Gray, 2019). However, while this is a welcome, and to a certain extent, progressive alternative to the

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

177

straightforward criminalisation of young people seen in previous responses, this approach is far from unproblematic. Whilst it has contributed to a reduction in the number of girls criminalised, diversionary methods remain grounded in punitive interventionism. This is because, diversion, as it is currently practised, filters young people into other welfare-­based services which mirror formal youth justice intervention, as opposed to practising a form of non-interventionist diversion which keeps children and young people entirely away from contact with the youth justice system (Kelly & Armitage, 2015; Smith & Gray, 2019). What is required is a strategy for eradicating the social injustices of poverty, deprivation and marginalisation, which characterise the lives of girls who come to the attention of the youth justice system and welfare service and an erosion of the social inequality and structural determinants emanating from the social division of gender and the patriarchal system of control imposed on girls. For girls, addressing the inequity they have experienced from the penal system through remedial action is to engage in oppositional action. There are two contexts, specific to girls, in which oppositional action should be undertaken. These are the invisibility and neglect of girls and austerity. As discussed in Chap. 2, the system-wide neglect of girls is illustrated in the publication of the most recent, albeit now dated, review of the youth justice system by Charlie Taylor (2016). The review, despite recommendations, did not address the specific needs of girls separately from boys, and the government’s response to the review did not sufficiently consider the needs and experiences of girls either (Clinks, 2017). Such negligence of girls’ needs is more broadly symbolic of the forsaken position of girls throughout the youth justice landscape and the enduring lack of radical response to this issue. Moreover, high-profile reports aimed at reforming how the criminal justice system responds to women in conflict with the law, such as The Corston Report (2007) and The Female Offender Strategy (Ministry of Justice, 2018), have neglected to address issues specific to girls. Criminological scholarship which addresses the issue of girls’ invisibility continues to be scarce. Their offending pathways and the treatment of, and responses to, girls in contact with the system remain a neglected issue in relation to policy and practice. Oppositional action in relation to girls’

178 

J. Hodgson

invisibility, firstly, would be to engage in social action research into the realities of girls’ lives to gain a precise insight into the materiality of their lives. This would involve a review of girls’ position in the social, political and economic organisation of society. This would draw upon the insights from practitioners in both statutory and voluntary organisations and agencies, but most importantly, this would be taken from the subjective experiences of girls involved in the youth justice system. Such a holistic inquiry would pave way for the exploration and implementation of social change for girls and the elimination of their invisibility. The second oppositional action concerns the reversal of austerity sanctions imposed on education provision, local government funding and welfare spending. In 2019, the Social Metrics Commission found that a third of children in the UK are living in poverty, while estimated figures put forward in a research report published by The Equality and Human Rights Commission suggest that the figures for children living in poverty is set to rise to 41% by 2022 (Portes & Reed, 2018). The two-child policy, benefit sanctions against parents and reductions to social care services have meant that children continue to be subject to significantly higher risks of poverty as a result of discriminatory austerity measures introduced since 2010. Oppositional action in the context of austerity and impoverishment would mean reversing aggressive and regressive welfare reforms which have disproportionately impacted upon women and children by removing the welfare cap and increasing welfare expenditure on the most impacted categories, such as family and children, unemployment and housing. In doing so, government funding should be provided to all local authorities to reverse the impact of austerity at a local level. This is vital for girls involved in the youth justice system who are a vulnerable group with significant mental health needs and whose offending pathways are shaped by high levels of poverty and prevalent experiences of victimisation. By dismantling austerity measures and investing in impoverished communities through radical and transformative change, underpinned by feminist praxis, which explores the subjugated knowledge and experiences of girls impacted by austerity and centralising their voices in effecting social change and justice will protect them from repressive system contact.

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

179

In the context of public services austerity measures introduced since 2010 have resulted in education spending being severely reduced. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified that since 2009/2010 there has been an 8% reduction in school spending per each pupil whilst the largest cuts have been to further education and skills spending which has fallen by 12% (IFS, 2019). These cuts include the abolishment of Education Maintenance Allowance aimed at supporting young people in further education post the age of 16 with a financial incentive of up to £40 a week. The impact of this was effectively the withdrawal of educational support for those who come from poor and impoverished families (Kingston & Webster, 2015). Despite cuts to education services many children still benefit from education or training in schools. However, for many girls involved in the youth justice system whose backgrounds are blighted by prevalent experiences of victimisation, mental health problems, substance misuse, poverty and the threat and use of violence against them, do not attend school (Sharpe & Gelsthorpe, 2015; Taylor, 2016). Greater inclusion in education made possible by the reversal of austere education spending has the potential to achieve positive change for girls in terms of breaking cycles of poverty and social exclusion but also providing a space for conscious raising and collective empowerment. The current austerity measure impacting education provision is a critical issue for every child and young person, however for those who are already struggling and require additional support and opportunities, such resources are missing. Ensuring the safety net of education is crucial for girls involved in the justice system and dismantling the fiscal policies imposed on education spending is a vital component of remedial action in order to achieve a radical and transformative change for girls. A further point to make, in terms of ensuring girls inclusion in schools, is the need to challenge youth masculinities in schools. Schools are places where ‘“masculinity-making” appears both explicit and abundant’ (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 1996, p. 52). This process occurs within peer-group relationships, sports, the curriculum and teacher relationships (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 1996; Martino, 1999). As argued by Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (1996, p. 80) there is a need to ‘critically examine’ and reconceptualise the (re)production of hegemonic

180 

J. Hodgson

masculinities in schools ‘in order to destabilize the assumed naturalness and inevitability of the sex/gender schooling regimes’. Therefore, dismantling the school as a site for the production of masculinities is vital because if this is not achieved any attempt at conscious raising and collective empowerment for girls would be undermined. By facilitating a massive discursive shift in terms of the social construction of hegemonic masculinities in schools would enable safe and protective spaces in school in which conscious raising and collective empowerment can occur.

‘Resistance’ Following Carlen (1990, p. 144) the strategy of ‘resistance to penal or other regulatory measures based on essentialised stereotypes of gender’ forms a vital component of  a ‘girl-wise’ penology. In recognising and responding to girls through remedial action which counteracts their relegation to the peripheries of criminological, and specifically youth justice discourse, it is also important to acknowledge girls’ demonstrations of resistance and agency and the need to provide a salient space in which they can challenge and make recourse to alternative discourse, which positions them as active agents who possess the power to shape and define their own lives. The emphasis here is that the marginalisation of girls’ unique experiences at the hands of the carceral state is not a complete process. The state’s definition of reality has not achieved hegemony. There are opportunities for contesting injustices against girls, including resistance to tokenistic change that appropriates feminist values but ultimately serves to maintain powerlessness and embed gender inequality. Embodying and enabling ‘resistance’ in the context of a ‘girl-wise’ penology would comprise of challenging criminological discourse and youth justice policy and practice which responds to girls through responsibilisation strategies that position them as full agents, whilst simultaneously denying them their full agency through intervention which emphasises ideals of femininity and moral integrity and at the same time isolating their offending from the broader structural inequalities which are pivotal to the forms of oppression and victimisation girls experience. In this context resistance would involve providing a voice to girls in

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

181

relation to matters which are of significance to them and an opportunity to participate in the shaping of their experiences and simultaneously challenging the ways in which essentialised stereotypes of femininity, inherent within constructed dominant discourses of femininity, shape the governance of girls. By providing girls with a voice to share their own narratives and subjectivities a space can be provided where the confines of power brought to bear on them can be resisted and alternative narratives which challenge the exercise of patriarchal power and the formal and informal mechanisms of social control to which they are subject can be produced.

‘Democratic Exploration’ Following Carlen, the final component of a ‘girl-wise’ penology is engaging in democratic exploration in order to respond to the current material and lived realities of girls’ lives as they currently stand. Current youth justice jurisprudence has not been effective in offering protection to girls from gendered social control, further trauma, distress and injustice. For example, removal from homes, placement in secure accommodation and referrals to statutory welfare services have all been critiqued on the grounds that they deny girls due process of law, infringe their rights and are often underpinned by subtle mechanisms of social control which, intentionally or unintentionally, contribute to the gendered oppression of girls (Fitzpatrick, 2017; Sharpe, 2012; Tosouni, 2019). As such, democratic exploration advocated by Carlen would consist of exploring the ways in which girls live and exist and develop a comprehensive consideration of how to accommodate the needs of girls and work with them across a range of different subject positions. As such, this would include democratic exploration of ways to support lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex and cisgender girls, those who are part of Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups, those who are looked after by the local authority, those who are mothers and those who are carers. Such arguments for democratic exploration within a ‘girl-wise’ penology framework build upon arguments put forward by Musto (2019, p.  37), who advocates for ‘transing critical criminology’ in order to

182 

J. Hodgson

‘challenge dominant criminological frameworks … [and] unsettle binary accounts of gender, harm, justice and punishment’. Focusing on the reformulation of critical criminology provides the opportunity to centralise ‘trans frameworks including transgender, transnational and transformative feminist perspectives’ which draw upon a vivid body of research that contributes to disrupting the constructed labels of ‘crime’, ‘offender’, ‘victim’ and ‘women’ in order to conceive an alternative discourse of justice built upon radical, anti-carceral thought (ibid., p. 38). Democratic exploration, as part of a ‘girl-wise’ penology should focus on how ‘liberal versions of feminism have been revivified through neoliberal ideology and attendant policies that have accompanied its ascent in all facets of economic, political, and social life’ (Musto, 2019, p. 40). In this context, such democratic exploration should be based on anti-­carceral feminist alternatives to gender-responsive policies underpinned by liberal feminism. As discussed in Chap. 2, gender-specific programming, principles and practices are not viable in constituting transformative change for girls embroiled in the justice system. This is because, when seen through an abolitionist and feminist lens, they do not contribute to structural or transformative change and instead enable the expansion and reinforcement of the formal and informal punishment of girls both inside and outside of the state. Further to this, democratic exploration should focus on strategies of ‘decarcaration’ built upon feminist praxis that resists harm, injustice and violence and recognises the intersectional experiences of all victims and survivors harmed by the heteropatriarchal state, its institutions, policies and practices (ibid., p. 49). The three principles outlined above are not new and there are many professionals, practitioners and academics already utilising the principles of remedial action, resistance and democratic exploration to provide innovative and improved experiences for women and girls in the criminal and youth justice system. The values and practice underpinning them could be used as a starting point to envision the eradication of youth justice involvement for girls entirely. It is to the question of abolition that the chapter now turns.

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

183

Towards Abolition? Given the very small number of girls who offend, in conjunction with the various social and penal injustices which characterise the lives of this group of girls, the strategy set out below offers an opportunity to envision the practical realities of abolitionism in the context of youth justice. This abolitionist strategy, and the policies and practices which flow from this strategy, would replace the youth justice jurisprudence for girls in conflict with the law, through a programme which recognises, and endeavours to respond to, the social injustice to girls who enter the youth justice system are faced with. Importantly, this would involve prioritising the issues of power, agency and subjectivity, whilst also recognising how each of these intersect with the wider functions of patriarchal state power. The chapter will now set out a strategy for the abolition of youth justice involvement in girls’ lives and the development of anti-carceral, ‘girl-­ wise’, justice. At the centre of this strategy is the development of a holistic package of support for girls which takes account of the material circumstances of their lives and connects their lived experiences to their offending and the opportunity for transformative change. Following Angela Davis’ call for ‘abolitionist alternatives’ to radically transform the criminal justice system such a strategy would require a ‘continuum of alternatives’ (2011, p. 106). Firstly, this would involve the removal of youth justice intervention for girls, as such the current wrongs perpetrated by the system would be eradicated. In practical terms this would mean interventions that would combine recognising the social, structural and personal causes of girls’ offending with the disapproval of their offence. The dismantling of ‘carceral protection’ strategies (Musto, 2016, p. 41) and the ‘redirection of resources’ (Sim, 2009, p. 144) towards specific services for young women, Black, Asian and minority ethnic young women, LGBTQ+ young women as well as psychotherapeutic services for young women, underpinned by anti-carceral feminist praxis, is a crucial component of such abolitionist informed alternatives. As such, girls should be supported through non-punitive measures of reconciliation and integration schemes. The primary goal of these measures should be the reinvigoration of education not just within school but

184 

J. Hodgson

within community and recreational spaces. This would include continued access to a national health service that is adequately funded and equally distributed with an emphasis placed on ensuring high-speed straightforward access to mental health care and access to reconciliation programmes, all of which should recognise racial and class-based disparities as well as other structures of heteropatriarchal domination. In a practical context, this would require a reversal of the current austerity measures which, as noted above, currently plague the most marginalised and vulnerable within society and the deployment of professionals who are effectively trained and committed to instigating structural change for girls, transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. In the current system of youth justice, the impact of risk management, responsibilisation and the continued conditions of austerity have meant that the extent to which youth justice practitioners have the capacity to instigate structural change for these groups of individuals is significantly limited. With relevant training, youth justice practitioners currently working with them could be redeployed into alternative roles as part of a ‘girl-wise’ justice programme. Ultimately, education, health and social justice should be placed at the centre of such a progressive programme, with such provision being underpinned by a feminist praxis which creates a space for girls’ voices and experiences to be heard, whilst recognising and endeavouring to respond to the ways in which girls’ offending, victimisation and state responses to these experiences are, as noted above, inherently shaped by gendered relations of power. It is argued that such feminist-informed social policy would mobilise structural and systemic reform of the ways in which girls are currently treated in the context of criminal justice policy. Such radical reform would centralise a rhetoric of resistance and collective action to social injustice perpetrated by the state and empower girls by making gender and their individual experiences a visible factor responded to by social policy intervention. There are two final issues linked to this abolitionist strategy which are central to envisioning radical and transformative social change for girls. First, there is the issue of the ‘politics of safety and protection’ (Sim, 2019, p. 246) and second is the politics of masculinity.

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

185

The Question of Safety and Protection For abolitionists, safety emerges ‘at the level of everyday experience’ (Brown & Schept, 2017, p. 448) and is understood as a ‘product of structural transformation and is collective at its core’ (ibid., p. 449). It ‘is not simply about those who have harmed or been harmed, but a movement beyond disciplinary neoliberal frames of responsibilisation and internalisation to community and state accountability’ (ibid., p. 449). Brown and Schept (2017, pp. 454–459) argue for a reconceptualization of safety focused on ‘insurgent safety’ that makes ‘visible structural violence’. Developed by McDowell (2019, p.  56) ‘insurgent safety is aligned with the broader projects of penal abolition and transformative justice’ where oppression and systems of domination are abolished and notions of safety are pushed beyond the ‘harmful and harm-inducing affects, ethics, and practices of the carceral State’. Such a reconceptualization of safety, Brown and Schept (2017) argue, requires discourses of justice to be reconceptualised outside of the dominant discourse of punishment. Instead, new discourses should be connected to social issues that are joined ‘inextricably to individual and collective safety from all violence, including the violence of precarity and the violence of the state—then we may begin to imagine new ways of addressing our need’ (ibid., p. 450). Building upon the arguments of Brown and Schept, Sim (2020, p. 26) further challenges the dominant discourses of safety and protection which have become inextricably connected to the discourses of crime and criminal justice through connecting issues of health, safety and protection experienced by all marginalised social groups ‘across the social landscape’. He argues that by connecting the politics of safety and protection across marginalised social groups who have experienced harm and injustice ensures that these experiences are ‘not treated as forms of individualised abnormality but as a normal outcome of the state’s failure to offer even a modicum of protection to those at the bottom of the ladder of inequality’ (Sim, 2021, p. 118). As such, the lack of safety and protection afforded to girls in the criminal justice system should be connected to the lack of safety girls experience on the streets. This would include, for

186 

J. Hodgson

example, connecting the high incidences of self-harm for girls in the children and young person’s secure estate (see Ministry of Justice, 2021) to the increasing incidents of young women’s self-harm resulting from poverty and debt (Agenda, 2020). Within dominant, neoliberal discourse, issues of safety, accountability and protection have become conflated with the individualising and responsibilising notions of crime and criminal justice (Brown & Schept, 2017). For girls, embroiled in the justice system, state institutions do not provide safety and protection for them. Instead, as Brown and Schept (ibid., p.  449) have argued, the state prioritises the distribution of resources towards criminal justice and away from ‘education, health care, employment, and, ultimately, safety’. Conceptualising harm and safety outside of the discourse of justice means ensuring safety for all women and girls. Therefore, what is required is resistance to the exercise of patriarchal state power and control that is fuelled by a radical transformation of the structural conditions which produce and perpetuate the harm and injustice all girls are subject to. For girls this would seek to provide them with safety and protection outside of the dominant discourse of penal justice, at an everyday level, which protects them from abjection, shame, stigma, subjugation, exclusion and gender-based physical and sexual violence.

Masculinity As Chap. 3 noted, the state plays a key role in establishing the gendered social order through policies, practices and structures that reinforce the dominant discourses of masculinity and femininity and the hierarchical relationship between both constructs. As previously emphasised, the state itself is a masculine institution that ‘both institutionalizes hegemonic masculinity’ and controls it (Connell, 2014, p. 139). Therefore, it must be considered as a systemic issue, central to the oppression and control of women and girls, which needs addressing. The institutionalisation and exaltation of masculinity within the state is discursively embedded in institutions, policies and practices that play a decisive role in people’s lives at an everyday level and therefore accounts

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

187

for the problematic and harmful nature of masculinity at an interpersonal level, which functions as a discursive and subtle form of gendered social control and oppression. Connell (1987, p. 185, cited in Ballinger, 2016, p. 28) argues that ‘the public face of masculinity … [is] what large numbers of men are motivated to support’. Of particular concern here is the politics of youth and young men’s masculinity and the impact this has on girls and young women. For Haywood and Mac an Ghaill (1996, p. 55) ‘male peer group networks are one of the most oppressive arenas for the production and regulation of masculinities’. They highlight that schools, for example, provide a ‘resource to develop masculinity’ and produce competing types of masculinity that in turn create ‘boundaries of masculinity which serve to delineate what appropriate maleness should be’ (ibid., p. 69). As masculinity is always positioned in contrast to femininity, the embodiment of masculinity has implications for girls particularly in terms of peer group relationships and adolescence. The double standard of sexuality constructed upon the discourse of hegemonic masculinity and emphasised femininity results in girls being subject to ‘abuse from boys and other girls’ (Lees, 1989, p. 19). This is illustrated, for example, through language and the use of terms such as ‘slag’ and ‘whore’ which serve ‘as a form of generalised social control … steering girls, in terms of both their actions and their aspiration, into the existing structures of gender relations’ (ibid., p. 21). It is these interpersonal and structural processes and impact of young men’s masculinity discussed above which plug into and reinforce the gender oppression of girls. As Connell and Messerschmidt note, masculinities ‘are subject to change’ and reconstruction (2005, p. 835) and that it is ‘men’s and boys’ practical relationships to collective images or models of masculinity … that is central to understanding gendered consequences in violence, health and education’ (ibid., p. 841). Therefore, the social construction and embodiment of masculinity is a further factor which requires consideration if there is to be a radical change to girls’ lives and a transformation of the current social conditions. This change should focus on reconstructing and broadening the discourse on masculinity, targeted particularly towards developing alternative forms of youth masculinity and how it is embodied in particular spaces such as the school,

188 

J. Hodgson

the family and the street. As hegemonic masculinity is always positioned in relation to women (and subordinate forms of masculinity) of further importance to the development of alternative forms of youth masculinity is also the deconstruction of ‘emphasized femininity’ (Connell, 2014, p. 190). As Connell notes, this form of femininity is compliant with subordination and ‘is orientated to accommodating the interests and desires of men’ (ibid., p. 191). Broadening the discourse on ‘emphasized femininity’ and engaging in ‘forms of non-compliance’ (ibid., p. 191) would serve to reshape the way major social institutions, including the criminal justice system, respond to girls and women.

Conclusion The approach to a ‘girl-wise’ penology outlined in this chapter indicates the principles, strategies and demands which should replace the criminal injustice girls in conflict with the law experience with strategies of social justice, informed by an anti-carceral feminist logic and feminist-inspired discourses of justice. Through the exploration of feminist anti-carceral strategies and policies that need to be in place to prevent girls from being subject to further injustice, the chapter has highlighted that the injustices girls face at the hands of the criminal and youth justice system, as discussed in Chap. 3, are profoundly connected to their structural position within patriarchal society. This emphasises the need to link the gendered experiences of harm, control, marginalisation and oppression which shape girls’ and women’s experiences in the social world to the everyday injustices exercised by the state. By highlighting these experiences of oppression and injustice resulting from youth justice interventions and state power more broadly, the chapter has carved a space in which to argue for a new framework which abolishes the current youth justice governance of girls who offend and replace it with new social policies that eliminate the harms that girls in the current system continue to endure. As such the development and application of a ‘girl-wise’ penology, informed through feminist praxis and focused upon the need for remedial action, resistance and democratic exploration provides a unique and progressive space in which the rights

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

189

and protection of girls can be secured and placed at the centre of progressive social policy, thereby eliminating the systemic social harms experienced by girls inside and outside of the criminal justice system.

References Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. (2020). Often Overlooked: Young Women, Poverty and Self-Harm [Online]. Agenda Alliance for Women and Girls at Risk. Retrieved July 21, 2021, from weareagenda.org Ballinger, A. (2016). Gender, Truth and State Power, Capitalising on Punishment. Routledge. Bartky, S. (1990). Shame and Gender. In S.  Bartky (Ed.), Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (pp.  83–98). Routledge. Brown, B. (2007). I Thought it was Just Me: Women Reclaiming Power and Courage in a Culture of Shame. Gotham. Brown, M., & Schept, J. (2017). New Abolition, Criminology and a Critical Carceral Studies. Punishment & Society, 19(4), 440–462. https://doi. org/10.1177/1462474516666281 Carlen, P. (1990). Alternatives to Women’s Imprisonment. Open University Press. Cohen, S. (1998). Against Criminology. Routledge. Connell, R. (2014). Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Polity Press. Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J.  W. (2005). Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and Power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Polity Press. Corston, J. (2007) The Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. Home Office. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from www.clinks.orgs Davis, A. (2011). Are Prisons Obsolete. Seven Stories Press. Fischer, C. (2018). Gender and the Politics of Shame: A Twenty-First-Century Feminist Shame Theory. Hypatia, 33(3), 371–383. Fitzpatrick, C. (2017). What Do We Know About Girls in the Care and Criminal Justice Systems? Safer Communities, 16(3), 134–143.

190 

J. Hodgson

Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (1996). Schooling Masculinities. In M. Mac an Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding Masculinities: Social Relations and Cultural Arenas (pp. 50–60). Open University Press. Institute for Fiscal Studies. (2019). 2019 Annual Report on Education Spending in England. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from ifs.org.uk/publications/ Kelly, L., & Armitage, V. (2015). Diverse Diversions: Youth Justice Reform, Localized Practices, and a ‘New Interventionist Diversion’? Youth Justice, 15(2), 117–133. Kingston, S., & Webster, C. (2015). The Most ‘Undeserving’ of All? How Poverty Drives Young Men to Victimisation and Crime. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 23(3), 215–227. Lees, S. (1989). Learning to Love: Sexual Reputation, Morality and the Social Control of Girls. In M.  Cain (Ed.), Growing Up Good (pp.  19–37). Sage Publications. Malloch, M. (2016). Justice for Women: A Penal Utopia, Justice, Power and Resistance, Foundation volume, pp. 151–169. Manion, J. (2003). Girls Blush, Sometimes: Gender, Moral Agency, and the Problem of Shame. Hypatia, 18(3), 21–41. Mann, B. (2018). Femininity, Shame and Redemption. Hypatia, 33(3), 402–417. Martino, W. (1999). ‘Cool Boys’, ‘Party Animals’, ‘Squids’ and ‘Poofters’: Interrogating The Dynamics and Politics of Adolescent Masculinities in School. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 239–263. McDowell, M.  G. (2019). Insurgent Safety: Theorizing Alternatives to State Protection. Theoretical Criminology, 23(1), 43–59. https://doi. org/10.1177/1362480617713984 Ministry of Justice. (2018). Female Offender Strategy. Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 29, August 2018, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ Ministry of Justice. (2021). Safety in the children and young people secure estate: update to December 2020 [online]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ [Accessed 23 August 2021]. Musto, J. (2016). Control and Protect: Collaboration, Carceral Protection, and Domestic Sex Trafficking in the United States. University of California Press. Musto, J. (2019). Transing Critical Criminology: A Critical Unsettling and Transformative Anti-Carceral Feminist Reframing. Critical Criminology, 27, 37–54. Nocella, A.  J., II. (2011). An Overview of the History and Theory of Transformative Justice. Peace and Conflict Review, 6(1), 1–11.

7  Towards a ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology 

191

O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining Restorative Justice, Agency and Accountability in the Criminal Justice Process. Hart Publishing. Phoenix, J. (2016). Against Youth Justice and Youth Governance, For Youth Penality. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(11), 123–140. Phoenix, J., & Kelly, L. (2015). ‘You Have to Do It for Yourself ’: Responsibilization in Youth Justice and Young People’s Situated Knowledge of Youth Justice Practice. British Journal of Criminology, 53(3), 419–437. Portes, J., & Reed, H. (2018). The Cumulative Impact of Tax and Welfare Reforms. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved April 4, 2020, from www.equalityhumanrights.com Sharpe, G. (2012). Offending Girls: Young Women and Youth Justice. Routledge. Sharpe, G. (2015). Re-imagining Justice for Girls: A New Agenda for Research. Youth Justice, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225415570358 Sharpe, G., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2015). Girls, Crime and Justice. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 49–64). Sage Publications. Sim, J. (2009). Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State. Sage Publications Ltd. Sim, J. (2019). Challenging the Desecration of the Human Spirit: An Alternative Criminological Perspective on Safety and Self-Inflicted Deaths in Prison. In P. Carlen & L. A. Franca (Eds.), Justice Alternatives (pp. 237–250). Routledge. Sim, J. (2020). The Modern Prison in a ‘Fear-Haunted World. Prison Service Journal, 250, 220–227. Sim, J. (2021). “Help Me Please”: Death and Self-Harm in Male Prisons in England and Wales. In m. Coyle, and D.  Scott, D. (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Penal Abolition (pp. 119–130). Routledge. Smith, R., & Gray, P. (2019). The Changing Shape of Youth Justice: Models of Practice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(5), 554–571. Stanley, L. (1990). Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. Routledge. Taylor, C. (2016). Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. Ministry of Justice. Tosouni, A. (2019). Gendered Injustice: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Detained Girls. Routledge. Clinks. (2017). Clinks response to the Review of the Youth Justice System in England and Wales. Available at: https://www.clinks.org/ Accessed 21st October, 2017]

8 Conclusion

Sometimes we all wish we were lads so we can go out and just do what we want for a bit. Like because we are girls we are told what to do. It’s not easy for us. It’s like girls don’t even exist anymore. It’s something I would like to speak up about because we do exist, we are still here, we are normal human beings, we are not slags, we are not dogs, and certainly we are not slappers or sluts, we are normal human beings. (Sam, 14)

Chapter 1 drew upon the pioneering work of Carol Smart to highlight the importance of feminist thought in relation to the lived realities of women and girls in the criminal and youth justice systems. In concluding this book, I refer back to Smart’s most recent revisiting of Women, Crime and Criminology in which she highlights that many of the problems highlighted in the original text ‘continue to manifest themselves today’ (Smart, 2017, p. 76). As such, Smart made clear that there remains ‘the need for ongoing and new feminist work within this broadly defined field of criminology’ (ibid.). This book has sought to broaden the scope of feminist scholarship to include a gendered critique of RJ conferencing used with girls involved in the youth justice system. In doing so, the contributions made have responded to the needs for continued feminist scholarship in the field of criminology. This book has tied RJ into the exercise of state power, the social construction of masculinity and femininity, shame, stigma, muting and resistance. The arguments presented have highlighted the ways in which gender, and the exercise of patriarchal power, shape girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. The empirical study presented has contributed towards © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0_8

193

194 

J. Hodgson

bridging the gap in knowledge, concerning gender and RJ, by drawing upon the experiences of girls who have participated in RJ conferencing. Furthermore, the book has drawn attention to the neglect, within RJ policy and practice, of girls’ experiences and the wider structural dimensions of poverty, marginalisation and victimisation. It is argued that the neglect of these experiences has resulted in RJ adopting only a one-­ dimensional, reductive understanding of their lives. What impact does dominant discourses of femininity and the social construction of gender have for girls’ experiences of participating in RJ conferencing was an important question underpinning this research study. All 15 of the girls who participated in this research study shared their experiences of participating in RJ conferencing. Each of these girls have unique life histories and experiences that they carried with them into the RJ conference, and thus, it is important that their narratives and experiences are not homogenised. However, common themes did emerge from their narratives. For example: many of the girls internalised the RJ conference as a negative experience, they felt they were not given the opportunity to share their own narratives with regard to the offence, they felt victimised by the process and they were unable or unwilling to make amends with the victim. Shame, stigma and resistance emerged as dominant themes amongst their experiences, and these themes have been integral in understanding the role dominant discourses of femininity and gendered factors play in girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing and they underpin the feminist critique of RJ presented in this book. Chapter 2 drew attention to how changes to youth justice policy and practice have consistently resulted in gendered implications for girls. It highlighted that the paradigm shifts in youth justice from welfare and justice to crime prevention and risk management have had net-widening and responsibilising effects for girls and young women. However, despite the drifting trends in youth justice policy and practice, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, RJ approaches have continued to be used as a response to young people’s offending behaviour. Whilst critical themes have developed, which problematise the use of RJ interventions with young people and despite the contemporary popularity of RJ within England and Wales, little attention has been afforded to the gendered

8 Conclusion 

195

implications RJ might produce for girls involved in the youth justice system. The fact that girls’ experiences are being marginalised, by a failure to acknowledge the presence of gender within RJ practice, necessitated the need to bridge this gap in knowledge. This book is, therefore, unique in the fact that it brings to the forefront of academic inquiry the voices of girls who have, thus far, remained unheard within the context of RJ discourse. The key findings relating to shame, stigma, muting and resistance provide a salient expansion of the existing knowledge base concerning gender and RJ, highlighting the extent to which the social construction of masculinity and femininity along with stigmatisation and experiences of shame have the potential to negatively impact upon the conferencing process, resulting in differential experiences and outcomes for girls who participate but also more broadly how shame and stigma are deeply rooted in the exercise of patriarchal power which impacts girls (and women) in their everyday lives. Further to this, the findings indicate a clear disparity with regard to the rhetoric between the dominant discourse of RJ and girls’ experience and a clear lack of consideration concerning the relevance of gender and shame and to their experiences of RJ. Creating knowledge, informed by the voices of girls, has challenged the appropriateness of subjecting them to RJ conferencing. It is argued that critical and feminist scholarship must continue to draw attention to how the most powerless, poorest and neglected girls are treated by the state and focus attention on promoting and practising radical new approaches to restructure their position.

Reintegration and Restorative Justice? As noted in Chap. 1, since the 1970s RJ has been pivotal with regard to initiating support for a new paradigm of criminal justice, concentrated upon principles of restitution, reparation and reintegration, as opposed to oppressive punishment and social control (Johnstone, 2011; London, 2013; O’Mahony & Doak, 2017). Such prefixed nouns continue to remain prevalent in the discourse underpinning RJ policy and practice in contemporary society, and they frequently appear in restorative and

196 

J. Hodgson

youth justice academic discourse relating to the theoretical and philosophical foundations of RJ (Case & Haines, 2015). For example, the White Paper ‘No More Excuses’ (1997) defined the underlying principles of RJ as ‘restoration, reintegration and responsibility’. The Green Paper, ‘Breaking the Cycle’ (2010), and the ‘Time for a Fresh Start’ report published by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Antisocial Behaviour (2010) and various reiterations of Restorative Justice Action Plans have all advocated for the use of RJ in achieving ‘reparation’, ‘reintegration’ and ‘restoration’ for young people involved in the youth justice system. The appropriation of these principles of RJ into such youth justice and criminal justice policy, in addition to the extensive development and implementation of variations of RJ within the criminal and youth justice systems, highlight the extent to which RJ has been ‘institutionalized’ (Wood & Suzuki, 2016, p. 154) resulting in the delivery and facilitation of RJ interventions becoming dependent on the institutions of the criminal and youth justice systems (ibid.). This has prompted much debate concerning the extent to which the values and ideals of RJ can be achieved when it has been institutionalised into a system which functions on a rhetoric of punitive discourse and accountability for individual failure which draws in only the most marginalised, powerless and poorest people in society (Dignan, 1999; Crawford, 2002; Gelsthorpe & Morris, 2002; Phoenix, 2016). The institutionalisation of RJ provides state institutions the power to legitimise and define what restoration, in the context of RJ, means and who is able to benefit from it (Wood & Suzuki, 2016). Further to this is that the concept of harm also becomes defined by state institutions and thus only state defined harms and meanings of restoration become the focus of RJ. Therefore, the various layers of harm girls are subject to as a result of shame, stigma, processes of muting, discourses of ideal femininity, social control and the exercise of patriarchal state power are excluded from institutionalised RJ practice. These issues, explored in this book, represent some of the structural problems impacting the manifestation of RJ within state institutions in Western Society. Not only does RJ conferencing intensify such harms girls are subject to, but they also make restoration incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

8 Conclusion 

197

As noted throughout various chapters in this book, girls (and women) who are criminalised are judged as doubly deviant and they are subject to stigmatisation. This stigmatisation serves as an extension of gendered social control and produces harmful feelings of shame that are inextricably connected to socially constructed truths relating to dominant discourses of ideal femininity. The origins of these harms lie within the exercise of patriarchal power against girls and women, and the structure and operations of patriarchal society. Notwithstanding potential experiences of deprivation, poverty, exclusion and victimisation, girls are already disadvantaged and are entering a justice system having been already marginalised and excluded without full citizenship. This raises questions about what exactly rehabilitation, restoration, reintegration and ­reparation mean for those girls and young women who come from impoverished backgrounds and oppressive conditions? As Carlen argued: Confronted with economic and cultural inequalities which routinely deny ideals of justice, there is a temptation to bracket-off troubling knowledge of criminal justice’s malign underbellies, and instead talk ‘as if ’ criminal justice’s ideal of equality before the law has already been realised in its rhetoric. This ‘as if ’ talk tends to go something like this: ‘In the short-term we can’t change the system but we can devise programmes of prison reform, alternatives to imprisonment, support and help for ex-offenders etc. etc.…It’s better than doing nothing’. (Carlen, 2012a, n.p.)

However: re-integration, re-settlement or re-entry are often used instead of re-­ habilitation. Yet all of these terms, with their English prefix ‘re’, imply that the law breakers or ex-prisoners, who are to be ‘re-habilitated’/’reintegrate d’/’re-­settled’ or ‘re-stored’, previously occupied a social state or status to which it is desirable they should be returned. Not so. The majority of prisoners worldwide have, prior to their imprisonment, usually been so economically and/or socially disadvantaged that they have nothing to which they can be advantageously rehabilitated. (ibid.)

198 

J. Hodgson

In the youth justice system in England and Wales, the young people drawn into it are disproportionately from poor working-class backgrounds, are looked-after in the care of the local authority and are Black or minority ethnic children (Bateman, 2020). For many of these children their lives are abound with experiences of harm, injustice and victimisation. These experiences are also differentiated by gender. As argued by Carlen: The concept and practice of rehabilitation … is at present, almost exclusively focused upon returning the poor and powerless to their place and, by default, to returning the rich to theirs. Outside of a more inclusive social justice and a regeneration of the principle of equality before the law, rehabilitationism has no relevance. (Carlen, 2012a, n.p.)

Following Carlen’s logic, if restoration is one of the principal goals of RJ intervention, then this raises a series of questions regarding what exactly is being restored by RJ and who benefits from this restoration? What does RJ offer in terms of reintegration, restoration or rehabilitation for those young people who participate? And is it ethical to make such restoration if those who are being ‘restored’ are actually being restored into conditions of poverty, exclusion, oppression and the threat of male violence? For Carlen (2012a, n.p.), ‘the ideal of rehabilitation is played-out through different disciplinary, welfare and security ideologies and yet with always the same effect—of malignantly returning poorer and already-disadvantaged lawbreakers to their place’. Such arguments resonate with the ideology of restoration anchored to RJ. This is because RJ practices used with young people in the youth justice system continue to focus on the offending of the most marginalised, poorest and powerless young people whose inequality is exasperated further by virtue of age. Whilst at the same time they continue to separate young people’s offending and criminalisation from the ‘socio-economic, structural constraints which limit young offenders’ choices’, as a result deprivation and social exclusion (Gray, 2005, p. 955). In this context, the vision of restoration afforded by RJ can in fact be understood in terms of ‘imaginary restoration’ (Carlen, 2012b, p. 99).

8 Conclusion 

199

This concept of imaginary restoration is mirrored in Carlen’s argument that rehabilitation is a ‘penal imaginary’ (ibid.). She contends that when ‘aspirational criminal justice concepts are acted upon [such as, restorative justice] as if they can be realised without fundamental social change, they become penal imaginaries which obstruct critique’ (ibid., p.  32). Furthermore, rehabilitation as rhetoric which is enacted within policy and practice rarely results in anything other than reinforcing social injustice for the most marginalised and deprived people who break the law. Carlen’s (2012b, p. 96) analysis raises salient questions with regard to the purpose of rehabilitation and ‘who is to be rehabilitated to what?’ Therefore, if the intention of RJ is to restore something, then this implies restoration back to whatever the original state was. For girls, this original state is blighted by the social injustice, harm and structural inequality discussed throughout this book. In the context of women and girls in conflict with the law, this injustice involves both continued powerlessness and exposure to responsibilisation strategies based upon a rehabilitative discourse, which constructs them as individual failures. Subjecting girls to rehabilitative ideals, such as RJ, is therefore encouraging girls to be accountable for their own conditions of powerlessness, oppression and injustice. However, when we look at the material and lived realities of the lives of girls and young women who may or may not be involved with the criminal and youth justice system, it is clear that such conditions are not the result of individualised actions but can be understood in the context of a result of incessant oppressive conditions imposed on the least powerful within society which has produced gendered, racial, cultural and class injustice. Furthermore, where the state has failed to meet the basic needs of girls who break the law there is a compelling argument that the state does not have the right to intervene in their lives (Carlen, 1983). Therefore, not until the institutional power to punish is deconstructed and ultimately removed, RJ will not work in any meaningful way; in fact, it can be seen as a distraction from the reality of what happens to girls in the criminal and youth justice system, putting a smokescreen on the patriarchal harms they experience inside and outside of state institutions.

200 

J. Hodgson

 ddressing Gendered Injustice Through A ‘Girl-Wise’ Penology Ultimately, ‘girl-wise’ penology lies within an anti-carceral feminist response to youth justice involvement in girls’ lives. This position argues that girls who do break the law should not be required to endure further control, punishment and victimisation, but should be provided with social support and assistance, something which the state currently deprives them of. There are profound policy implications which arise from the concerns raised with regard to the position of girls in the youth justice service. Firstly, it is evident that the needs and experiences of girls who encounter the youth justice service are being relegated to the peripheries of youth justice discourse. Secondly, youth justice policy and practice has served to exacerbate gendered social control. Thirdly, echoing the recommendations put forward by Corston (2007) in relation to adult female offenders, there is a need for a radical change to the treatment of girls who offend, one which requires an overhaul of youth justice policy and practice. The adoption of a ‘girl-wise’ penology would push forward an anti-­ carceral feminist agenda and contribute towards the dismantling of the youth justice system as a fundamental contributor to the social harms experienced by children and young people. As such, this argument is not just about the development of radical alternatives to the youth justice service but following the points made by Brown and Schept (2016), discussed in Chap. 7, this anti-carceral feminist positionality is also about establishing and making radical changes which ensure safe accessibility to education, health care and employment, in addition to the disestablishment of criminal justice. This requires the deconstruction of carceral ideology and the politics of punishment to enable new ways of thinking and acting that ultimately serve to ensure the safety of girls embroiled in the justice system. Therefore, this book ultimately advocates for meaningful and structural change for girls in the youth justice system through the development of a ‘girl-wise’ penology, centred upon feminist-informed, social policy alternatives, which are committed to radical and transformative change in responding to not only girls in conflict with the law but the law in conflict with girls.

8 Conclusion 

201

References Bateman, T. (2020). The State of Youth Justice. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from http://thenayj.org.uk/ Brown, M., & Schept, J. (2016). New Abolition, Criminology and a Critical Carceral Studies. Punishment & Society, 19(4), 440–462. https://doi. org/10.1177/1462474516666281 Carlen, P. (1983). On Rights and Powers: Some Notes on Penal Politics. In D. Garland & P. Young (Eds.), The Power to Punish. Heinemann. Carlen, P. (2012a). Against Rehabilitation: For Reparative Justice. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Retrieved March 7, 2021, from www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/against-­rehabilitation-­reparative-­justicejustice Carlen, P. (2012b). Against Rehabilitation: For Reparative Justice. In K.  Carrington, M.  Ball, E.  O’Brien, & J.  Tauri (Eds.), Crime, Justice and Social Democracy (pp. 89–104). Palgrave Macmillan. Case, S., & Haines, K. (2015). Risk Management and Early Intervention: A Critical Analysis. In B. Goldson & J. Muncie (Eds.), Youth Crime and Justice (pp. 100–118). Sage Publications. Corston, J. (2007). The Corston Report: A Review of Women with Particular Vulnerabilities in the Criminal Justice System. : Home Office. Retrieved August 19, 2016, from www.clinks.orgs Crawford, A. (2002). The Prospects of Restorative Justice in England and Wales: A Tale of Two Acts. In K. McEvoy & T. Newburn (Eds.), Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice (pp. 171–207). Palgrave Macmillan. Dignan, J. (1999). The Crime and Disorder Act and the Prospects for Restorative Justice. Criminal Law Review, 48–60. Gelsthorpe, L., & Morris, A. (2002). Restorative Youth Justice: The Last Vestiges of Welfare? In J. Muncie, G. Hughes, & E. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth Justice: Critical Readings (pp. 238–253). Sage Publications. Gray, P. (2005). ‘The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and Social Control. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 938–957. Home Office. (1997). No More Excuses: A New Approach to Tacking Youth Crime in England and Wales. Home Office. Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour. (2010). ‘Time for A Fresh Start’ The Report of the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour. London: The Police Foundation. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from http://www.police-­foundation.org.uk/uploads/

202 

J. Hodgson

Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice, Ideals, Values and Debates (2nd ed.). Oxon Willan Publishing. London, R. (2013). A New Paradigm Arises. In G. Johnstone (Ed.), A Restorative Justice Reader (2nd ed., pp. 5–1). Routledge. O’Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining Restorative Justice, Agency and Accountability in the Criminal Justice Process. Hart Publishing. Phoenix, J. (2016). Against Youth Justice and Youth Governance, For Youth Penality. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(11), 123–140. Smart, C. (2017). Observations Through a Rear-View Mirror: Revisiting Women, Crime and Criminology. In H.  Monk & J.  Sim (Eds.), Women, Crime and Criminology, A Celebration (pp. 57–78). The Centre for the Study of Crime, Criminalisation and Social Exclusion and EG Press Limited. Wood, R. W., & Suzuki, M. (2016). Four Challenges in the Future of Restorative Justice. Victims and Offenders, 11, 149–172.



Appendix: Methodology

Within the UK, research which explicitly investigates young female offenders’ experiences of RJ conferencing, informed via the voices of girls themselves, is sparse. By utilising qualitative, semi-structured interviews, I attempted to address this gap in knowledge by undertaking a critical exploration of girls’ experiences of participating in RJ conferencing, through a gendered lens. Understanding the ways in which structural divisions of race, class, gender, sexuality, age and disability shape the social construction of crime and deviance is a core component to the development of critical research (Barton et al., 2010). By focusing upon structural forms of oppression such as, ‘capitalism, patriarch and neo-colonialism’ (Sim et  al., 1987, p. 5) and ‘problematizing the role and power of the state’, critical criminological research produces knowledge which centralises individual experiences and realities by locating them within the broader social and structural contexts of crime and deviance (Barton et  al., 2010, p.  29). Thus, in turn producing critical discourse focused upon state responses to offending behaviour and the ways in which such responses maintain the structural divisions of race, class and gender, through various mechanisms of social control (ibid.). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0

203

204 

Appendix: Methodology

The empirical study underpinning this book was concerned with the recognition that women and girls’ realities cannot be separated from the exercise of patriarchal state power. Critical criminological enquiry therefore requires engagement with the social division of gender as it is a central organiser of the discourse, ideologies and structures which operate within the social world, as well as being a determining variable upon which individual identity is constructed, maintained and resisted (Daly & Maher, 1998; Jarviluoma et al., 2003). Thus, critically investigating the ways in which the social construction of gender and the broader structural contexts in which gender shapes young female offenders’ experiences of RJ conferencing was a central concern in the development of this study. The epistemological assumptions underpinning this research began from the starting point that the production of knowledge should be established from the standpoint of those who are marginalised within society (Harding, 1992). It is suggested that such a methodological approach generates critical questions, which challenge the existence of privileged knowledge and in turn provides insight into subjugated knowledge (ibid.). Such epistemological assumptions provide the basis for the development of the aims of the research as follows: • To investigate the role gender plays in the relationship between RJ and young female offenders. • To question the need for gender-sensitive approaches to RJ practices used within the youth justice system. • To critically examine the role shame plays within young female offenders’ experiences of RJ. These aims are concerned with bringing the marginalised experiences of girls to the forefront of academic inquiry and producing knowledge informed from their standpoint. It is these foundational concerns which determined the feminist influenced, research methodology underpinning this study.

  Appendix: Methodology 

205

Feminist Methodology Feminist enquiry is shaped by diversity and there is no individual methodology or theoretical perspective which is unequivocally accepted as a single feminist methodology (Harding, 1987; Henwood & Pidgeon, 1995). For Mason and Stubbs (2012), feminist research is characterised by methodological and ethical concerns, theories of knowledge, the construction of the social world and political engagement, as opposed to a commitment to a particular research method. This is because it is essential for research methods to suit the research questions in order to construct knowledge which recognises how social structures and experiences impact upon individual subjectivities (Ackerly & True, 2010; May, 2011). In keeping with other social science research methodologies, feminist methodologies are distinguished as being constructed within conflicting and diverse epistemologies (Code, 2014). The epistemological positions of feminist standpoint theory, feminist empiricism and feminist post-­ modernism capture the principal distinctions of feminist epistemology (Harding, 1987). The feminist methodology utilised to inform this research is not explicitly characterised by one single methodological or epistemological approach and instead a general feminist methodological approach is adopted. Daly and Chesney-Lind (1988) list five principles that distinguish feminist perspectives from other, non-feminist perspectives. These principles rest on the recognition that ‘gender is not a natural fact but a complex social, historical and cultural product … gender and gender relations order social life and social institutions … gender relations and constructs of masculinity and femininity are not symmetrical but are based on an organising principle of men’s superiority and social and political-­economic dominance over women … the production of knowledge is gendered … and women should be at the centre of intellectual inquiry’ (ibid., p. 504). The principles listed by Daly and Chesney-Lind are regarded as a framework to inform the feminist methodological framework of this research (ibid.). The research follows these principles by centralising the marginalised voices of girls and outlining the extent to which dominant discourses of femininity, underpinned by social construction of gender and

206 

Appendix: Methodology

the exercise of power, have the potential to shape their experiences of RJ conferencing.

Feminist Epistemology and Ontology The ontological stance this research adopts is a constructivist approach to research design. Such an ontological position is concerned with subjective interpretations of individual experiences, formed through social interaction, in order to construct knowledge based upon the views of participants themselves (Creswell, 2014). The goal of such research is to construct theory and meaning inductively (ibid.). Such an ontological perspective lends itself to qualitative research as it allows participants to share their own views and enables the researcher to gather an insight into the diverse interpretations and meaning participants use to help them understand the social world (Creswell, 2014; Bryman, 2016). Drawing upon this framework, the research aimed to investigate how participants formed their own subjectivities, in relation to their experiences of RJ conferencing, and the meanings they apply to these experiences, using qualitative inquiry. This research therefore assumed a feminist influenced, interpretivist, epistemological position, due to its concern with studying girls’ lived realities and the ways in which gender influences their conceptions of knowledge. Interpretivism is an epistemological position which is concerned with looking for individual interpretations of the social world to produce ‘knowledge of the meanings that constitute the social world’ (Blaikie & Priest, 2017, p. 45). For Ballinger (2016, p. 3), feminist epistemology, made a fundamental impact on research methods due to the challenge it posed ‘to the stereotypical “scientific expert!” of value-­ neutrality and objectivity, claiming protection from political interests’. This is because it acknowledges that there are multiple ways in which knowledge can be constructed and ‘multiple perceptions of what is “true”’ (Beckman, 2014, p. 165). Feminist epistemology recognises that the social world does not operate within a fixed reality and is dependent upon how each individual constructs the world in their own view (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012),

  Appendix: Methodology 

207

thus providing unique opportunities for producing knowledge and raising new questions rooted within issues of social justice (ibid.). Such a standpoint derives from a ‘conviction that the diverse circumstances of human lives from which subjectivities are constituted are such as to contest the reductivism from which universal human sameness—and epistemic interchangeability—are presupposed’ (Code, 2013, p.  354). Therefore, the aim of feminist research is to challenge ‘contemplative spectator research’ by adopting a positionality which is ‘openly political, connected and involved in liberatory actions’ (Gringeri et  al., 2010, p. 393).

 esearch with Girls and the Feminist R Production of Knowledge Feminist research is distinguished by a desire to challenge existing constructs of knowledge and question the idea that what is true for the powerful, non-oppressed groups, in society is not necessarily true for those in society who are marginalised (Montoya, 2016). Therefore, by centralising the voices of girls and women, feminist research enables ‘alternative and richer knowledge’ to be produced (Beckman, 2014, p. 167). Producing alternative narratives to dominant RJ discourse, underpinned by the voices of girls, require appreciation, attention, and an understanding of the power of girls’ knowledge, their experiences of differential power relationships, and the ways in which their shared group and subjective experiences can be understood in meaningful ways (Ackerly & True, 2010; Fonow & Cook, 1991; Harding, 1987, 1992; Stanley & Wise, 1993). This study was, therefore, not only concerned with how the social construction of gender and the exercise of power against girls within youth justice system produce inequality but also with the exploration of girls’ subjectivities and narratives relating to their experiences of RJ conferencing. Therefore, what distinctively identifies this research as being situated within a feminist methodological framework is its focus and grounding in girls’ experiences, its focus on power relations within the research process and its commitment to building

208 

Appendix: Methodology

women-centred knowledge through qualitative research, all of which intends to reveal the reality of women and girls’ experiences and situate these experiences in the broader context of female subjectivity (Gelsthorpe, 1990; Miers, 1993; Wylie, 2012). Fonow and Cook (1991, p. 2) identify four themes characteristic of feminist research methodology, these are: ‘reflexivity, action orientation, attention to the affective components of the research and the use of situation at hand’. Reflexivity requires the researcher to critically examine, explore and reflect upon the research process (Stanley, 2012). Conscious raising encapsulates the ways in which reflexivity operates within the research process and conceptualises the relationship that exists between the researcher, the participants and the social and political structure of the research (ibid.). An action-orientated approach to feminist research is identified within the researcher’s choice of topic, theoretical framework and a desire to empower women, whilst revealing political and policy implications impacting on the structures of patriarchy within society (Fonow & Cook, 1991; Lykes & Hershberg, 2012). Attention to the ‘affective components of research’ is a feature of feminist inquiry which embraces the emotional element and impacts of feminist research, creating a relational process in which the researcher places themselves at the centre of the complexities of the participants’ social world (Fonow & Cook, 1991, p. 9). The ‘use of situation at hand’ refers to determining and discovering research opportunities in social settings as a means of producing new knowledge and theoretical advances in feminist epistemology, which can serve to broaden understandings of gender relations (ibid., p. 11). The empirical research sustained these themes identified by Fonow and Cook (1991). As a researcher, I maintained a reflective role throughout this research by recognising my role within the research process and the considerations this role presented in terms of power relations. Such considerations are revealed, in detail, later. Understanding my own positionality as a researcher enabled me to engage in knowledge building that was relational between myself and the participants. This allowed me to identify with the girls I interviewed and become unified with their own positionality and subjugated knowledge, which enhanced my emotional engagement with the research. The action-orientated approach to this

  Appendix: Methodology 

209

research is identified by my decision to undertake critical research on RJ practices used with young female offenders and the selection of the research questions which aimed to challenge existing constructs of knowledge concerning RJ discourse, informed by the voices of those who have been marginalised within society. In addition, by researching girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing, this research presented a unique opportunity to broaden understandings of how the social construction of truth relating to dominant discourses of femininity results in girls’ subjective experiences remaining fundamentally different to their male counterparts (ibid.), thus producing new knowledge through the ‘use of situation at hand’ (ibid., p. 2).

Reflexivity, Positionality and Personal Insights Stanley and Wise (1993) note that feminist epistemology identifies key concerns with regard to research methodologies which require integration into the research process. These concerns include recognising emotion as an aspect of the research process, which impacts upon the ways in which conclusions are reached, the management of conflicting realities between the researcher and the researched and the existence of power relations within research. These concerns, noted by Stanley and Wise (1993), are underpinned by the idea of reflexivity, which is an integral commitment when undertaking feminist research (Ackerly & True, 2010; Skinner et al., 2005). Reflexivity refers to the ability of the researcher to critically examine, explore and reflect upon their research by recognising ‘personal accountability … an awareness of the complex role of power in research practice’ as well as how personal attitudes, behaviours and positionality shape the research experience (Leavy & Harris, 2018, p.  104). Being reflexive is beneficial to undertaking qualitative research as it allows the researcher to identify how their own subjectivity and social and cultural positions transfer into the research process, thus enabling researchers to negotiate changes in their positionality (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012). By understanding, (re)negotiating and acknowledging their own positionality, the

210 

Appendix: Methodology

researcher is able to engage in knowledge building that is relational between the researcher and the participant (Harding, 1987). As a researcher, I was aware of my own personal standpoints and subjectivities and what role they may have played in the interview process and the nature of the relationships I developed with the girls I interviewed. I was also aware of the considerations this positionality represented in terms of my role as a researcher and the dynamics of the power relations in operation during the interview process. Due to my own personal and research standpoints I acknowledge that I occupied a role as both an insider and an outsider. My gender dictated to me my position as an insider, allowing me a personal understanding and ability to relate to the shared group experiences of girls and women (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012). I also recognised my role as an outsider, as a researcher with a research agenda (ibid.). Occupying this dual status, as an insider and an outsider, ‘requires building genuine and reciprocal relationships’ (Leavy & Harris, 2018, p. 163). My reflections on interviewing the girls, relate to concerns regarding my role as an outsider and the extent to which this inhibited the girls’ willingness and ability to share with me their lived experiences. These concerns were predominant because, for all but two of the girls, I was unable to establish a relationship or rapport with them prior to their interviews. Developing a relationship and establishing rapport is an essential part of the research process as this enables the interviewee to be comfortable in sharing their personal experiences (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Furthermore, establishing a rapport is integral in order to be able to understand and convey girls’ subjective realties of the social world (ibid.). Oakley (1981) promotes a participatory model of feminist research which emphasises the importance of the researcher sharing their identity with the participants. Despite the lack of pre-existing relationship with the girls I interviewed, I was able to establish a meaningful rapport based upon my willingness, throughout the interview process, to engage in a relational dialogue, which gave the girls an insight into my own identity and experiences. Furthermore, as I began to undertake more interviews, I came to understand that my own gender identity and age had a positive influence on the relationships I formed with the girls I interviewed.

  Appendix: Methodology 

211

Additionally, the effects and the dynamics of power relations present throughout the research process were also a fundamental point of deliberation. This initially began with regard to how I would manage and negotiate my identity as a researcher when interviewing girls who were structurally marginalised and whose voices have been institutionally and epistemologically neglected in relation to RJ discourse. As a feminist researcher, I was cognisant of my role in the hierarchies of power and control that my position represented, the impact this may have had upon the girls I interviewed and the knowledge generated from the interviews (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012; Ackerly & True, 2010). Utilising a feminist research ethic allowed me to address these points of contention by ensuring the power of girls’ knowledge was prioritised by providing them with the opportunity to share their own subjectivities during the interview process. Such a research ethic also enabled me to reflect upon my own positionality as a researcher and the ways in which this could influence the construction of knowledge formed from the interpretation of the data I collected (Harding, 1987; Miers, 1993). Furthermore, the power relations present between the practitioners and myself had clear distinctions and these distinctions need addressing reflexively. My reflections when interviewing practitioners did not reflect the same concerns I had with regard to the girls’ interviews. I feel practitioners were able to be open with me, which is evidenced in the data generated from their interviews. Prior to undertaking any interviews, a key focus of consideration was placed upon achieving, to the best of my ability, equal power relations for the participants. However, I failed to recognise the potential for unequal power relations to occur in which I was in a subjugated position as a researcher. Certain practitioners indicated that my questions were ‘hard to answer’ and I distinctively recall a number of practitioners becoming defensive when asked certain questions. Predominantly, a defensive stance was adopted when practitioners were asked about girls’ differential experiences within the youth justice service and the possibility for gender-specific implications arising for girls who participate in RJ conferencing. This, however, was not the case for all the practitioners I interviewed.

212 

Appendix: Methodology

 he Research Context: Methods, Sample T and Analysis The epistemological position adopted by qualitative research assumes a ‘naturalistic or interpretative paradigm’, which holds a commitment to ‘description, representation and reality’ of meaning and experience in the social world, informed from participants’ own subjectivities (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1995, pp. 98–99). A quantitative approach to social research adopts a ‘realist ontology’ which assumes reality to consist of ‘objectively defined facts’ (ibid.., p. 98). Quantitative methods, therefore, place an emphasis on ‘cause and effect’ and adopt a ‘hypothetic-deductive method’ to facilitate the testing of ‘prior’ theory (ibid., p. 98). Qualitative methodologies, however, accommodate ways to gather data, which are not confined to testing theory and instead provide an opportunity to theorise concepts which emerge from data, via methodologies such as participant observation or interviews (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1995). Such methods are particularly suited to criminological research as they highlight the importance of agency and meaning in the social world and the ‘plurality of norms and values relating to “normal” and “deviant”’ behaviour (Wincup, 2017, p. 8). Qualitative methods, therefore, facilitate the elicitation of rich, descriptive data, which reveals ‘much about the social processes that women experience’ and the meaning they attribute to their experiences (Fonow & Cook, 1991, p. 107). Feminist research focuses on bringing women’s and girls’ experiences to the forefront of academic and social enquiry, by producing knowledge which recognises gender as an issue which structures ‘personal experience and belief ’ (Hammersley, 1992, p. 187). Furthermore, it is suggested by Smart (2009, p. 297) that qualitative research requires those undertaking research to ‘connect with the lives of people who contribute to research processes while finding ways of presenting complex layers of social and cultural life in sentient ways’. The research methods utilised to inform this study were, therefore, selected based upon the objective to produce new forms of original knowledge, which provide an insight into the ways in which RJ conferencing is accomplished for young female offenders.

  Appendix: Methodology 

213

As such, a qualitative approach to the empirical study was judged as necessary in order to gain such understanding. I undertook semi-­ structured interviews with 15 girls who have participated in RJ conferencing, in an offender capacity, and 13 youth justice practitioners (see Tables 1 and 2). Semi-structured interviews are deemed an effective method of collecting data that informs an understanding of participants’ perceptions and the meanings they attribute to their realities (Berg, 2001). Using open-ended questions when conducting semi-structured interviews in qualitative research ensures more flexibility for the interviewer to respond to the ‘situation at hand’ and to achieve an accurate representation of the respondent’s views (Fonow & Cook, 1991, p. 2). I considered this method to be an appropriate approach, as it allowed each participant their own voice in the research process and the opportunity to construct their own narratives (Ackerly & True, 2010).

Interview Schedules Two different interview schedules were developed, one to be used when interviewing girls and the other to be used when interviewing practitioners. Both schedules consisted of predetermined open-ended questions, which focused on girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing. The interview schedule for girls specifically addressed their experiences in the youth justice system, the reactions they received following their offence, their perceptions of the RJ conference they participated in, their experiences during the RJ conference and the types of emotions evoked during their Table 1  Number of interviews conducted with girls within each participating youth offending service Youth offending service/police network

Total number of girls interviewed in the service

Youth offending service 1 Youth offending service 2 Youth offending service 3 Youth offending service 4 Youth offending service 5 Police national network

5 3 1 2 3 1

214 

Appendix: Methodology

participation. Identifying initial areas of enquiry allowed me to separate the key issues for discussion, which I considered most relevant to my research questions. The interview questions were then developed based upon these areas of enquiry (Hesse-Biber & Piatelli, 2012). Developing the interview schedules to be used with the young people was a challenging process in comparison to developing the interview schedules for practitioners. Before the final version was complete, the schedules were amended and refined in order to ensure the language used was accessible for the sample of participants I was interviewing.

Accessing Participants In summary a total of 28 interviews were conducted with participants from seven youth offending services and one police service. Tables 1 and 2 identify the number of girls and practitioners interviewed within each service.

Identifying Girls to Be Interviewed

The primary requirement for young peoples’ inclusion in the study was that they were female, aged between 10 and 17 years and had participated in a RJ conference within an offender capacity. Given that identifying girls to participate in the research was difficult due to the low numbers of girls who have participated in a RJ conference, it was decided that there would be no requirement for the young person to have been formally Table 2  Number of interviews conducted with practitioners within each participating youth offending service Youth offending service/police network

Total number of girls interviewed in the service

Youth offending service 1 Youth offending service 2 Youth offending service 3 Youth offending service 4 Youth offending service 5 Youth offending service 6 Youth offending service 7 Youth offending service 8

4 0 1 2 2 1 2 1

  Appendix: Methodology 

215

processed through the youth justice system. Therefore, interviews were undertaken with 15 girls who were subject to various youth justice interventions. In total, there were nine practitioners, within eight different youth offending teams and one police service, who acted as gatekeepers for the research project. Each of these practitioners were provided with gatekeeper consent and information sheets. It was the role of these gatekeepers which secured the sample of girls I interviewed for the research. A youth justice practitioner with whom they were currently or previously working with initially contacted each of the girls I interviewed. Each of these practitioners working with the young person agreed to contact them on my behalf to explain the research project and enquire if they would consent for me to contact them in order to discuss their feelings towards participating in the research. The contact details for those young people who consented to speaking with me were then provided by the youth offending team worker, in order for me to then contact them myself. This was the process I adhered to for all but four interviews. For these four interviews, I was invited to the young person’s direct work session. Prior to attending the direct work session, the relevant youth offending team worker agreed to ascertain the young person’s willingness to speak with me. Once verbal consent was obtained, I initially spoke to these girls in the presence of the youth offending team worker facilitating the session. This process of identifying potential participants, via gatekeepers, took place over eight months. In total, the gatekeepers identified 19 girls, aged 12 to 17, who had participated in a victim-offender RJ conference and 15 of these girls agreed to participate in the research.

The Sample of Girls The Table 3 below illustrates the interviews undertaken with female participants subject to various youth justice supervision and intervention for similar and disparate offences. As the table shows, a degree of diversity was achieved within the sample, despite this not being a primary concern.

216 

Appendix: Methodology

Table 3  Age of respondents by order and youth justice supervision/intervention to which they were subject Age in years

Referral order

Diversionary intervention

Youth restorative disposal

Total

12 13 14 15 16 17

– 2 – – 1 1

1 4 2 1 – 1

– – 1 – – 2

1 6 3 1 1 3

Four of the girls interviewed were subject to a referral order, nine were subject to a diversionary intervention and two received a youth restorative disposal. The average age of all 15 of the girls interviewed for the study was 15 and all were White British. Twelve of the girls lived with either one or both of their birth parents. For the three girls who did not live with their parents, one was looked after by her paternal grandparents, another was living in a mother and baby unit and one was living with foster parents. All but two of the girls interviewed for the study were of compulsory school age. Eight of these girls were in full time, mainstream education, although one was on a reduced timetable. Four girls attended alternative education provision and one girl aged 14 was excluded from school and in receipt of no educational provision. Two of the girls had previously come into the remit of the youth justice system.

Selecting Practitioners to Be Interviewed The primary inclusion criteria for selecting practitioners to be interviewed was that they had experience of observing, facilitating or supporting RJ conferencing with girls who were, or had been, subject to youth justice intervention. Generating practitioner involvement proved relatively straight forward as I had previously been in contact with all practitioners interviewed for the study when attempting to identify girls to be interviewed. Therefore, practitioners were familiar with the study and a total of 13 out of 15 scheduled interviews took place.

  Appendix: Methodology 

217

The Sample of Practitioners Table 4 illustrates the sample of practitioners interviewed for this study. The 13 practitioners interviewed were employed within eight different youth offending teams. A degree of diversity was achieved in terms of their job role and practitioners’ experience of working within the youth justice system ranged from six months to 14 years.

Interviewing the Girls Despite my initial concern with regard to achieving an adequate sample size of girls to interview for the research, in July 2016 I was fortunate enough to have had interviewed 15 girls who had participated in a RJ conference. At this point, I decided that this sample size was sufficient to move forward with the transcription and analysis of the data. All the girls I interviewed were given a choice with regard to where they would like the interview to take place. Seven of the interviews took place in the girls’ homes, three took place in the girls’ school, two took place in different family centres, two took place on youth offending team premises and one interview took place within a private room at a mother and baby unit.

Table 4  Job role and gender of youth justice practitioners interviewed for this study Job role

Male

Female

Substance misuse worker (Previously restorative justice worker) Senior restorative justice practitioner Prevention and restorative justice co-ordinator Victim liaison officer Youth offending and family intervention worker Restorative justice co-ordinator Youth offending team senior office Restorative justice and volunteers team manager Restorative justice victim worker Restorative justice officer Total

1

–

1 1 – – – – 1 1 1 6

– – 2 1 1 1 – 2 – 7

218 

Appendix: Methodology

For the interviews undertaken at the young person’s home, privacy proved to be a cause of concern. The majority of these interviews were interrupted at some point for various reasons due to family members coming in and out of the room where the interview was taking place, telephones ringing or the young person pausing the interview to answer the door. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the interview process, my reaction to these interruptions was to pause the voice recorder until myself and the young person could continue with the interview in private. Prior to undertaking a home interview, the relevant youth offending team practitioners would brief me about any necessary safeguarding information, concerning the young person and their family that I should be aware of. In accordance with the youth offending service policy and the study’s research protocols, approved by a University Research Ethics Committee, I also adhered to the relevant lone working procedures. All but four of the interviews were undertaken in private, between myself and the young person. However, an appropriate adult was always in the vicinity of the interview location. For the interviews undertaken in the girls’ homes, a parent or guardian was always present. For those interviews completed away from the girls’ homes, the appropriate adult was either a youth offending team worker or a family support worker. For the four interviews which were not undertaken in private, this was purposively arranged at the girls’ request. One of these young people requested their adolescent support worker to be present. Two young people requested that their mother be present during the interview and one young person requested her female friend be present during the interview. I do not feel that the presence of family members, support workers or friends impacted upon the quality or the integrity of the interview process. For two of the girls, I believe the presence of their mothers provided them with practical and emotional support, thus having a positive impact on the interview process.

  Appendix: Methodology 

219

Interviewing the Practitioners I initially began interviewing practitioners for this study in July 2016. In November 2016, I had undertaken interviews with 13 youth justice practitioners. There were, however, a number of practical dilemmas experienced with regard to selecting practitioners to be interviewed. These difficulties can be contextualised in relation to the low numbers of girls who come into the remit of the youth justice service. Three practitioners I approached to be interviewed stated that they had no experience of facilitating or observing RJ conferences with young female offenders, thus preventing them from being able to participate in the research. I received one cancellation of a scheduled interview and one practitioner did not attend a scheduled meeting.

Ethical Considerations Informed Consent Ensuring that the young people were able to freely consent to participate in the research was a pertinent issue for consideration when applying for ethical approval to undertake the research. All participants were required to give informed consent prior to any interviews taking place. For practitioners, this consisted of them signing either a practitioner’s consent form or a gatekeeper’s consent form. The girls who participated in this research were required to sign a child friendly consent form. The child friendly consent form explained, in meaningful terms, to the young person the purpose of the research, why they were asked to participate and explicitly stated that they were able to withdraw their consent at any point during the research process. In order to ensure that all participants were provided with the full information regarding the research, including why it was being undertaken and how it was being disseminated, each participant was also provided with an information sheet.

220 

Appendix: Methodology

Confidentiality and Anonymity Given that the nature of some of the interview questions had the potential to result in participants disclosing information of a personal nature, several steps were taken to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Firstly, as part of the informed consent process, participants were made aware that their identity and responses were to be anonymised and be kept confidential in line with the procedures outlined in all participant information sheets (Maxfield & Babbie, 2011). All of the girls I interviewed were informed that what they said during the interview would remain confidential unless any information they disclosed gave me reason to believe either themselves or someone else was suffering from either physical, emotional or sexual harm, or either themselves or someone else was at an immediate risk of harm. Young people were informed that if any such disclosures were made I would not be able to keep this information private and I would have to inform the relevant authorities, although I confirmed that this would be discussed with the young person first. This issue was discussed with all gatekeepers prior to undertaking the interviews and it was decided that should any such disclosures be made then the first person I would contact, in a non-emergency situation, would be the relevant youth offending team manager. In an emergency, it was decided that the initial action to be taken would be to contact the emergency services, followed by the relevant youth offending team manager.

Potential Harm to Participants All of the interviews were undertaken during office hours, therefore if any safeguarding problems did arise, I was able to quickly access help or advice from the relevant professional. As the interview questions were centred upon girls’ experiences of engaging in RJ, I recognised the possibility that remembering such experiences could evoke certain memories that they could find emotional or uncomfortable. Due to this concern, it was necessary to ensure that useful contact details were provided within the participant information sheet for young people to use, if they felt in

  Appendix: Methodology 

221

need of help or support to manage such feelings, following their interview. I also provided my own email contact details on the girls’ participant information sheet to ensure they would be able to contact me if they felt the need to do so. On two occasions, I was able to support girls who became emotional during their interviews. These emotions were evoked as a result of talking about the impact of their offending behaviour on others. On each of these occasions, I was able to use my own experience as a practitioner, working with young people and managing sensitive issues, to provide support for each of these young people. In these circumstances, we took a short break from the interview and, with their consent, I also informed an appropriate adult. For one of the girls this was her teacher at school and for another this was her allocated worker at the family centre, where the interview took place. Furthermore, all participants were debriefed at the end of their interview. Special attention was paid to debriefing the two girls who became upset during their interview and I talked to them about any aspects of the research they could potentially be worried about, in order to ease any ongoing discomfort or distress (Denscombe, 2010). Although I acknowledge that stress and discomfort is a subjective experience, both girls verbally articulated their keenness to complete the interview and displayed no further signs of discomfort or stress once the interviews had reconvened.

Data Analysis The interview data was analysed using thematic analysis and NVivo software was used to support the identification of themes inherent within the data set. Two NVivo projects were created, one for the purpose of coding and analysing the interview data provided by the girls interviewed and another for coding and analysing practitioners’ interview data. In the first instance, the process of coding involved categorising participants’ responses and discussions in relation to each question posed in the interview schedules into free nodes for organisational purposes. In NVivo a ‘concept or category or code’ is stored as a node (Bazeley, 2007, p. 73). This initial coding facilitated the identification of detailed codes inherent

222 

Appendix: Methodology

within each data set. These codes were saved as further nodes and used to store emerging and divergent themes and issues identified through the analysis of free nodes. The nodes were then explored across the data set and coded into specific themes. Given that the project was exploring an under-researched area, the analysis was not driven by a pre-existing coding frame, meaning that the themes identified were developed from the data itself (Patton, 1990). The themes discussed within this article were identified through this process. For example, the prevalence of emotions evoked within girls, during their participation in the RJ conference, was inherent within girls’ interview narratives. These responses were then attributed to various codes such as remorse and anger. A decision was then made with regard to which theme these codes would be further analysed within. Various codes emerged during this process. Further examples of these codes included: gendered discourses of appropriate behaviour, nervous laughter, power and control and negative perspectives of RJ in practice. The different codes, which emerged during this process, were then thematically analysed and explored in relation to the themes of ‘power relations’, ‘conflicting perspectives’ and ‘emotions’.

A Note on Validity Denscombe (2010, p. 143) asserts that ‘claims to validity involve a demonstration that the researcher’s data and his or her analysis are firmly rooted in the realms of things that are relevant’. Thus, the need for validity within social research is heavily emphasised (ibid.). According to Mason (2002, p.  39), to ensure the validity of research, the researcher needs to demonstrate that they are ‘observing, identifying and measuring’ what they say they are. The merits of feminist qualitative research methods utilised within the research, were centred upon the benefits and values of studying the lived realities of girls’ experiences, and the importance of allowing them to identify matters which are personally significant, rather than compiling statistics. This abandons the goal of generalisability as a reflection of good research in exchange to produce rich data and an emphasis on in-depth investigation (Bryman & Burgess, 1994; Bridges

  Appendix: Methodology 

223

& Horsfall, 2011). Securing the desired sample size of girls to participate in the research and allowing them to share their subjectivities in relation to their experiences within the youth justice system, alongside adhering to a sensitive and reflexive approach to undertaking the empirical work, achieve the goal of bringing girls’ experiences of RJ conferencing to the forefront of criminological enquiry, arguably providing a measurement of validity to the research findings (Sarantakos, 2005). Moreover, the trustworthiness and credibility of the methodological approach underpinning the findings presented in this book can be demonstrated by making recourse to Lincoln and Guba’s (1985, ­ pp. 301–318) criteria for establishing trustworthiness within qualitative research inquiry—‘Credibility’, ‘Transferability’, ‘Dependability’ and ‘Confirmability’. The methodology underpinning the research project adhered to these criteria through consideration of the most appropriate method to collect data relevant to the research questions, ensuring prolonged engagement with interviewees through follow-­up questions during the interview process, persistent scrutinization of the thematic coding framework described above, providing a rich description of the collection of data, the findings, and their analysis. Further steps taken to ensure the trustworthiness of the research project was the systematic collection of evidence to support the confirmability of the research findings, such as interview transcriptions, field notes and a reflexive account of the research journey.

References

Ackerly, B., & True, J. (2010). Doing Feminist Research in Political and Social Science. Palgrave Macmillan. Ballinger, A. (2016). Gender, Truth and State Power, Capitalising on Punishment. Routledge. Barton, A., Corteen, K., Davies, J., & Hobson, A. (2010). Reading the Word and Reading the World: The Impact of a Critical Pedagogical Approach to the Teaching of Criminology in Higher Education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(1), 24–41. Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative Data Analysis with Nvivo. Sage Publications. Beckman, L.  J. (2014). Training in Feminist Research Methodology: Doing Research on the Margins. Women and Therapy, 37(1-2), 164–177. Berg, B.  L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences. Allyn and Bacon. Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2017). Social Research Paradigms in Action. Polity Press. Bridges, D., & Horsfall, D. (2011). The Gendered Battlefield: Creating Feminist Spaces in Military Spaces. In J. Higgs, A. Titchen, D. Horsfall, & D. Bridges (Eds.), Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching: Living Research (pp. 135–146). Sense Publishers. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Science Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0

225

226 References

Bryman, A., & Burgess, R. (1994). Analysing Qualitative Data. Routledge. Code, L. (2013). Feminist Epistemology. In B.  Kaldis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences (pp. 353–356). Sage Publications. Code, L. (2014). Feminist Epistemology and the Politics of Knowledge. In M. Evans, C. Hemmings, M. Henry, H. Johnstone, S. Madhok, A. Plomien, & S. Wearing (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Feminist Theory (pp. 9–25). Sage Publications. Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and Criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497–538. Daly, K., & Maher, L. (1998). Crossroads and Intersections: Building from Feminist Critique. In K.  Daly & L.  Maher (Eds.), Criminology at The Crossroads: Feminist Readings in Crime and Justice (pp.  1–17). Oxford University Press. Denscombe, M. (2010). Ground Rules for Social Research, Guidelines for Good Practice (2nd ed.). Open University Press. DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B.  F. (2006). The Qualitative Research Interview, Making Sense of Qualitative Research. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321. Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Indiana University Press. Gelsthorpe, L. (1990). Feminist Methodologies in Criminology: A New Approach or Old Wine in New Bottles. In L. Gelsthorpe & A. Morris (Eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology (pp. 112–143). Open University Press. Gringeri, C.  E., Wahab, S., & Anderson-Nathe, B. (2010). What Makes It Feminist?: Mapping the Landscape of Feminist Social Work Research. Journal of Women and Social Work, 25(4), 390–405. Hammersley, M. (1992). On Feminist Methodology. Sociology, 26(2), 187–206. Harding, S. (1987). Question. Feminism and Science, 2(3), 19–35. Harding, S. (1992). Re-thinking Standpoint Epistemology What Is Strong Objectivity? The Centennial Review, 36(3), 437–470. Henwood, K., & Pidgeon, N. (1995). Remaking the Link: Qualitative Research and Feminist Standpoint Theory. Feminism and Psychology, 5(1), 7–30. Hesse-Biber, S.  N., & Piatelli, D. (2012). Feminist Research: Exploring, Interrogating and Transforming the Interconnections of Epistemology, Methodology, and Method. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis (pp. 2–27). Sage Publications.

 References 

227

Jarviluoma, H., Moisala, P., & Vilkko, A. (2003). Gender and Qualitative Methods. Sage Publications. Leavy, P., & Harris, A. (2018). Contemporary Feminist Research from Theory to Practice. The Guildford Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications. Lykes, B. M., & Hershberg, R. M. (2012). Participatory Action Research and Feminisms: Social Inequalities and Transformative Praxis. In S.  N. Hesse-­ Biber (Ed.), The Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis (pp. 331–367). Sage Publications. Mason, G., & Stubbs, J. (2012). Feminist Approaches to Criminological Research. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt, & S. F. Messner (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Criminological Research Methods (pp. 486–499). Sage Publications. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2011). Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology (3rd ed.). Wadsworth. May, T. (2011). Social Research, Issues Methods and Research (4th ed.). Open University Press. Miers, M. (1993). Towards a Methodology for Feminist Research. In M.  Hammersley (Ed.), Social Research Philosophy Politics and Practice (pp. 64–82). Sage Publications. Montoya, C. (2016). Institutions. In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory (pp. 367–384). Oxford University Press. Oakley, A. (1981). Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms. Doing Feminist Research, 30(6), 1. Patton, M.  Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. Palgrave Macmillan. Sim, J., Scraton, P., & Gordon, P. (1987). Introduction: Crime, the State and Critical Analysis. In P. Scraton (Ed.), Law, Order and the Authoritarian State (pp. 1–70). Open University Press. Skinner, T., Hester, M., & Malos, E. (2005). Researching Gender Violence: Feminist methodology in action. Willan Publishing. Smart, C. (2009). Shifting Horizons: Reflections on Qualitative Methods. Feminist Theory, 10(3), 295–308. Stanley, L. (2012). On Auto/Biography in Sociology. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Sage Biographical Research (pp. 101–112). Sage Publications. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1993). Breaking out Again, Feminist Epistemology and Ontology. Routledge.

228 References

Wincup, E. (2017). Criminological Research, Understanding Qualitative Methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Wylie, A. (2012). The Feminism Question in Science: What Does it Mean to do Social Science as a Feminist? In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), The Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis (pp. 554–556). Sage Publications.

Index

A

Abolition, 175, 182–185 Abolitionist, 10, 11, 13, 170, 182–185 Accountability, 185, 186, 196, 209 Adolescent, 26, 34, 47, 52, 133, 218 Agency, 11, 13–15, 24, 25, 37, 46, 50, 51, 67–71, 84, 104, 147, 149, 151, 161–164, 178, 180, 183, 212 Aggleton, P., 11, 56–58, 64, 124 Alder, C., 10, 34–37, 45, 159 All Party Parliamentary Group on Women in the Penal System, 5 Alternative knowledge, 65, 67 Alternative narratives, 2, 10, 11, 13, 15, 66, 67, 77–104, 147, 149, 163, 164, 181, 207

Analysis, 2, 12, 15, 34, 45–47, 54, 56, 57, 60, 63, 64, 68, 71, 104, 119, 127, 141, 146, 149, 162, 164, 173, 199, 212–213, 217, 221–223 Anti-carceral, 1, 13, 15, 165, 170, 182, 183, 188, 200 Apology, 90, 96, 138, 140, 157 Asset, 137, 161 Asset Plus, 160, 161 Austerity, 175, 177–179, 184 Australia, 6, 8, 90 B

Ballinger, A., 1, 38, 48, 67, 151, 156, 187, 206 Barr, Ú., 59, 60, 66, 130 Bartky, S., 60, 62, 63, 68, 116, 153, 159, 173

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Hodgson, Gender, Power and Restorative Justice, Critical Criminological Perspectives, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90827-0

229

230 Index

Braithwaite, J., 7–9, 83, 125, 128, 129, 141, 153, 158, 159 Brown, B., 62, 63, 153, 159, 163, 173 C

Carlen, P., 15, 50, 51, 63, 170, 175, 176, 180, 181, 197–199 Chesney–Lind, M., 21, 23, 24, 124, 152, 205 Clinks, 31, 177 Closure, 79, 82 Community, 4, 6, 8, 10, 34, 35, 50, 110, 117, 118, 125, 128, 148, 157, 178, 184, 185 Community expectations, 10 Conferencing script, 152 Conflicting perspectives, 14, 77–104, 146–148, 222 Connell, R., 48, 49, 52–54, 108, 151, 153, 157, 174, 186–188 Continuum of harm, 64, 66 The Corston Report, 4, 177 Council of Europe, 6 The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, 7, 33 Criminalisation, 4, 23, 24, 27, 90, 130, 149, 171, 175, 177, 198 Criminalised, 13, 22, 27, 66, 109, 130, 170, 177, 197 Critical criminology, 12, 181, 182 D

Daly, K., 9, 28, 35, 37, 45, 46, 77, 88, 90, 91, 146, 204, 205 Decarcaration, 182

Democratic exploration, 176, 181–182, 188 Deviance, 3, 6, 8, 24, 70, 203 Deviant, 8, 25, 52, 55, 71, 109, 114, 115, 121, 125, 153, 155, 197, 212 Deviant female identities, 71, 114 Disintegrative shaming, 8, 128, 157–159 Diversion, 25, 176, 177 Domesticity, 48, 50, 63 Dominant discourses, 2, 14, 15, 22–25, 33, 37, 48, 50, 52–54, 64–68, 77–104, 108, 109, 111, 118, 119, 122, 132, 141, 145–165, 181, 185, 186, 194, 195, 197, 205, 209 Double deviancy, 23, 59, 121, 130 E

Emotion, 34, 46, 59–63, 80, 85–90, 95, 107, 124–126, 129–131, 134, 147, 153, 154, 159, 173, 209, 213, 221, 222 Emotional, 29, 34, 48, 49, 63, 85–88, 94, 109, 129–131, 134, 135, 139, 146, 147, 208, 218, 220, 221 Empathetic, 85–88, 134, 147 Empathy, 86–89, 146 Emphasized femininity, 53, 174, 188 Equality Act 2010, 31 Ethic of care, 87, 88, 146 Ethic of justice, 87 Ethics, 185, 211

 Index 

Ethnicity, 2, 23, 28, 30, 93, 99, 107, 113, 169, 172, 173 Exercise of power, 1, 10, 57, 64, 103, 108, 113, 163, 206, 207 F

Facilitator, 8, 80, 82, 84, 94–98, 101, 120, 124, 126, 133, 135, 139, 149 Family group conferencing, 6 The Female Offender Strategy, 4, 31, 177 Femininity, 2, 3, 12–15, 22–26, 33, 34, 37, 46–48, 50–55, 58–69, 88, 107–109, 111, 112, 114, 116, 118, 119, 122, 124, 129, 132, 141, 146, 147, 152–159, 163, 180, 181, 186–188, 193–197, 205, 209 Feminism, 2, 3, 29, 47, 182 Feminist criminology, 3, 47 Feminist praxis, 1, 11, 175, 176, 178, 182–184, 188 Feminist theory, 14, 37, 46, 47, 70 Forgiveness, 8, 125, 157 Foucault, M., 67 G

Gender-blind, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15, 24, 27, 150–152, 170 Gendered divisions, 15 Gendered Injustice, 173–175, 200 Gendered power, 12, 38, 49, 94, 95, 107, 152, 162, 163

231

Gendered social control, 10, 12, 53, 65, 119, 181, 187, 197, 200 Gender Equality Duty, 30, 31 Gender inequality, 2, 12, 38, 114, 151, 180 Gender-neutral, 24, 104, 151, 157 Gender order, 37, 48, 49, 53, 61, 64, 108, 151, 153 Gender regime, 49, 108 Gender relations, 46–49, 59, 108, 151, 152, 156, 162, 187, 205, 208 Gender-responsive, 29, 38, 66, 98 Gender-responsiveness, 172 Gender-responsivity, 14, 21, 30–33, 176 Gender-sensitive, 32, 37, 99, 101–104, 150, 152, 172, 204 Gender-sensitivity, 173 Gender-specific, 14, 15, 28–32, 46, 99–101, 103, 118, 132, 136, 150, 152–154, 171, 211 Gender-specific programming, 28–31, 172, 182 Gender-specific provision, 14, 28–32, 37, 98–103, 149, 150, 172 Gender subjectivities, 14, 68, 70, 156, 157, 162, 163 Gilligan, C., 87, 88, 146 Girl-wise penology, 11, 13, 15, 165, 169–189, 200 Governance, 12, 33, 58, 61, 171, 181, 188 Guilt, 36, 63, 83, 86, 109, 110, 133, 134, 140, 154 Guilty, 59, 83, 87

232 Index H

Harm, 6, 15, 37, 46, 51, 64, 66, 83, 90, 95, 120, 125, 129, 134, 140, 148, 151, 158, 160, 173, 182, 185, 186, 188, 189, 196–200, 220–221 Harmful, 1, 13, 15, 51, 52, 101, 132, 133, 139, 159, 160, 170, 173–175, 185, 187, 197 Hegemonic, 53 Hegemonic masculinity, 53, 54, 174, 180, 186–188 Heidensohn, F., 50, 51 Heteropatriarchal, 38, 48, 67, 169, 174, 182, 184 HM Inspectorate of Probation, 32, 160 Hudson, A., 14, 24, 26, 52, 111 Hutter, B., 50, 51, 58, 60, 109, 112 I

Identity, 47, 52, 53, 55, 58–61, 69–71, 90, 93, 95, 104, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114–117, 119–124, 151, 153–158, 163, 204, 210, 211, 220 Ideological discourses, 13, 47, 124 Injustices, 3, 12, 13, 21, 30, 33, 37, 38, 46, 58, 64, 66, 93, 98, 99, 107–109, 149, 162, 169–171, 173–177, 180–186, 188, 198–200 Institutions, 23, 47–50, 53, 54, 66, 67, 109, 119, 123, 148, 151, 157, 163, 171, 182, 186, 188, 196, 199, 205 Insurrection of subjugated knowledge, 67

Interviews, 11, 14, 15, 35, 46, 79, 80, 82, 92, 99, 103, 108, 112, 118, 126, 127, 139, 145, 149, 203, 210–223 Invisibility, 4, 45, 177, 178 Ireland, 7 J

Justice, 1–15, 21–38, 45–47, 49, 50, 52, 64–67, 77–81, 88, 90, 93, 99, 102, 103, 107–141, 145–165, 169–186, 188, 189, 193–200, 207, 211, 213, 215–217, 219, 223 K

Kantola, J., 54 L

Laws, J., 12, 52, 55, 117 M

Manion, J., 62, 107, 153, 173 Mann, B., 63, 159, 173, 174 Marginalisation, 11, 14, 22, 24, 37, 48, 63, 65, 66, 93, 147–149, 172, 173, 177, 180, 188, 194 Marshall, T., 6, 7, 147, 158 Masculine institution, 53, 186 Masculinity, 2, 13–15, 53–55, 62, 64, 67, 107, 109, 147, 158, 174, 179, 180, 184, 186–188, 205 Masson, I., 33, 35–37, 45, 78, 129 McNay, L., 50, 68–70, 152

 Index 

Mental health, 24, 29, 36, 37, 78, 178, 179, 184 Methodology, 203–223 Methods, 6, 50, 177, 205, 206, 212–213, 222, 223 Morality, 3, 50 Moral reasoning, 87, 88, 146 Muting, 1, 13, 60, 65–67, 165, 193, 195, 196 N

Neglect, 4, 5, 23, 24, 30, 33, 37, 38, 66, 67, 147, 152, 158, 171, 172, 177, 194 Neoliberal, 30, 182, 185, 186 Neoliberalism, 30 Net-widening, 14, 28, 33, 79, 194 Neutralisation, 149–164 New Zealand, 6, 8 Northern Ireland, 6 O

The Offender Rehabilitation Act, 31 Österman, L., 33, 35–37, 45, 78, 129 P

Parker, R., 11, 56–58, 64, 124 Participation, 11, 12, 35, 55, 66, 80, 82–84, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97, 108, 118, 119, 123, 125, 129, 131, 136, 137, 139, 146, 148, 149, 152, 154, 158, 161, 162, 214, 222 Participatory, 6, 84, 147, 210 Pathological, 3, 23

233

Pathology, 50 Patriarchal power, 1, 3, 11, 14, 15, 48, 61, 65, 108, 149, 152, 156, 159, 163, 169, 181, 193, 195, 197 Patriarchal power relations, 14, 46, 50, 54, 58, 59, 64–66, 107, 108, 119, 162 Policing, 22, 25, 59, 116 Policy, 1, 4–6, 10, 13–15, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–33, 36–38, 48, 49, 51, 54, 57, 64, 67, 78, 79, 101, 102, 119, 145, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 157, 161, 164, 165, 169, 170, 172, 175–180, 182–184, 186, 188, 189, 194–196, 199, 200, 208, 218 Politics of gender, 10, 64, 151, 174 Power, 1, 22, 47, 78, 107, 147, 170, 196 Powerlessness, 62, 63, 93, 97, 149, 172, 174, 180, 199 Practitioners, 4, 14, 15, 32, 35, 46, 78–88, 90, 93–96, 98–104, 108, 117–119, 121–125, 129–141, 146–152, 154–158, 160, 161, 178, 182, 184, 211, 213–219, 221 Praxis, 1, 11, 175, 176, 178, 182–184, 188 Preparation, 85, 100, 101, 136–141, 160, 170 R

Reconcile, 8 Reconciliation, 89, 149, 157, 183, 184 Reflexivity, 69, 208–211

234 Index

Rehabilitate, 197, 199 Reintegrate, 8, 157 Reintegration, 8, 15, 36, 125, 128, 140, 148, 157, 158, 162, 195–199 Reintegrative, 8, 9, 128, 129, 157–159 Reintegrative shaming, 7, 8, 108, 125, 128, 133 Reintegrative shaming theory, 7–9, 125, 128, 153, 154, 157 Remedial action, 176–180, 182, 188 Remorse, 7, 35, 86, 125, 222 Renzetti, C., 2, 4, 53, 65, 88, 158 Reparation, 79, 81, 87, 118, 195–197 Resistance, 1, 3, 11, 13, 14, 30, 37, 46, 59, 67–70, 141, 148, 149, 161–164, 170, 176, 180–182, 184, 186, 188, 193–195 Responsibilisation, 14, 30, 33, 180, 184, 185, 199 Restitution, 79, 83, 195 Restorative justice (RJ), 1, 2, 4–15, 21, 22, 33–38, 45, 46, 60, 64, 65, 67, 71, 77–104, 107–141, 145–165, 170–175, 193–199 Restorative justice conferences, 8, 101, 130 Restorative justice conferencing, 12, 78–82, 93–98 Restorative Justice Council, 81, 82, 101 Restorative practice, 82, 95 Risk, 8, 14, 21, 27, 28, 33, 34, 52, 81, 82, 94, 101, 136, 137, 160, 161, 175, 178, 184, 194, 220

S

Safety, 179, 184–186, 200 School, 24, 86, 97, 110, 111, 126, 179, 180, 183, 187, 216, 217, 221 Script, 95, 96, 101, 152, 153 Self-blame, 36, 131, 133, 159 Self-harm, 24, 135, 159, 186 Sexuality, 2, 26, 27, 30, 47–52, 63, 107, 113, 169, 171–173, 175, 187, 203 Shame, 1, 35, 45–71, 78, 107–141, 156, 169, 193 Shaming, 7–9, 14, 59, 62, 107, 108, 125, 128, 130, 157–159, 163, 175 Sharpe, G., 9, 10, 23–29, 34, 52, 112, 132, 159, 171, 172, 179, 181 Silencing, 14, 78, 82–85, 163 Smart, C., 3, 4, 50, 51, 112, 124, 193, 212 Social class, 23, 28 Social construction of femininity, 12, 46, 53, 59, 108, 111, 114 Social construction of gender, 1, 2, 11, 12, 22, 25, 46–47, 53, 56, 64, 68, 71, 104, 109, 124, 132, 151, 153, 156, 157, 162, 174, 194, 204, 205, 207 Social construction of masculinity, 53, 88, 155, 193, 195 Social construction of truth, 15, 209 Social control, 2, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 21–23, 25, 26, 33, 34, 46, 50–53, 56–58, 65, 69, 78, 94, 104, 109, 111, 119, 124, 151, 156, 158, 159, 163, 164, 174, 181, 187, 195–197, 200

 Index 

Social divisions, 47, 50, 61, 63, 108, 150, 157, 162, 169, 171–173, 175, 177, 204 Social injustice, 13, 30, 33, 46, 98, 107, 149, 169, 177, 183, 184, 199 Social justice, 1, 11, 170, 174, 184, 188, 198, 207 Social norms, 2, 12, 60, 68, 69, 88, 95, 114, 123, 153, 154, 156, 163 Spoiled identity, 59, 61, 116, 153, 155, 157 The state, 48, 54, 151, 180, 185, 203 State power, 46, 49, 58, 64, 65, 164, 183, 186, 188, 193, 196, 204 Stigma power, 12, 45–71, 109, 162 Stigmatic shaming, 8, 129, 141 Stigmatisation, 8, 11, 12, 14, 26, 54–61, 64, 65, 67, 78, 108, 109, 111, 113–117, 119, 124, 128, 141, 153–155, 158, 161, 162, 195, 197 Structural inequalities, 10, 12, 13, 28, 51, 58, 63, 69, 98, 107–141, 148–149, 152, 153, 157, 159, 169, 171, 172, 175, 180, 199 Structural injustice, 3 Structural stigma, 57 Subjectivity, 2, 11, 14, 15, 58, 60, 68, 70, 71, 78, 82–85, 93, 95, 98, 104, 147–149, 152, 156, 162, 163, 170, 174, 181, 205, 207, 209, 210 Subjugated knowledge, 65, 67, 148, 157, 178, 204, 208 Subjugation, 48, 67

235

Subordination, 48, 49, 63, 64, 69, 71, 111, 173, 188 T

Taylor, C., 31, 177, 179 Transgressions, 36, 59, 60, 63–65, 109, 111, 112, 114, 117, 118, 124, 129, 133, 141, 153–155, 157, 158, 161, 163 Troublesome, 14, 25, 34 Truth, 2, 15, 48, 54, 64, 65, 67, 68, 94, 98, 108, 111, 138, 157, 197, 209 Tyler, I., 12, 56–59, 61, 64, 108, 109, 116, 162 U

United Nations Economic and Social Council, 6 V

Vengeful equity, 152 Victim, 6, 33, 79, 80, 82–87, 89–95, 98, 100, 120, 122, 123, 127, 128, 131, 134 Victimisation, 4, 21, 23, 24, 29, 35, 37, 68, 78, 84, 90, 91, 93, 103, 134, 149–151, 159–161, 175, 178–180, 184, 194, 197, 198, 200 Victim-offender binary, 90, 93 Victim-offender paradox, 14, 78, 90–93 Violence, 49, 51, 59, 82, 86, 90, 93, 112, 158, 179, 182, 185–187, 198

236 Index W

Y

Welfare, 14, 21, 24–28, 37, 50, 52, 117, 171, 177, 178, 181, 194 Williams, G., 50, 51, 58, 60, 61, 109, 112 Woman-wise’ penology, 15, 170, 176 Worrall, A., 22, 24–26, 28, 34, 48, 50–52, 63, 65, 68, 111, 124

Young female offenders’ experiences, 9, 35, 146, 156, 203, 204 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, 7 Youth Justice Board’s standards for children, 31