DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE.(McMichael 2014, 9). The ANC-led government rolled out a community policing model which required all police station commanders to develop forums for police

DRAFT:PLEASEDONOTCITE.

1

RationalizingInjustice:ThesurprisingreinforcementoflegalhegemonyinSouthAfrica

ThatoMasiangoako

[email protected]

SouthAfrica’slegalsystemmaintainsitslegitimacydespitethecommonplaceexperiencesofinjusticethattakeplaceatthehandsofthecriminaljusticesystem.Thispaperlooksattheexperiences of migrants, community activists and student activists whose experiences ofarrest and brief detention represent examples of such injustice. Through the socio-legalframework of legal consciousness, this paper unpacks how these groups unintentionallyreinforce legal hegemony in South Africa through theways inwhich they understand andrationalize their experiencesofpunishment.Despite the reasonableexpectation that thosewho’sexperiencesreflectmiscarriagesof justicewouldbemostskepticalandpessimisticofthelaw’slegitimacy,thispaperfindsthatthosewhoexperienceinjusticemaintaintheirfaithin the law.Thepaperpresentsananalysisof interviewsconductedwithmembersof thesegroups.TheseinterviewssupporttheviewthatSouthAfrica’scriminaljusticesystemisabletosustain its legitimacydespite thegapsbetweenwhatthe lawought tobeandwhatthelawactuallyis.

INTRODUCTION

NumberFour isthenameofoneofthemostnotoriousprisons inSouthAfrica’shistory. It

formed part of the racially segregated Old Fort Prison Complex in, which served as

Johannesburg’smainprisoneightdecadesuntilitwasfinallycloseddownin1983(Madikida,

Segal,andBerg2008,18).NumberFourwasnamedaftertheprison’snotorioussectionFour

which housed the prison’s black male prisoners. This prison is a vivid example of the

deleterious, disproportionately overcrowded, and barbarous conditions of imprisonment

under apartheid and even earlier. Today, Number Four is a part of a heritage site,

ConstitutionHill,attractingvisitorsfromallovertheworld.ItnowsitsnexttoSouthAfrica’s

ConstitutionalCourt,whichwas intentionally locatedat thesiteasaphysicalpromiseand

perpetualreminder,forSouthAfricanstoneverreturntothehauntingpasthousedbythe

formerprisoncomplex.

South Africa’s transitional period of the early 1990s was a time of widespread

contestationaround thenewpath that thecountrywouldpursue.Thedeeplyentrenched

institutionsthatonceservedsomeofthedarkestpartsofSouthAfrica’shistorycouldnow

be reimagined as part of completely newanddifferent future. Such amomentpresented

South Africa with an opportunity to (re)conceptualise our understanding of crime and

punishment.Andtosomeextent,thisperiodwasofthemajortransformativeeffortsaimed


2

particularlyatthecriminal justicesystem.SouthAfrica’sprisons,policingsystem,andlegal

orderneedtobetransformedinorderforthemtofallinlinewiththechangeinregime.

Some of these changes included the renaming of the South African Police to the

South African Police Service (SAPS) and its newmandate endorsed democratic principles

(McMichael2014,9).TheANC-ledgovernmentrolledoutacommunitypolicingmodelwhich

requiredallpolicestationcommanderstodevelopforumsforpoliceandcivilianstointeract

(Steinberg2012,487).Andtheentirecriminaljusticesystemhadtobebroughtinlinewith

thenewConsititutionundergirdedby thevaluesofhumandignity,equality,and freedom.

However, many of these developments have since been rolled back, erroded and even

perverted by calls for tougher policing and a more punitive justice system. Today, our

criminal justice system can be described as one in a state of crisis, characterised by

increasingly hostile criminal justice system and excessively violent policing practices.

Scholars have attributed this to a series of legislative and executive decisions (Tait and

Marks2011;Hornberger2011;McMichael2014;Redpath2014;Steinberg2011;Marksand

Bruce2016).Andsooday,incidentssuchasMarikanaandthe#FeesMustFallprotestswere

understandablylikenedtoSharpeville1961and16June1976.

Butwhywehaveendedupwithmoreofthesamedespitetherealopportunityto

produce fairer and more just ways policing and governing even? Put differently by Kelly

Gillespie,“SouthAfricainthe1990smarkedamomentinwhichtheplausibilityoftheprison

asaubiquitousfeatureofstatecontrolcouldseriouslybequestioned”(Gillespie2008).For

her, the re-entrenchmentof theprison system inSouthAfricawas the resultofefforts to

‘improve’ upon th existing infrasructure, thus producing what many would describe as a

morehumanizedpenalsystem.ForLucasMuntingh,whoalsoexploretheenduringplaceof

theprison inSouthAfrica’ssocio-political landscape, theprison’ssymbbolicandpragmatic

valueservebothpublicandprivateinterests(Muntingh2008).Assuch,bothMuntinghand

Gillespiehelpustounderstandthecurrentplaceoftheprisonandbyextension,thenature

ofofthejusticesystemincontemporarySouthAfrica.Fromtheiraccounts,weareableto

critically understand the prison’s currency as an area that the state is able to assert its

power expand and deepen its punishing capacity through the discourse of reform,

rehabilitation,safety,andsecurity.

Many scholars and practioners that have studied South Africa’s criminal justice

system have focused on crime, policy, and institutional perspectives in their efforts to

understandtheenduringnatureoftheprisoninSouthAfrica.Theseaccountshavetended

tooverlookthewaysinwhichordinarymembersofsocietyviewandunderstandtheprison


3

andcriminaljusticesystem.Byprovidingatop-downaccount,theymissthevariousbottom-

up processes that also entrench but also resist the character of criminal justice and the

presenceoftheprisoninSouthAfricatoday.Theydonothelpuptounderstandthewaysin

whichthecriminaljusticesystemandbroaderlegalsystemarealsoentrenchedfrombelow

throughtheactionsandperspectivesofordinarymembersofsociety.

This paper begins to address this oversight by using the socio-legal framework of

legal consciousness to explore the ways in which people encounter and understand the

criminal justicesystem.Legalconsciousness,asa theoretical frameworkandtool, seeks to

investigatehow the law is able tomaintain its legitimacyandhegemonic status in society

despite the apparent gap between “the law on the books” and “the law in action.” The

paperexploreshowthelegalsystemisabletoenjoylegitimacyandmaintainitshegemonic

position within South Africa’s political order, despite the commonplace experiences and

examplesofinjusticeandfailureofthecriminaljusticesystem.

Thepaper presents the findings of a study that look at howmigrants, community

activists, and student activists who have been arrested and detained experienced and

understood the law in SouthAfrica. It finds that althoughall of themexperiencedvarying

degrees of violence, protracted legal proceedings, harassment and clear injustice, most

maintaintheirreverenceforthe law. It findsthatmostofthese individualsunintentionally

reinforce legalhegemonythroughtheways inwhichtheyunderstandandrationalisetheir

experiences of punishment. This surprising fortification of the of legal hegemony can be

understood as part of the reasons behind the prison’s enduring place in our thinking and

dealingwithsocialchallengespredominantlythroughcrimeandpunishment.

SOUTHAFRICANLEGALCONSCIOUSNESSANDTHECRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM

South Africa’s political order is based a normative conception of the law. The law is a

legitimateandunrivalledauthorityinSouthAfricansociety.Itplaystheroleofguarantorof

freedomsandfairarbiterofconflict.Itderivesasignificantportionofitslegitimacyfromthe

Constitutionandthehistorythatnecessitateditsbirth.Itis,afterall,regardedasoneofthe

mostprogressiveconstitutions in theworld.Anothersourceof its legitimacyhasbeenthe

law’s longhistoryof allowing some room for challenging thatwhich isunjust, evenunder

apartheid, but also much earlier (Abel 1995; D. Gordon 2009; Klaaren 2011; Ngcukaitobi

2018).Inmanyways,SouthAfricancontemporarysocietyisfundamentallycharacterizedby

thislongandrichhistoryofapersistentcommitmenttotheruleoflawduringstrugglesfor

equality and justice. However, how does the law in South Africa continue to enjoy its


4

hegemonicstatusdespitethegapbetweenthestandardsofthelawthatareguidedbythe

principles enshrined in the constitution, on the one hand, and the day-to-day lived

experiencesandactualencounterswiththelaw,ontheother?

Theconceptoflegalhegemonyprovidesaveryusefulframeworkfordealing

withthisquestion. Itemergesoutof lawandsocietyscholarshipandformspartofa long

tradition within socio-legal studies concerned with the relationship between law and its

place within society. It has served as a tool for investigating how legal hegemony is

maintained despite the apparent gap between the “law on the books” and the “law in

action”bylookingbeyondlegalinstitutionsandactorsandturningtoordinarymembersof

society instead (Silbey2005).A largeportionof these studieshas tended to focuson civil

cases with financial implications. This literature has not been taken up in the context of

criminalcasesandthecriminaljusticesystem.Whilesubsequentworkshavetakenuplegal

consciousness in other social contexts around the world (Nielsen 2000; Cowan 2004;

Hertogh2004;Hull2016;D.EngelandEngel2010;Abrego2011;Kubal2013)(Nielsen2000;

Cowan2004;Hertogh2004;Hull2016;EngelandEngel2010;Abrego2011;Kubal2013),no

suchstudyhasbeenappliedtotheSouthAfricancontext.

Although legalconsciousnesshasnotbeenexpresslytakenup intheSouthAfrican

context, there is abodyof literature thatengageswith someof the issues raisedby legal

consiousness scholarship from a variety of perspectives. Joel Modiri’s work provides a

criticallegalanalysisofthelawinpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,particularlythroughthelens

of critical race theory amongst others.1 Grace Khunou’s2work looks at some specific

courtroomencountersandexperiencesofchildmaintenancelawinparticular,whoBrandon

Bodenstein’sworklooksatthequestionofaccesstojusticemylookingatexperiencesofthe

magistrates courts.3 These studies explore some of the experiential consequences and

encounterswiththe lawinSouthAfricaandengagewiththe lawbeyondthe ‘ideal’.They,

therefore, provide indispensable knowledge of the idea of the law’s ‘lived experiences’ in

SouthAfrica.

AlotoftheworkonSouthAfrica’scriminaljusticesystemtakesanintimatelookat

thepenalinstitutionaswellastheimplicationsofthevarioustransformationaleffortsithas

1 See Modiri. 2011. ‘The Grey Line In-between the Rainbow:(Re) Thinking and (Re) Talking Critical Race Theory in Post-Apartheid Legal and Social Discourse’. South African Public Law 26 (1): 177–201; Modiri. 2012. ‘The Colour of Law, Power and Knowledge: Introducing Critical Race Theory in (Post-) Apartheid South Africa’. South African Journal on Human Rights 28: 405–436; and Modiri. 2013. ‘Race As/And The Trace Of The Ghost: Jurisprudential Escapism, Horizontal Anxiety And The Right To Be Racist In BoE Trust Limited’. PER: Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad 16 (5): 583–616.2013) 2 See Khunou. 2006. ‘Fathers Don’t Stand a Chance: Experiences of Custody, Access and

2 See Khunou. 2006. ‘Fathers Don’t Stand a Chance: Experiences of Custody, Access and Maintenance’. In Baba: Men and Fatherhood in South Africa. HSRC Press; and Khunou. 2008. ‘Maintenance and Changing Masculinities as Sources of Gender Conflict in Contemporay (Sic) Johannesburg.’ University of the Witwatersrand. http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/4651. 3 See Bodenstein. 2017.


5

undergonethrough itshistory (Gillespie2008;Muntingh2008,2009;DisselandEllis2002;

Gould2009). The literature that specifically looksatprisons in SouthAfricahas tended to

focus on long-term incarceration whilst overlooking short-term incarceration in the jails,

holdingcells,deportationcentersandthe‘transitional'sectionsofprisons.Ashighlightedby

someoftheworkonlegalconsciousness,contrarytoalotofourownperceptions,thelegal

systemisnotdesignedtohaveeverycasereachtrial(Feeley1992;EwickandSilbey1998).

Therefore the largest portions of encounters with the law, those that are predominantly

short-terminnature,remainunaccountedfor.However,Bodenstein’s(2017)recentstudyof

SouthAfrica’sLegalAidsystembeginstomakeavaluablecontributioninthisregard.Infact,

accordingtoClareBallard,Morethanhalfofthoseinremanddetentionwillbereleaseddue

toacquittalortheirchargesbeingwithdrawnorstruckofftheroll(2011,5).Shehighlights

thesignificanceofremanddetentionasfollows:

Literally,thousandsofpeopleinSouthAfricaspendlongstretchesoftheirlivesinconditionsfrequentlydescribedas"inhumane,"andwithoutaccesstoeducationalorrehabilitativeprograms(2011,5).

As such, our knowledge of the ways in which members of society experience the law

through theirencounterswith thecriminal justice systemremains limited insofaras these

perspectivesarenottakenintoaccount.Thisstudy,therefore,contributestoourknowledge

on the experiences ‘pre-emptive' punishment that characterizes the more transitory

encounterswithSouthAfrica'scriminaljusticesystem.Withoutthisshiftinfocus,alimited

viewandinterpretationofSouthAfrica’scriminaljusticesystemandexperiencesofthelaw

will persist. In expanding the application of legal consicousness and introducing it to the

South African context, we are provided with a new and perhaps decolonial approach to

studyingourcriminaljusticesystemandthelaw.

METHODOLOGY

This paper draws upon data collected in a study (undertaken in 2016 and 2017) on how

short-term incarceration shapes legal consiousness. The study is grounded in the

experiencesofarrestandshort-term incarcerationsharedbycommunityactivists, student

activists,andmigrants.Thestudytakesanin-depthlookatwhatsomepeopleexperienceof

the criminal justice system and what they understand of law through that experience. It

then applies the concept of legal consciousness to the South African context as away of


6

understanding some of the ways in which legal hegemony is maintained within a post-

apartheidanddemocraticframeworkbylookingspecificallyatthecriminaljusticesystem.It

delves into theexperiencesofordinarypeople relating to the lawand imprisonment–an

experienceof‘pre-emptive’punishmentinSouthAfricatodevelopanaccountofthewaysin

whichlegalconsciousnessisshapedbyparticularexperiencesofthelaw.

This paper is based on the experiences of 24 individuals: 8 of whom are African

migrants, 8 are student activists and theother 8 are community activists. The studyused

purposive and snowballing samplingmethods to identify and access potential participants

until the target sample sizewas reached. Their experienceswere captured through semi-

structured in-depth interviews conducted with the community activists, student activists,

and migrants. In order to protect the identities of the participants of in this study

paperticpants are identifiedwith codepseudonyms that consist of a letter (‘C’, ‘S’ or ‘M’)

and is followed byanumber (between1and24).4Thedatawasanalysedusing thematic

analysis.Theinterviewswereconductedinalanguagepreferredbythepartcipant.Assuch,

sixoftheparticipantspreferredtoconducttheinterviewinisiZulu,Setswana,Sesotho,and

French.5These interviews were all conducted in an around Johannesburg where all the

partipantseitherlived,workedorstudied.6

The interviewwas structrued in three parts: the first looking at basic information

abouttheparticipantandtheirbackground,thesecondturnedtotheexperienceofarrest

anddetention. The secondpart of the interview focusedonhow theparticipants actually

recalledaparticularexperienceofarrestanddetentionbylookingathowtheyweretreated,

how they interacted with the police, what was the process and how much of it they

understood.Thethirdpartoftheinterviewturnstowardareflectiononthatexperienceand

exploredtheperceptionsandunderstandingofthelawinlightoftheirexperience.Someof

the questions I asked in this part of the interviews included what they thought of their

experience(s)ofarrestanddetentionnowthattheywerelookingbackandhowtheyviewed

the law in SouthAfrica now. For some, the experiences tookplace years earlierwhile for

others,predominantlythestudentactivists,theexperiencesweremuchmorerecent.7

4 The letters ‘C’, ‘S’ and ‘M’ each stand for community activist, student activist, and migrant, respectively. The numbers range from 1 to 24 and indicate when the interview was conducted within the series, ranging from the first interview conducted to the last interview conducted. The logic here is that each interview conducted impacted on the one that followed. 5 The were kindly translated and transcribed by Lebo Thabong, Sanelisiwe Sithole, and Sibongile Shope 6 I am indebted to the African Diaspora Forum (ADF), the Socio-economic Rights Institute (SERI), and the Thembelihle Crisis Committee (TCC) who proved to be invaluable resources in this regard. Through them, I was able to get in touch with community activists and migrants. 7 This was something that I could not mitigate against while conducting this research, however, when analyzing the interviews, it was something that I had to be aware of.


7

This paper focuses on this part of the interview in particular. This part of the

interview draws out some of the meanings that participants now attached to their

experiencesofarrestanddetention.Butmostimportantly, itrevealshowtheirencounters

withthecriminaljusticesystem,predominantlycharacterisedbyviolenceandill-treatment,

shape their broader perceptions and views about the law in South Africa i.e. their legal

consciousness. The responses to this part of the interview reveals the surprising and

unexpectedwaysthatparticipantsrationalisetheirexperienceinawaythatunintentionally

reinforceslegalhegemony.Thisiscontrarytothereasonableexpectationthatthosewhose

experiencesreflectmissacarriagesofjusticewouldbemostskepticalandpessimisticofthe

law’s legitimacy, and by extension, its institutions. The participants show how their

experiencesdonotnecessarilyalterthefaithandconfidencetheyhaveinthelaw.Forthose

whoexpressivelycriticalalsounintentionallyentrenchlegalhegemonydespitetheirstaunch

refusalstoacknowledgethelaw’sauthority.

RESEARCHFINDINGSANDANALYSIS

Theparticipants’socio-political identifiesofcommunityactivist,studentactvist,ormigrant

aresignificanttheywereimportantfactorsthatfundamentalyshapedtheirencounterswith

thelaw.Theyallbelievedthathowtheyweretreatedwasbasedontheiridentitiesaseither

communityactivists,studentactivistsormigrants.Insomecases,arrestanddententionwas

basedontheirperceivedsocio-political.8Of the24partcipants, fourwerewomen(2being

communityactivistsandtheother2beingstudentactivists).Thedurationspentincustody

rangedfromthreedaystosixweeksforcommunityactivistsandforstudents,theduration

ranged from few hours to oneweek in custody. Of the three groups,migrants spent the

longesttimeincustodywiththedurationrangingfromeightto16weeksincustody.Three

migrantsspenteightweeksindetention;anotherthreespent12weeks,whileanothertwo

spent16weeksindetention.Incomparisontothecommunityandstudentactivistsincluded

in this study, it is clear thatmigrantsexperiencedsignificantly longerperiodsofdetention

andwere themost vulnerable of the three groups in termsof violations and abuses. The

studentactivistsspenttheleastamountoftimeincustodywhencomparedtothemigrants

andcommunityactivists.

8 By perceived, I refer to the reasons surrounding their arrests. Some of the interviewees were arrested because of their perceived activity and by extension, their perceived sociopolitical identities of either being community activists, student activists of migrants. In such cases, these interviewees made it explicitly clear that at the time of the arrest and detention, their arrests were wrongful in that they were not involved in activities that they were arrested for, e.g. protest activity or drug-dealing. In this study, I included them according to these perceived identities.


8

The community activists I spoke to came from orwere affiliatedwith the

ThembelihleCrisisCommittee(TCC).Twooftheparticipantsrecalledtheirarrestsasbeing

the result of their perceived involvement in the protest activity that surrounded their

arrests. Each of the interviewees was later released without conviction and all of them

recalledthattheywerealllegallyrepresented.Thestudentactivistswerearrestedfortheir

involvement(orperceivedinvolvement)inthestudentprotestactvityinthe2015and2016

wavesof#FeesMustFall.Twooftheparticipantsrecalledtheirarrestsasbeingtheresultof

theirperceivedinvolvementintheprotestactivitythatsurroundedtheirarrests.Eachofthe

intervieweeswaslaterreleasedwithoutconvictionandallofthemrecalledthattheywere

all legally represented.Onlyoneof theparticipants included in this studyendedupbeing

convicted of a drug-related offence while the other seven participants were all released

fromimmigrationdetentionandremanddetentionandmostwererecalledthattheywere

legallyrepresented.

Encounteringthe‘gap’:towardsadialecticofexpectationsLegalconsciousnessattemptstounderstandthethelaw’sabilitytomaintainitsauthorityin

spiteofthegapthatexistsbetweenwhatthelaw isandwhatwhatthelawshouldbe.The

studydevelopsamodelofhowencounterswiththelawandourperceptionsofthelaware

informed by a combination of normaitive expectations and predictive expectations of the

law.Normativeexpectationsaredrawnfrommorallyorethicallybasedidealizedideasofthe

law.Normativeexpectationsarebasedontheimagesthatthelawprojectsofitself,suchas

objectivity and justice. These source of expectations are highly influential and extremely

pervasiveandbecauseof this, legal consciousness isactively shapedaspeopledrawupon

them.Whereaspredictiveexpectationsareinformedbydepictions,sharedperceptions,and

experiencesofthelawthatcanbebothpersonalandvicarious.

I argue that a heavier emphasis on normative expectations is likely to produce a

dispositionthatdisplaysageneralacceptanceofthelaworaresignationtothelaw.Outside

of a hostile and contentious scenarioof getting arrested, thatwouldwould translate to a

reverence for the law. A heavier emphasis on predecitve expections (including depiction,

perceptions and experiences) is likely to produce the dispositions of manoeuvring and

negotiatingwith(in) the lawforsomeandadefianceor resistanceagainst the law, for the

others.Theexperiencesandperceptionsofthelawsharedintheinterviewstypicallystood

atoddswiththeexpressednormativeexpectationsofthelawandthusresembledthegap

betweenwhatpeoplebelievethelawisandwhatthelawoughttobe.Thisgapreflectsthat


9

‘empiricalgap’thatexistsbetweenthe‘lawofthebooks’andthe‘lawinaction’ identified

bysocio-legalscholars(Silbey2005;Hertogh2004;HallidayandMorgan2013).

The rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly its foundational values of

dignity,equality,andfreedom,occupyan interestingplace intheperceptionsofmany.On

theonehand,theyareprinciplesandentitlementsthatweholdontobecausetheyprovide

astandardforwhatadecentlifeinSouthAfricashouldlooklike,whileontheotherhand,

they remain distant, elusive and unenforceable in the day-to-day lives of people. The

experiences of the criminal justice system reflect quite simply, the gap between the

constitutionally bound laws around arrest and detention and the lived experiences of the

individuals interviewed. Their narratives reveal the various ways in which processes of

arrestanddetentionareeither intentionally instrumentalisedtoadministerpunishmentor

howtheyresultinunduepunishmentbecauseofthevariousproblemswithinthesystem.9

WhenIaskedtheparticipantstosharetheirreflectionsoftheirexperiencesandhowthey

nowperceived the law, its institutions andpersonnel, theyexpresseda very complex and

ongoing process from which legal consciousness is shaped. The community activists and

student activists shared overwhelming negative perceptions of the law in SouthAfrica. In

fact,onlyoneofthecommunityactivistsandoneofthestudentactivistsIspoketoshareda

mixedimageofthelaw.ThesenegativeviewspresentedimagesofthelawinSouthAfricaas

impartial,oppressive,overwhelminglycorrupt,andbeneficialtothepowerful,wealthyand

privilegedasrevealedinC12’sdescriptionofthelaw:“Itservesthefew.It’sforthefew.It’s

fortherich. It’snotforus. It’snot- Imean, it ‘snotforusaspoorpeople. Itdoesn’tserve

us.”Hearguedthatforhim,thiswasevidencedbyMarikana,which,forhim,alsoresembled

thatlackoftransformationinpolicing:

It’sonlyachangeoftheleadership,thecolourbecausewhenyouwatchthe1960massacre,thereweremorewhitepolicemen,youwatchMarikana,thereweremoreblackpolicemensoit’sacontinuation.It’sacontinuationofoppressingpeople,theblackpeoplewhoaretheworkingclass.Ja.(C122017).

From some time spent with C12, one really gets the sense that his role as a community

activistisanimportantpartofhisidentity.OnthedaythatIhadmethiminThembelihlefor

ourinterview,heworeat-shirtthatsaid‘RemembertheslainofMarikana’.Thedaymarked

the fifthyearsince the tragedy.Atvariouspoints in the interview,hewould referencehis

9 See for example Hopkins 'Broken beyond imagination: South Africa’s justice system' (2014); Ballard 'Research Report on Remand Detention In South Africa: An Overview Of The Current Law And Proposals For Reform' (2011); Karrim 'To grant bail or not to grant bail' (2017) and Gordin and Cloete 'Imprisoned before being found guilty: remand detainees in South Africa ' (2011)


10

belief in the law’s partiality in relation the variousways that he saw the treatment other

struggles that he identified with like the striking miners of Marikana and the protesting

studentsof#FeesMustFall:

…Becausethestate,thesystem[…]itdoesoppressespecially-youknow,theywillhavealenienthandoncriminalsanduseaveryoppressivesystemonactivists.Ja.Youcheckyour#FeesMustFall,ja.Thebrutalityonthosestudents,itwasamatterofsayingwearegoingtoclampdownonthoseactivists...(C122017).

Someofthestudentsalsobelievethatthecriminaljusticesystemispartialbecauseoftheir

experiences of arrests and detention. Even thoughmost of the students experienced the

least deviatory experience of the three groups, they still believed that the treatmentwas

based on their identities. A student activist, [S6] shared how he believes the law works

basedonidentity:

[M]yexperience[…]didn’tmatchwhatIexpectthelawtobebecause[…]thewaytheyapplied[thelaw]dependsonwhoyouareandwhoyou-whereyoucomefrom,youknow,yourrace,youknow:I’mblackandI’manti-youknow,therulingparty,sothelawtakesadifferentturnwhenyouinthatpositionIthink(S62017)

The responses of the migrants were predominantly neutral in that they were a

mixtureofpositiveandnegativequalifications thatwouldacknowledge the successesand

failures of the law in South Africa. These views included images of the law as pragmatic,

imperfect,corruptible,butlargelywellfunctioning.OftheeightmigrantsIspoketo,onehad

anegativeviewofthelawandtwohadverypositiveandoptimisticviewsofthelaw,which

sharedanimageofthelawthatitwouldexpressofitself:fair,just,andimpartial.Giventhe

complexandfluidnatureoflegalconsciousness,Iviewperceptionsofthelawasexistingon

a continuum with the most idealistic perceptions on one end and the most pessimistic

perceptionson theother.And throughencounterswith the lawandexchangesabout the

law, perceptions can be situationally shifted. As argued by Merry, legal consciousness is

interactivelyderivedaspeopleencounter the lawbutalsoas theyshare theirexperiences

(Merry1992,211–13).

Their expectationsof arrest anddetentionwere informedby a varietyof sources.

There were two forms of expectations that emerged from the interviews: predictive

expectations and normative expectations. The predictive expectations included various


11

perceptions,depictions,andexperiencesof thecriminal justice systemthat couldbeboth

personaland/orvicarious.Thenormativeexpectationswerebasedonthecollectivelyheld

ideasthatareeither legallybasedormorallyandethicallybased.Theseexpectationswere

informed prior to these particular experiences of getting arrested and then detained.

Retrospectively enquiring about these expectations as I did through the interviews, it

becomesclearthattheyhelpedtoshapethewaysthatthedifferentintervieweesresponded

to the various processes and procedures of arrest and detention. From this perspective,

theseexpectationsandtheirinfluenceontheiractualresponsestothelawresemblebeing

brought ‘before the law’ but also their responses to being ‘within the law’ and actually

encounteringthelaw.

The ultimate perceptions shared by the interviewees are forms of legal

consciousness that adrawn fromhaving reflectedon theseexperiencesof the law. These

perceptionswereeitherpredominantlynegative(assharedbythecommunityandstudent

activists) or predominantlymixed (as shared by themigrants). These perceptions, I argue

resemble forms of legal consciousness that expresses how these groups feel about the

criminaljusticesystemandthelawmoregenerally.Theseformsoflegalconsciousnessare

thereforeageneralideaaboutwhatisbelievedtobetrueaboutthelawinSouthAfricain

light of these experiences of the criminal justice system as either a community activist,

studentactivist,ormigrant.Thisperceptionandformoflegalconsciousnessarebasedona

particularexperienceof the lawandwhile itmaynotpresentacompleteaccountof their

legalconsciousness,wearestillabletolearnfromtheseperceptions.However,someofthe

rationalizingframesthatsomeofthe intervieweesusedtomakesenseoftheirexperience

present unexpected and surprising narratives of how they have come to understand and

reflect on their experiences with implications for the ways in which legal hegemony is

sustained.

Overcomingthe‘gap’:Therationalisingframesofpunishmentandthe(re)entrenchmentoflegalhegemonyThemultipleperceptionsofthelawthatemergedfromtheinterviewswiththecommunity

activists, student activists, and migrants reflect the complexity and multiplicity of

experiences of the these law. These perceptions were either predominantly negative (as

sharedbythecommunityandstudentactivists)orpredominantlymixed(assharedbythe

migrants).AndashighlightedbyEwickandSilbey,nooneimageofthe lawprevails(Ewick

and Silbey 1998, 51). It is precisely this complexity within and between the various


12

perceptions of the law in South Africa that the law or legality can sustain its hegemonic

positionwithinSouthAfrica’spoliticalorder.

However, someof the rationalizing frames that someof the interviewees used to

make senseof theirexperiencepresentunexpectedand surprisingnarrativesofhow they

havecometounderstandandreflectontheirexperienceswithimplicationsforthewaysin

which legalhegemony is sustained. Thesenarratives areespeciallypowerful because they

are stories that share some of the ways that people have come to deal with feelings of

shame,humiliation,andregretthatareassociatedwithexperiencesofgettingarrestedand

detained.While these feeling do not disappear, these narratives show that they could be

accompaniedbyfeelingsofpride,evengratitude,remarkably.

ThesenarrativesareinterpretationsthatIrefertoas‘rationalizingframes’.WhenI

asked how they now viewed their experiences of arrest and detention, some of the

interviewees justifiably viewed their experiences nothing beyond an account of injustice.

However, others interpreted their experiences differently. These interpretations saw their

experiencesasmorethansimplymiscarriagesofjustice.Theserationalizingframesfeature

as the stories that the interviewees share about how their encounter(s)with the criminal

justicesystemandhowthey fit intotheirbroaderarchiveof lifeexperiences.Theyhelp in

ourunderstandingofthewaysthatexperiencesofshort-termincarcerationmaycontribute

to the shaping of legal consciousness but also how they contribute to reinforcing legal

hegemony.

Fromthevarious responses that the intervieweesgave, Iwasable to identify four

frames of rationalization. They are: (1) injustices highlight the ‘gap’; (2) perceived the

personal value of experience; (3) perceived outcomes from experience; and (4) injustices

attributedtoindividualactors.Theseframesofrationalizationareimportantbecausefirstly,

they show that people do not experience and rationalize punishment or injustice in the

sameway.Secondly,theirsignificanceforlegalconsciousnessisthattheyserveasabridge

between experiences of the law and our broader perceptions of the law. Thirdly, and

perhaps most importantly, these rationalizing frames inadvertently reconcile the gap

betweenwhatwasexperiencedofthelawandwhatwasnormativelyexpectedofthelaw.

Thefirstrationalizingframenotonlyreiteratestheinjusticeoftheirexperiencesas

examples of the gap between the law of the books and the law in action, but they also

highlight the experience as a failure that is attributed to the legal system in SouthAfrica.

TheseperceptionsscoffedattheveryideaoftherebeingafunctioninglegalsysteminSouth

Africaanddrawattentiontothevariousexamplesofthehowthelawfailingthemandmany


13

othersstoodasevidencefortheircriticismsofthelaw.Twostudents,S7andS8expressed

anawarenessof someof thenormativeexpectationsof the lawbut they insisted that for

them, their expectations of the law in South Africa were grounded on their predictive

expectations.WhenIaskedS8arguedthathehadnoexpectationsofthelawinSouthAfrica

because forhimthe lawwasnothingbut“anoppressivesystem”and“money-laundering”

schemethathadthepowertoexploitbothvictimsandperpetrators(S82017).ForS8black

andpoorpeoplesufferedthemostunderSouthAfrica’slegalsystemandhisexperienceof

thecriminal justicesystemconfirmedtheequallynegativeperceptionsthatheheldof the

law.

Similarly, when I asked S7 what he expected of the law he replied quite simply:

“Nothing.InSouthAfrica?Iexpectabsolutelynothing”(S72017).Theseperceptions,which

wereechoedtovaryingdegreesbysomeoftheotherparticipants,presentcriticismsofthe

lawthatchallengethe ideaof thereevenbeinga functioning legalsystem inSouthAfrica.

These accounts, therefore, seem to even lack a frame of rationalization because these

perceptionsarea rejectionof anyattempt to ‘make senseoutofnonsense’. Theseoverly

cynicalaccounts,however,getawaywithmorethantheirwillingnesstoacknowledge:they

overlook their own implicit commitment and subscription so somekindof legal system in

South Africa by virtue of the socio-political identities of being student and community

activists. The work of activists assumes a belief in rights and entitlements. Politically

organizingaroundparticularobjectivesanddemands,implicitlybelievesinthepossibilityof

achievingsomeformofreliefthatisoftenprovidedthroughlegalmeans.Andinfact,South

Africahasalongandrichhistoryofvictoriesthatcomethroughthelegalsystem.Andatthe

veryleast,acommitmenttotherightstofreelyorganizingandprotesting,althoughheavily

frustratedby thegrowinganti-protest responsesof thegovernment, isexpressed through

actuallytakingpartintheactivity.Therefore,throughtheirveryactivism,thesupremacyof

the lawas the final arbiter andprotector is sustained. Legal hegemony is reinforcedeven

whenitspowerisdeliberatelyresisted.

Conversely, the other three rationalizing frames reveal that although the

participants recognized and understood their experiences as examples of the law failing

them, or that power was abused etc. they now shared interpretations that attached

meaning to these experiences. These meanings, inadvertently help to reconcile the gap

betweenthevariousinjusticesthattheyexperiencedandthenormativeexpectationsofthe

law that. This reinforces legal hegemony through a framing of the experience as a failure


14

thatisnotentirelyattributedtothelegalsystemasawhole.Somevieweditasanimperfect

andflawedframeworkwhileothersmaintainednegativeviewsofthelaw.

All three frames express some attempt to reconcile the gap although they also

unintentionallyreassertthe law’spower in interestingways.AndhereRobertGordon’s(R.

Gordon1982)interpretationofGramsci’snotionofhegemonyisparticularlyapt:

…AntonioGramsci’snotionof“hegemony,”i.e.,themosteffectiveformofdominationtakesplacewhenboththedominantandthedominatedclassesbelievethattheexistingorder[…]issatisfactory,oratleastrepresentsthemostthatanyonecouldexpect,becausethingsprettymuchhavetobethewaytheyare(R.Gordon1982;Crenshaw1995,108).

TheseframesofrationalizationrepresentwhatCrenshaw,quotingGordonagain,describes

as“themanythoughtsandbeliefsthatpeoplehaveadoptedwhich[may]limittheirability

‘eventoimaginethatlifecouldbedifferentandbetter’”(Crenshaw1995,108).Thesethree

framesultimatelyreassertthelaw’sdominantandhegemonicstatuswithinsociety.

The perceptions that rationalized the experiences of arrest and detention

accordingtosomekindofperceivedpersonalvalueoftheexperience,expressedsurprising

positive reflections on the experience. This frame reveals a startling acceptance and

embraceoftheirexperiencesasaresultofaperceivedpositiveoutlookthatincludedideas

aroundreligionanddivineintervention,lessonslearnedandthebenefitsoftheexperience.

M24,whowaswrongfullyarrestedandeventuallychargedwithadrug-relatedmatterthat

took placewithin threemonths of his arrival in South Africa, described his experience as

follows:

WhenIthinkofmytimeinjail,yousee,it’slikeGod,hewanttosavemylifeinsidethere,youunderstand.Because,evensomepeoplewhoIknowoutsidebeforeIgo,beforeIcomeback,someofthemisdead,youunderstand?Youunderstand?Andit’slikeGodsavemylife,youunderstand?HewanttojustletmeseehowSouthAfricabebeforeIcomeout,andlearnhowpeoplelive,youunderstand.Becauseyoucanseemanycharacterandmanytribe,yousee.HowZimbabwe,whenZimbabweantalknow,Iknowit’saZimbabwean.WhenIseeaZuluman,Iknowit’saZuluman.WhenIseeaXhosaman,Iknowit’saXhosaman,youunderstand.Iknoweverybodybehave,youunderstand…(M242017).

M4sharedsimilarsentimentsthatalsoincludedareligiousoutlookonhistimeindetention:

IamaChristian-IdopraybutwhenIthinkaboutthosethings,Isay,“ThankGod.God,YouopenedmyeyesandshowedmesomethingIdidn’tknow.”Becauseeven


15

thoughIwaswronglyarrested,Ilearnedalot,whichIwouldn’thavelearnedsowhenIlookbackthere,Isay“Hey!God,YoujustwanttoshowmehowSouthAfricanlawwork,that’swhyyoumakemearrestedfornothingandIcameout”Yougetmypoint?So…sometimes,Isay“ThankGod,Igotarrested”becauseIlearnedaloteventhoughit’sapainfulsituationbutwhenyouthinkbackwhatyoulearn,doyougetmypoint?Fromtheirsystem,fromtheirlaw,youlearn,yousay,“Wow.Ilearnalot.”Unlikeotherprison,thatyouwillbethinking,“OhGod.Isurvivedmylifethere”buthereIlearnedalot.(M42017)

The role of religion as a rationalizing framework also featured quite strongly, particularly

within the testimonies of migrants. Faith becomes a text according to which one’s life

experiencescanbeinterpretedandunderstood.Itoffersasenseofcomfortderivedfromits

ability to providemeaning for all life experiences. ForM4 and to someextentM24, their

experiencesformedpartofadivineplanforthemtolearnabouthowthelawinSouthAfrica

works. FromM24’s account, we learn how in light of his experience of arriving in South

Africa back in 2007 andhis arrest and subsequent 3 years spent in incarcerationwithin 3

monthsofhisarrivalformedpartofGod’splantoprotecthim.Inhisview,histimeinjail,so

soonafter he arrived in SouthAfrica, servedas a ‘buffer zone’ thatwasmore than just a

rude-awakeningbecausehelearned,uponhisreleasethatsomeofthefewpeopleheknew

atthetimeofhisarrestweredead.Becausehearrestedsosoonafterhearrived inSouth

Africa, his time in jail protected him from death but also served as a period inwhich he

learned about SouthAfrican and prison culture in sometimes very violentways. Here the

experiences of being in jail/prison are rationalized through the lens of faith and divine

intervention.Thesenotionsoflessonslearned,supportedbyeitherfaithorpastexperiences

ofjail,areveryintriguingwaysofrationalizingunwarrantedpunishment.Theyofferinsights

intothepossibleways inwhich legalhegemony ismaintained insofaraspeoplerationalize

theirexperiencesinwaysthatalmostjustifytheirunjustexperiences.

The community activists rationalized their experiences of arrest and detention in

terms of the tangible outcomes. These came in the form of Thembelihle now receiving

various socio-economic services from the government. For other activists, Thembelihle’s

continued existence and resistance of the removal was a victory in and of itself. These

activistsmadesenseoftheirarrestsanddetentionbyattributingthesetangibleoutcomesto

their experiences because they formpart of their struggle for Thembelihle.When I asked

whattheymadeoftheirarrestsandtimeindetentionsomeoftheresponsesreflectedthese

sentiments:


16

WhenIlookbackweusuallymakejokeoutofitwhenwearetogetherbecauseitisthroughthosekindsofactionsthatmakesThembelihletodaytobeasitistodaybecausetheaimoftheauthoritieswastotakeThembelihleoutofhere,tosomewhereelsesowehadtoresistagainstthatsowesometimesmakejokeoutofit,sayja,thatisoursweat,youknow,thatishowwewentthrough(C162017).

Welltoday[myarrestis]abadgeofhonour[laughs],youknow[…]ok,whenithappensit’shardforthosearrestedandeveryoneisunhappyincludingthosewhoareoutsidefeelingbad,tryingtogetyououtandthenthere’sarealpossibilityofbeingconvicted,youknow?Youcanget2years,5years,youknow,it’snotajoke.Ja.Butwhenit’sallover,thenit’sviewedmoreheroically[…]Andinanycase,afterthatprotest,thegovernmentrelentedandgrantedThembelihlerights[togetservices]becausethe[plan]wastorelocatethemandthatwentonfor12years(C102017).

[…]HakesanatababecauseletodaykennamoThembelihle,kenalemotlakase,honalenthotsengata,honaledichangestsentjhatsentsengditlabecauseofnnalemacomrade amang. Ke a di thabela, ehh..ha se hore kemoo ke fellang teng, kesantsanekeyapele.

[…]IdonotcarebecauseI`mstillhereinThembelihletoday,Ihaveelectricity,alotof things,newchangesarecomingbecauseofmeandothercomrades. I`mhappywiththem,andit’snotlikeitendsthere,I’mstillmovingforward(C182017)

The quotes highlight the meaning that these outcomes have attached to the very long

historyofprotest and struggle. For theactivistsof Thembelihle, theharassment that they

described, the grievous wounds that some had suffered, and the desolate and punishing

experiences of arrest and detention take on a greater significance and inadvertently

contribute to generating some of the successes won by themovement. Such an account

leaves hegemony untouched because although their experiences epitomize theways that

thelawhasfailedthem,theirvictoriesareoftensecuredthroughwinninglegalbattles.The

various services that they receive and their ability to resist the government’s effort to

relocate the community has partly been the result of winning arduous and protracted

battles. Even their eventual releases following their arrests are also the result of securing

legal representatives suchasSERI,Centre forAppliedLegal Studies (CALS), andotherpro-

bono legal support. As such, the law can be both predator and saviour. Through these

victories,thelawisvindicatedanditspowerissustained.

Someofthe intervieweesrationalizedtheirexperiencesbyattributingthe injusticesthat

theyexperiencedtoindividualactors.Here,thepolice,immigrationofficers,andpoorlegal

representativesarepartofthereasonswhygrossinjusticewasexperiencedatthehandsof


17

the law. ForM1 andM13, both ofwhomwere arrested and taken to Lindela, the Home

AffairsofficialsandImmigrationofficialsheldexpressedxenophobicsentimentsandtreated

themassuch.Theyputitasfollows:

[…]thereissomepeoplewho’sworkinginSouthAfrica,theydon’tknowthelaw.Likeimmigrationofficer.Mostoftheimmigrationpeopletheydon’tknowthelaw.[…]I’vebeeninSouthAfricaactually,since2006untiltoday,somethinglikeelevenyearsbutyoucangosomewhere,theytreatingyoulikeaforeigner,“Youareforeigner,youaremakwerekwere,makwerekwere.”EveninLindela,“Youaremakwerekwere!”Doyousee?Thelawisnottalkinglikethisbutyoucangosomewherebutotherpeople,theyaretalkinglikethis(M12017)

Laloiestbonnemaissaufqueceuxdontonamispourpratiquercetteloienfaveurdesétrangers,ilsnelefontpas.Ilsfontsouventdessentiments.Dessentimentsxénophobiques,dessentimentsautochtonesetdesoriginalsdecepays.Ilsprivilègent,ilsdonnentdesprivilègesplusauxenfantsdeleurpays,aulieudeconsidérerlesétrangers.Quandlessud-africainssontaussidesétrangersdansautrespays,onlestraitecommeilfaut.Maispourquoiici,ilsmaltraitentlesétrangers?

Thelawisgoodbutthoseputinplacetoimplementthelawinfavourofforeigners,theydon’tdoit.Theyharbourfeelings.Xenophobicfeelings,feelingsfornativesandtheoriginalsofthiscountry.Theyfavour,theyprioritisechildrenoftheircountrymoreinsteadofconsideringforeigners.WhenSouthAfricansarealsoforeignersinothercountries,theyaretreatedasneedbe.Butwhyisitthathere,theymistreatforeigners?(M132017,13)

Forthem,professionalswithinthecriminaljusticesystemaretoblamebecauseoftheirlack

ofexpertise,asheputit,aswellasmuchdeeperxenophobicanddiscriminatorysentiments.

Not only were their experiences uniquely a result of their migrant identities, but their

experiences highlight that very often, immigrationofficers are the gatekeepers that stand

betweenthemanda legalstay inSouthAfrica. Infact,M1arguedinhis interview,thathe

believedmigrantsinSouthAfricaareforcedintoaprecariousexistencewheretheyhaveto

liveintheshadowsofthelaw–asentimentargued.

Others attributed a lot of the criminal justice system’s failure and their unfortunate

experiences to police conduct. For M20 and M21, they argued that they recognized the

legitimacy of the law, however, the police corruption and incompetence resulted in their

prolongedstayinremanddetention.S2puthiscriticismasfollows:


18

Thelawandpeoplethatworkforthelawaredifferent.Thepeoplethatworkforthelawarenotfairbutthelawisfair.Thelawenforcersarenotfairbutthelawisfair.Thelawallowsformetolaychargesagainstthosepeopleforbeatingmeup,inthatitisfairbuttheenforcement,afterIlaythosecharges,theenforcerswon’ttakethosechargesseriouslybecausethey’llbeprotectingeachother(S22017).

Inaccountingforthewaythatheandhiscomradesweretreated,S5describedthepolice

andtheirattitudetowardstheirworkasfollows:

[…]thepoliceofficers,theydowhattheydoonlytoservetheirownpurposesnotbecausetheylikethejob,likemostofthem,whenIlookatthemnow,Iwouldsaythattheyjoinedthepoliceforcenotbecausetheywantedtobepoliceofficersbutbecausetheyjustwantedajob,justtogetemployedandworktobeabletoprovidefortheirfamilies,notnecessarilybecausetheywantedtobecomepoliceofficers.Sohence,mostofthemtheydon’tdowhat’sright,theyjustdowhatthey’rerequiredtodonotbecausethey,themselvestheybelieveinthelaw(S52017).

Thisrationalizingframereinforcesthelegalhegemonybyrefusingtoseethemisconductof

officialsandlegalpersonnelaspartofasystemicproblem.Thelawmaintainsitslegitimacy

becauseindividualsareresponsiblefortheirunjustexperiences.Therefore,wecanassume

thatwithouttheseparticularindividuals,theparticipantsmaybelievethattheirexperiences

of the lawwouldhavebeendifferentandpossiblymuchcloseraligned to theirnormative

expectations.

CONCLUSION

Theseexperiencesofarrestanddetentioncontributedtoshapingthelegalconsciousnessof

theseindividualsthroughthewaysthateithertriedtomakesenseoftheexperiencesornot.

Forthosewhomadeanefforttorationalizetheirexperience,thoseframesofrationalization

helpedtobridgethegapbetweentheirexperiencesofthelawandtheidealandnormative

expectationsofthe law. Theseparticipant’seffortstoattachmeaningstotheexperiences

unexpectedlycontributedtosustaininglegalhegemonyinSouthAfrica.Forthosewhomade

noteffortattachanymeaningortorationalizetheirexperiences,thegapbetweenwhatthe

law is and what the law ought to be. These participants, therefore, refused to actively

reconcile the gap in the law. Theseparticipants, however, unknowingly also contribute to


19

sustaining legal hegemony, because of their everyday interactions with the law that lie

beyondtheirexceptionalexperiencesofarrestanddetention.

As shown by Ewick and Silbey, legal hegemony derives its power from the

commonplaceofthelaw.Themultipleperceptionsandexperiencesofthelawallcontribute

toreinforcingthepowerof the lawpreciselybecause it isabletobemorethatonething.

Areasinwhichthelawisnotedtohavefailed,likeintheexperiencesofmyparticipants,are

notdefinitiveofthelawscompletefailureandirrelevance.Alltheothercommonandtaken-

for-grantedareas inwhich the lawdoeswork,help to restore the law’s image.Therefore,

examplesofwhen the lawhasbrokendownaremanipulatedby those inpower,orwhen

the law is unfairly applied, are only part of the law’s story. The other part ismade up of

storiesthatredeemandupholdthelaw’shegemonicstatus.

Theformsoflegalconsciousnessthatemergedthroughouttheinterviewsresemble

the multitude of the participants’ responses to their realities of arrest and short-term

incarceration.Theirresponsesincludedarecollectionofwhattheydid,thought,andsaidin

themomentbutalsothemoreripenedreflectionsthathavehadenjoyedthebenefitoftime

toberefinedandrevisited.TheformsoflegalconsciousnessthatIidentifiedareaneffortto

classifysomeofthebroaderideasandperceptionsthatwemayhaveofthelawandatany

given moment in time. I believe that how the community activists, student activists,

migrantsperceivedthe lawduringtheirexperiencesofarrestanddetentionaswellasthe

broader formsof legalconsciousness thatemergedfrommy interviewswiththemarenot

necessarilyuniquetothesocio-politicalgroupsincludedinthisstudy.Butmostimportantly,

nosingle formof legalconsciousness isacompleteandself-containedstoryof the law,as

highlightedbyEwickandSilbey(EwickandSilbey1998,228).

In the context of arrest and short-term incarceration, the participants sometimes

described their reactions at the time in ways that displayed either their ‘acceptance’ or

‘resignation’ to the law. They would describe moments of mere acceptance of their

unfortunatecircumstances,orsimplyshrugoffobviousandgrossviolationsbecauseoftheir

helplessness in the face of great power and dominance. Some would also describe their

engagementswiththecriminaljusticesystemaseffortsandattemptsto‘negotiate’withthe

system or ‘manoeuver’ within it. These engagements were characterized by efforts to

interactwiththepolice“aspeople”ortostalltheformalprocessesinaneffortto‘buy’more

time.Otherswouldsharetheirvariousmomentsof‘defiance’and‘resistance’againstwhat

theyviewedasunjustifiedandexcessiveabusivewithin thecriminal justice systemandat

the hands of different officials within the system. Here, participants reflected on the


20

momentswhentheyfeltthecouragetospeakupforthemselveswhentheyfelttheyneeded

toor thevariousactions that reflecteddefianceandanassertionof theirperspectives.As

mentioned earlier, thesemoments of either acceptance and resignation, negotiation and

manoeuvring,ordefianceandresistanceneedtobeappreciatedandunderstoodintermsof

acontextofpoweranddomination.Thecriminaljusticesystemisthatcontextofpowerand

domination. The holding cells at police stations, the courts in which participants would

appear in and the prisons that they were remanded to are all sites of this power and

domination.

All of the interviews with the community activists, student activists andmigrants

highlighted this idea of their experiences of being confronted with the dominance and

power of the criminal justice system. Their responses to this reality were varied and

incredibly complex. While some participants expressed their disapproval of the unfair

treatmenttheyweregiven,theywouldfinditnecessarytoemphasizetheirbeliefintherule

of law.Otherswould acknowledge the legitimacyof their arrests,while at the same time

mockingtheideaofajusticesystemwhencontrastedwiththewidespreadmisconductand

abuse of power that they witnessed within the system. As such, it becomes especially

important toemphasizehere, thatnoexpressionof legalconsciousnessshouldbeseenas

oneformoflegalconsciousnessoveranother.TheexpressionsoflegalconsciousnessthatI

havesharedinthisstudyarenotself-contained,completeorevenexhaustive.Itispossible

andverylikelythatwhileonemaydisplayanoverallresistancetothelawastheyexperience

it(inaparticularcontextandataparticulartime),theymayalsomakeeffortstonegotiate,

orresignthemselvestosubmittingtothelaw’sauthority,orevenresistingit.

Furthermore, the forms of legal consciousness described as three distinct forms

must be understood to be open and to exist alongside side each other. As participants

shared their experiences with me, they narrated stories that they actively curated. The

interviews are therefore riddenwith contradictions, silences, and exclamations about the

law, the police, the courts, and their politics. Most of the interviews presented all three

strandsoflegalconsciousness,complexlywoventogethertopresentamomentaryimageof

whatthesegroupsofpeoplebelieveaboutthelawinSouthAfrica.


21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel,RichardL.1995.PoliticsbyOtherMeans:LawintheStruggleAgainstApartheid,1980-1994.NewYork:Routledge.

Abrego,LeisyJ.2011.‘LegalConsciousnessofUndocumentedLatinos:FearandStigmaasBarrierstoClaims-MakingforFirst-and1.5-GenerationImmigrants’.Law&SocietyReview45(2):337–70.

Ballard,C.2011.‘ResearchReportonRemandDetentionInSouthAfrica:AnOverviewOfTheCurrentLawAndProposalsForReform’.CivilSocietyPrisonReformInitiative(CSPRI).

Bodenstein,Brandon.2017.‘InSearchofAdvice:(Re)DefiningMeaningfulAccesstoJusticeintheDistrictCourtsofJohannesburg’.MAAnthropology,UniversityoftheWitwatersrand.

C10.2017.InterviewwithC10InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.C16.2017.InterviewwithC16InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.C18.2017.InterviewwithC18InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.TranslatedbyMalebogo

Thabong.Cowan,Dave.2004.‘LegalConsciousness:SomeObservations’.TheModernLawReview67

(6):928–958.Crenshaw,Kimberlé.1995.‘Race,Reform,andRetrenchment:Tansformationand

LegitimationinAnti-DiscriminationLaw’.InCriticalRaceTheory:TheKeyWritingsThatFormedtheMovement,editedbyKimberléCrenshaw,NeilGotanda,GaryPeller,andKendallThomas,103–26.TheNewPress.

Engel,David,andJaruwanEngel.2010.Tort,Custom,andKarma:GlobalizationandLegalConsciousnessinThailand.StanfordUniversityPress.

Ewick,Patricia,andSusanS.Silbey.1998.TheCommonPlaceofLaw:StoriesfromEverydayLife.UniversityofChicagoPress.

Gillespie,Kelly.2008.‘MoralizingSecurity:“Corrections”andthePost-ApartheidPrison’.Race/Ethnicity:MultidisciplinaryGlobalContexts2(1):69–87.

Gordin,Jeremy,andIngridCloete.2011.‘ImprisonedbeforeBeingFoundGuilty:RemandDetaineesinSouthAfrica’.U.Cin.L.Rev.80:1167–77.

Gordon,Diana.2009.TransformationandTrouble:Crime,Justice,andParticipationinDemocraticSouthAfrica.UniversityofMichiganPress.

Gordon,Robert.1982.‘NewDevelopmentsinLegalTheory’.InThePoliticsofLaw:AProgressiveCritique,editedbyDavidKairys.NewYork:Pantheon.

Halliday,Simon,andBronwenMorgan.2013.‘IFoughttheLawandtheLawWon?LegalConsciousnessandtheCriticalImagination’.CurrentLegalProblems66(1):1–32.

Hertogh,Marc.2004.‘A‘European’ConceptionofLegalConsciousness:RediscoveringEugenEhrlich’.JournalofLawandSociety31(4):457–481.

Hopkins,Ruth.2014.‘BrokenbeyondImagination:SouthAfrica’sJusticeSystem|DailyMaverick’.DailyMaverick,15April2014.https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-15-broken-beyond-imagination-south-africas-justice-system/.

Hornberger,Julia.2011.PolicingandHumanRights:TheMeaningofViolenceandJusticeintheEverydayPolicingofJohannesburg.Routledge.

Hull,KathleenE.2016.‘LegalConsciousnessinMarginalizedGroups:TheCaseofLGBTPeople’.Law&SocialInquiry.

Karrim,Azarrah.2017.‘ToGrantBailorNottoGrantBail’.WitsJusticeProject.11July2017.http://www.witsjusticeproject.co.za/investigative-journalism/to-grant-bail-or-not-to-grant-bail.


22

Khunou,Grace.2006.‘FathersDon’tStandaChance:ExperiencesofCustody,AccessandMaintenance’.InBaba:MenandFatherhoodinSouthAfrica.HSRCPress.

———.2008.‘MaintenanceandChangingMasculinitiesasSourcesofGenderConflictinContemporay(Sic)Johannesburg.’UniversityoftheWitwatersrand.http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/4651.

Klaaren,Jonathan.2011.‘Citizenship,XenophobicViolenceandLaw’sDarkSide’.InExorcisingtheDemonsWithin:Xenophobia,ViolenceandStatecraftinContemporarySouthAfrica,135–49.WitsUniversityPress.

Kubal,Agnieszka.2013.‘Migrants’RelationshipwithLawintheHostCountry:ExploringtheRoleofLegalCulture’.JournalofInterculturalStudies34(1):55–72.

M1.2017.InterviewwithM1InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.M4.2017.InterviewwithM4InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.M13.2017.InterviewwithM13InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.TranslatedbySibongile

Shope.M24.2017.InterviewwithM24InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.Madikida,Churchill,LaurenSegal,andCliveVanDenBerg.2008.‘TheReconstructionof

MemoryatConstitutionHill’.ThePublicHistorian30(1):17–25.Marks,Monique,andDavidBruce.2016.‘Chapter11:MarikanaandthePoliticsofPublic

OrderPolicing’.InNewSouthAfricanReview5:BeyondMarikana,editedbyG.M.Khadiagala,P.Naidoo,D.Pillay,andR.Southall,207–28.NewSouthAfricanReviewSeries.WitwatersrandUniversityPress.https://books.google.co.za/books?id=1DnGjgEACAAJ.

McMichael,Christopher.2014.‘PoliceWarsandStateRepressioninSouthAfrica’.JournalofAsianandAfricanStudies51(1):3–16.

Merry,SallyEngle.1992.‘Culture,Power,andtheDiscourseofLaw’.NewYorkLawSchoolLawReview37:209–26.

Modiri,JoelM.2011.‘TheGreyLineIn-betweentheRainbow:(Re)Thinkingand(Re)TalkingCriticalRaceTheoryinPost-ApartheidLegalandSocialDiscourse’.SouthAfricanPublicLaw26(1):177–201.

———.2012.‘TheColourofLaw,PowerandKnowledge:IntroducingCriticalRaceTheoryin(Post-)ApartheidSouthAfrica’.SouthAfricanJournalonHumanRights28:405–436.

———.2013.‘RaceAs/AndTheTraceOfTheGhost:JurisprudentialEscapism,HorizontalAnxietyAndTheRightToBeRacistInBoETrustLimited’.PER:PotchefstroomseElektronieseRegsblad16(5):583–616.

Muntingh,Lukas.2008.‘PunishmentandDeterrence:Don’tExpectPrisonstoReduceCrime’.SouthAfricanCrimeQuarterly26.

Ngcukaitobi,Tembeka.2018.TheLandIsOurs:SouthAfrica’sFirstBlackLawyersandtheBirthofConstitutionalism.SouthAfrica:PenguinRandomHouse.

Nielsen,LauraBeth.2000.‘SituatingLegalConsciousness:ExperiencesandAttitudesofOrdinaryCitizensaboutLawandStreetHarassment’.Law&SocietyReview34:1055–90.

Redpath,Jean.2014.‘UnsustainableandUnjust:CriminalJusticePolicyandRemandDetentionsince1994’.SACrimeQuarterly,no.48:25–37.

S2.2017.InterviewwithS2InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.S5.2017.InterviewwithS5InterviewbyThatoMasiangoako.Sarat,Austin.1990.‘LawIsAllOver:Power,ResistanceandtheLegalConsciousnessofthe

WelfarePoor,The’.YaleJournalofLaw&theHumanities2:343.Silbey,SusanS.2005.‘AfterLegalConsciousness’.AnnualReviewofLawandSocialScience1

(1):323–68.Steinberg,Jonny.2011.‘SecurityandDisappointment:Policing,FreedomandXenophobiain

SouthAfrica’.BritishJournalofCriminology,1–16.


23

Tait,Sean,andMoniqueMarks.2011.‘YouStrikeaGathering,YouStrikeaRock:CurrentDebatesinthePolicingofPublicOrderinSouthAfrica’.SouthAfricanCrimeQuarterly38(0):15–22.http://www.ajol.info/index.php/sacq/article/view/101428.

Yngvesson,Barbara.1989.‘InventingLawinLocalSettings:RethinkingPopularLegalCulture’.TheYaleLawJournal98(8):1689–1709.https://doi.org/10.2307/796612.

Documents

DRAFT: PLEASE DO NOT CITE.(McMichael 2014, 9). The ANC-led government rolled out a community policing model which required all police station commanders to develop forums for police