Abolition. Feminism. Now. A Book Review.

In their collaborative work from 2022, Angela Davis, Gina Dent, Erica Meiners and Beth Richie try to connect Prison and Police Abolition to a feminist struggle. The book is well written and consistent in its storytelling, but has problems reaching a decisive conclusion. Why is that?

In the three-part (“Abolition”, “Feminism” and “Now”) historical summary of large parts of the
female and nonbinary prison abolition movement, the authors often present things as a strength
when they are actually problems of the movement. “We offer a set of ideas and thick descriptions of
unfinished practices rather than promoting rigid definitions” they say but therefore make it harder
to concretely follow their theory and their arguments. We cannot write an ending, because the fight
is not finished, they tell us, but this makes it harder to build on the book. The isolated and
decentralised tactics used by many groups in the prison abolition movement make it not only more
diverse but hard to bring together in mass action.

What is a great strength of the book – and what makes it a worthy read, even if you don’t agree with
the political conclusions – is the history of the US movement for Prison abolition (from Critical
Resistance to Incite) as well as connected tidbits of History of prison abolition movements in other
countries.

Another strong point of the book is the critique of white “carceration” feminism, which excludes
systematic and often racist aspects of state violence and turns to them in order to combat problems
like sexism. This is historically highlighted by the examples of PoC anti-rape activism, that had to –
while at the same time fighting for their own victims and against violence within the community –
protect black men from fraudulent rape charges in cases like the Scottsboro Nine (1931-37) or the
murder of Emmet Till (1955). They had to do so, because white activists were neglecting this issue
and turning more and more to state solutions to solve the issue of rape – which had very little
statistical effect.

This carceral feminism not only applies to reliance on state violence in order to solve “our” (e.g. the
working class) problems (like gendered violence, theft and neglect) but also taking “carceral”
approaches from the states handbook (Punishment focused approaches like “cancelling” people
instead of addressing the roots and systematic aspects). That is an important debate which should
be ongoing in organisations of the working class, but the book repeats its (good) points here quite
often without presenting an attempt at a solution.
The book also tries to connect the struggle for prison and police abolition with the workers struggle.
An example of this is the 2016 budget crisis in Chicago in which huge participation from labour
unions and (what the authors call) social justice organisations. There was a huge dispute about the
presence of police unions and a comment from a speaker that showed how different labour
organisations positioned themselves on the question of the police. They also mention a few unions
for their consistent antiracist and anti-prison leaning politics, like the International Longshore and
Warehouse Union for example.

It is not only on the Abolition movement that there is so little overlap – the international workers
movement has often had a tendency to ignore problems of the prison abolition movement – as it
had also ignored the issues of lgbtqia-, BIPOC- and female struggles at certain points in history. This needs to be built on, to connect the struggle of incarcerated people with the labour movements –
prison unions are an interesting starting point for that as mentioned in the book.
One of the weak points of the book is the analysis of the state. It seems it proposes an almost
anarchist understanding of the state as the main source of authoritarian and (in this case) carceral
solutions. This is not completely wrong as the state stands as a tool for suppressing one class by
another – but this is not it’s only purpose. The act of sustaining and organising society is something
that we need to use for our purposes in a socialist society as well – this is something the authors
don’t seem to agree with.

An example of this understanding is found in the thesis that argues that social workers and the
police fulfil the same role within capitalism – to converse the state and the status quo. Although not
completely endorsed by the writers they neutrally present these ideas. It is true that both groups
have a sustaining role within capitalism, but the police as the main armed monopoly on violence has
a very different (a much more essential) role to the capitalist state than social work does. It has to be
said that social work in the US seems to be more heavily linked with state control which can and will
be used against marginalised communities – it is worth criticising, but it is still not the same as the
police.

This makes it clear that the underlying concept of “police” within these ideas doesn’t build on an
analysis of its concrete purpose under capitalism, but instead makes every single state institution
more or less equally responsible for community problems. Although the police need to be abolished
in a non-capitalist society, there is always a need for social workers. It depends on which state is in
control. The anarchist believe that deinstitutionalised (and therefore also decentralised) community
work is always better than state institutions. The state obviously always reproduces its ideology and
it is correct to criticize its institutions for that – this doesn’t mean that every single institution or the
state (as a workers state) cannot be a concept we need to build on. It needs to be overcome in the
end, but it is not the next step in societal change.

This fact raises one of the many unanswered questions of the book: if Abolition Feminism means the
abolition of violent state institutions and their replacement through community-based methods –
who is meant, when we talk about community? And what are these community based methods?
There are singular examples but no real suggestion of the book of which ones to take. Which is an
interesting approach, because they (rightfully so) criticize heavily, attempts to fight for abolition that
don’t tackle systematic problems. But how are systematic problems tackled in these isolated
community alternatives that are – once again – mostly carried out by women of colour? The
examples of mainly restorative justice oriented grassroot groups like “Community Care Organising
and Family Caregivers” (that organised against suspensions in schools) or “Chicago’s Black on both
Sides” (which addressed the foster care to prison pipeline) show this very clearly. We need to build
on projects and approaches like this but community can never be the only answer – we must
structure and control our society – and therefore also “community” democratically.
One could criticize the book for being too US-centric, but on the other hand it just shows that this is
one of the most extreme situations in an imperialist country, making it a place where more of the
inherent contradictions come to light. This practical example of the history of the Abolition
movement shows that it is a very female and very BIPOC dominated. Also, because they are the ones
most affected by incarceration and able to organise against it as the book shows. Even though more
men go to prison it’s the women that call for their release and fight for their rights. They are also the
ones providing community care where necessary.

In the defence of the authors, there are other books and resources that try to paint a clearer picture
of what the “Abolitionists” want. It doesn’t need to be this book that explains this. It also provides
an extensive appendix with a lot of different materials and further reaching suggestions. But it is
noticeably how almost all of the hard questions are mentioned but not answered. How can you talk
about dismantling systems of state violence without dismantling the capitalist state? What about the
“really bad” people in prison – for example those endangering women through domestic and sexual
violence? Is vigilante justice the answer? There are tentative answers to these questions and the
book could have gained a lot by taking a stance on them – even if it wouldn’t be to the liking of
everyone.

The authors say their book is a “mosaic of what is made possible by abolition feminism”. But without
a framework and a concrete point of what we can learn from it, we will be doomed to repeat
mistakes and not have a clear roadmap. The struggle will remain isolated. There is a lack of vision –
what are the next steps, how can a society without police and prisons even look like and what are
the steps to achieve them? Of course, this is not the only book that should answer that, but more
demands and positioning would have made for a real roadmap – a programme that is – that could be
used in this important struggle.

---