KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, AND POLITICAL ECONOMY A dissertation submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Alex R. Colucci May 2019 ©Copyright All rights reserved Except for previously published materials iii Dissertation written by Alex R. Colucci B.A., The State University of New York at New Paltz, 2010 M.A., Kent State University, 2013 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019 Approved by Dr. James A. Tyner___, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Christopher Post _, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Dr. Joshua F.J. Inwood Dr. Joshua Stacher _ _ Dr. Babacar M’Baye _ Accepted by Dr. Scott Sheridan__ _, Chair, Department of Geography Dr. James L. Blank__ _, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences iv Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 I. Chapter Summaries ................................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 2: Geographies of Execution, Capital Punishment, and Prisons ................................................... 13 I. Positivist Geography and Execution ..................................................................................................... 14 I.I How Positivist Studies of Capital Punishment Happen (and their Limitations) .............................. 14 I.II An Attempt at Understanding Why Positivist Studies of Capital Punishment Happen ................. 20 I.III The Questionable Uses of Positivist Empiricism ........................................................................... 26 I.IV Relating the Deterrence Debates to the Production of Geographic Knowledge ......................... 30 II. Non-positivist Geographies and Capital Punishment ......................................................................... 32 III. Prison Geographies ............................................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 3: Situating Knowledge and Developing Epistemology in Human Geography ............................. 40 I. Early Epistemological Approaches in Human Geography and Two Debates ....................................... 41 I.I Disciplinary Survival and the Beginnings of Positivism ................................................................... 42 I.II The Lion and the Mouse Squash Bug ............................................................................................. 46 I.III Debates Over the Geography of Crime ......................................................................................... 54 I.IV (Misplaced) Debates Over the “Real” ........................................................................................... 66 II. The Last 25 Years of Radical/Critical Epistemological Approaches in Human Geography ................. 82 II.I Lessons in the Movement of Radical/Critical Geographies ........................................................... 85 II.II Moving Toward Fluid Epistemologies in Geography .................................................................... 95 III. Developing a Fluid Epistemological Approach: Processes of Analysis ............................................. 104 III.I A Dialectic Mode of Thinking and Knowledge Production in Geography ................................... 104 III.II Fluid Geographical Epistemology: Approaching the World from Multiple Vantage Points ...... 113 Chapter 4: The Spaces of Capital(ist) Punishment’s Political Economy .................................................... 124 I. A Historical-Geographical Material Analysis of Capital Punishment Spaces ..................................... 127 I.I Marx’s Understanding of Capitalist Society from a Materialist Perspective ................................ 131 I.II Material Technologies and Spaces of Capital Punishment .......................................................... 151 iii II. The Formal Political Economy of Capital Punishment ...................................................................... 207 II.I Reanimating Capital Punishment Space – Banking the Living-Dead ............................................ 208 II.II The Contradictions of Killing Them, Killing Ourselves ................................................................. 214 II.III Differentiation, Valuation, (Class) Consciousness, and the End of Capital(ist) Punishment ..... 220 Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 224 I. Meaning of Research ......................................................................................................................... 224 II. Contributions to Geography ............................................................................................................. 225 III. Future work ...................................................................................................................................... 227 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................. 230 iv Table of Figures Figure 1 Dialectic Dissertation Organization ............................................................................................... 9 v Acknowledgements This work is dedicated to my grandparents, Francis and Patricia Smouse, both of whom provided me, from an early age, with substantial encouragement and support. Their enthusiastic interest in my learning and work was ever-present, and their experiences and stories activated my geographic imagination at a young age; some of Grandpa Frank’s self-made maps were likely the first maps I ever saw and his stories of trans-oceanic travel some of the first I remember hearing. Though I cannot share this work with them, I hope that the spirit of their shared journey from East Liverpool, Ohio, to points all over the world lives on in all that I do. I wish to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. James Tyner, for many years of conversation, guidance, and support, and for always encouraging creativity. I wish to extend thanks to the members of my committee, Dr. Christopher Post, Dr. Joshua Inwood, Dr. Joshua Stacher, and Dr. Babacar M’Baye for their patience and insight that helped me think critically about this work. Finally, I wish to extend my thanks and deep appreciation to Dr. Kevin Floyd who, while he could not serve on my committee, was instrumental in offering thoughtful criticism on several initial papers that came to be this work. I will not soon forget his incisive teaching that pushed my thinking in new directions. I am endlessly thankful for the support of my family; my parents, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins, niece, and nephews. To my partner, Amanda, whose encouragement has been unwavering, I cannot say thank you enough. To Figgins, Juniper, and Cubby, who always make home a place of fun adventure. To my friends, colleagues, and mentors—Alex Peimer, Stian Rice, Bradley Austin, Dave Stasiuk, Mark Rhodes, Michael Allen, Andrew Shears, Dr. John Sharp, Dr. Lawrence McGlinn, Dr. Jo Mano, Tim and Christie Ivancic, Jeff and Ashley Sedorovich, Steve Hill, Liz Travis, Colin Mills, Casey Hickey, George Correa, Sokvisal Kimsroy—thank you all for your endless comradery, conversation, and joy. vi Chapter 1: Introduction In a 2007 interview, Jerry Givens explained a specific aspect of his work, one that deviated substantially from his typical everyday labor, with the following statement: “to make that transformation from corrections officer to executioner…it was hard…you have to get away from yourself. You have to eliminate yourself.”1 For nearly two decades—from 1982 to 1999—of his 25-year career as a correctional officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s department of corrections, Givens worked to “eliminate” himself 62 times as he carried out his duties as the state’s executioner. Of course he still physically executed 62 people—by electrocution until 1994 and then by lethal injection until 1999—but his statement alludes to the separation or distancing required in making the killing of capital punishment work. The critical aspect of distance, in terms of nearness and connection between human actions and how they affect other humans, is on display again in Givens’ 2016 remarks about changing labor requirements upon transitioning between technologically distinct modes of execution. While the preparatory work before both electrocution and lethal injection executions is divided amongst a small group of corrections officers on the execution team, the work of the executioner, which Givens performed, changed significantly. He describes how operating the generator which powers the electric chair requires merely “a button you push once and then the machine runs by itself” and how that contrasts with beginning an execution by lethal injection. “I had this syringe