African Women andthe Decolonisation of Victimisation: Dazzling Crime Figures *

BIKO AGOZINO ** (Departmentof Criminology, Indiana University ofPennsylvania)

ABSTRACT This paperexamines the variety ofways inwhich African women in the criminal justice system aretreated as offenders when they areclearly innocent. Their treatment is compared with that ofAfrican men andwhite women andis situated in the history ofslavery andcolonialism. It is proposed that African women arerelatively vulnerableto ‘ victimisation- as-mere-punishment’because they aremarginalised in the articulation,re-articulation and disarticulation of race-gender- class relations.In the paper,all peopleof African descent would besimply referredto as Africans.

Introduction “Wathint’Abafazi, Wathint’Imbokotho ”–chantedSouth African Women who wereŽ ghtingagainst the PassLaws in the 1950s(CIIR 1988;Kuper 1965; Agozino1997). This chant means; ‘youhave struckthe women,you have struckthe rock.’The rockbeing the symbolof innocence, silence and

* The originalversion of this paperwas presented at the American Societyof Criminologyannual meeting, San Francisco, November 2000. ** Sendall correspondence to Biko Agozino, G-1 McElhaney Hall,Indiana, PA 15705, USA. Phone:724-3575978, Fax: 724-3574018; e-mail: [email protected]

Critical Sociology, Volume 28,issue 1-2 Ó 2002Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden 124 Agozino ² strength,the rocknever hurlsitself against anyone. Itis the rockthat takes the hammerblows of builders who look for the perfectshape even whilefrequently neglecting the headcorner stone. The womenwere not simplyreferring to their heroic resilience andperseverance inthe liberation struggleagainst the oddsof great injustice but also to the factthat, like the naturalenvironment – the rock– thatthey identiŽed with (though alsocultural because this particular rock was the millstonein women’ s kitchens), they didnothing wrong to deserve the victimisationthat was visitedon them inthe name of‘ punishment.’They werealso referring to the injuriesthat the aggressorwould incur when strikingthe innocent,silent buthard, rock. However, the environmentally-unfriendlywhite patriarchal builderboasts that he wouldbuild his big house to withstand all (including environmental) impacts,according to a comicstrip in the ‘challenges’ windowon the webpage of Natal University, Durban,South Africa. There arethree relatedobjectives in thispaper:

–Togo beyond the conventionalconsensus in the sociologyof crime anddeviance thatthere aredark Ž gureshidden from the ofŽcial crimestatistics and that criminal justice policies are bifurcating into disciplinaryand non-disciplinary penalties; –Todecolonise Victimization As Mere Punishment(VAMP) fromthe wideningempire of the Punishmentof Offenders(POO) and; –Tosuggest ways of advancing theory, methods and practice through the awarenessof the articulationand decolonisation processes that arerelevant tocriminology and criminal justice.

Idrawmainly frommy recentresearch (Agozino 1997, 2000a) for this paper.I wasresearching how African women are treated in the criminal justicesystem asdefendants, witnesses or members of the publicwhen I stumbledon the factthat many Africanwomen were treated as if they wereoffenders when they wereclearly innocent.I wassurprised to Ž nd thisbecause the wholeof the sociologyof crime and deviance isfocused on‘ the punishmentof offenders’ (the Žrstfour words in Garland 1990) as ifanyone whois punished is necessarily an offenderand as if all offenders arenecessarily punished.In tryingto understandthe reasonswhy innocent Africanwomen are treated as if they wereoffenders, I comparedhow they weretreated with how African men weretreated and how white womenwere treated in similar circumstances. I also received evidence (for the differencesbetween ‘ datareception’ and data collection, see Agozino 2000b)from the historyof Trans Atlantic Slave Trade,Colonialism in Africa,Apartheid, Neo-colonialism in Africa and Internal Colonialismin the modernglobal village andI waseven moresurprised to Ž ndthat AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 125 ² thistendency to‘punish’innocent African women is consistent throughout history.My tentative explanationfor this is that African women are very vulnerable towhat I have sincedeŽ ned as ‘ Victimisation-As-Mere- Punishment’(VAMP) becausethey aremarginalised in the articulation, re-articulationand disarticulation of race-class-gender relations (Agozino 1997).For more on the theoryof race-class-gender articulation see Hall (1980,1988, 1996) who was following the pioneeringSouth African researchof Wolpe (1972) and that of Marx (1981).See alsoDaly (1993) andCrenshaw (1991). In thispaper, I usethe termdecolonisation in three relatedsenses of the term:reference tothe need tofree marginalised national groups from internalcolonisation by the morepowerful (Hecter 1975); to free juridical powerfrom institutional colonisation by monetarypower (Habermas 1987); andto free Africans in the Diasporaas well asAfricans at home from the imperialismthat links them togetherin the unequalpolitics of law and orderaround the world(Rodney 1970,1972, 1975). I amalso using the termAfrican Women torefer to black women and women of African descentgenerally.

TheGenealogy of Dark Figures The view thatdark Ž guresare concealed from ofŽ cial criminal statistics is a recentidea in the historyof criminologicaltheory. The founding fathers of sociologyand criminology were anxious to carve a niche ofrespectability fortheir disciplines by suggesting that social phenomena have anatural science qualityof measurabilityand predictability. The call ofSaint Simon fora positivescience ofsociety was taken upby Emille Durkheim(1982) whoargued that social facts are reality sui generis.Accordingto Durkheim, there wasno need toappeal to Darwinist biology (Lombroso and Ferrero 1895,for instance) orto Classicist psychology (Freud 1963, for example) when reference tothe natureof society was adequate for the explanation ofsocialproblems like suicide.Adolphe Quetlet (1842)who calculated the inuence ofclimate, age, sex andseason on whathe calledthe propensity tocrime in the 1840smust have inuenced the faithof Durkheim in socialstatistics. On the otherhand, Willem Bonger(1916), in the early decadesof the 20 th century,was more in uenced by Karl Marx (1981)in hisemphasis on economicconditions as part of the explanationsfor selŽ sh actslike crimeby human beings whose behaviours are otherwise guided bysocialinstincts. These foundingfathers of the sociologyof crime and deviance were contributingto variants of the positivisticschool of thought. Carol Smart (1990)suggests that the differencebetween the followersof Durkheim and the followersof Marx isthatone is a right-wingorientation while the other 126 Agozino ² isa left-wingorientation. Yet some New LeftRealists critiquepositivism withoutrealising how much they sharewith the paradigm.According toSmart, they areall positiviststo the extent thatthey believe thatthe applicationof social science wouldcontribute to a positiveimprovement inhumansocial organization. In thatsense positivismis not entirely abad idea.Positivists believe thatthe causesof misery are universal and that they aresubject to laws that are predictable and controllable. Positivists areall inagreement thatthe evidence fortheir positive science ofsociety isout there waitingto be collected and measured by capable scientists. The only differenceis the relative emphasisor lack ofemphasis that Marx placedon economic exploitation and revolutionary social change asthe mostimportant factors in the explanationand control of deviance and socialcontrol. While these variantsof positivism dominate the sociologyof crime and deviance,classicism dominates the administrationof justice by holding tightto the assumptionof free will. The freewill ideology is contrary to variantsof positivistic determinism, by imposing policies of just desserts inpreference to welfarist options recommended by positivism. Moreover, classicismadvocates individual responsibility contrary to the warningof left-wingpositivism against the wideningnet ofpenalty. However,neo- classicismmade concessions to positivismby recognisingthat children and the insane lack the rationalitynecessary forthe assumptionof free will. Furthermore,neo-classicism accommodates the need forsocial enquiry reportsthat could mitigate the punishmentfor crime in recognition of socialfactors that may have predisposedthe individualto criminality. In addition,positivist policies of care are articulated with penal strategiesin many industrialiseddemocracies. In turn,positivists (since Quetlet,Durkheim and the ChicagoSchool) have borrowedfrom the ofŽcial records kept byneo-classicist ofŽ cials in the formof ofŽcial statistics. Robert K. Merton(1968) borrowed the theory ofanomie directly from Durkheim and used it to explain the individual modesof adaptation to the unequalemphasis placed by Americanson their culturalgoals and the institutionalisedmeans ofachieving them.Although he didnot make directreference toofŽ cial statistics, he impliedthat the poorare more likely toadapt through innovation by accepting the cultural goalof the Americandream but improvising their own illegal means of achievingthem, thus they areover-represented in prison statistics. Is this versionof anomie applicable to poor South Africans who are inundated withmedia images of a New SouthAfrica without equal emphasis on the means toachieve equalcitizenship in a consumersociety where even the rightto life isdependent, for instance, on the abilityto pay for exorbitant AIDStreatmentdrugs? AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 127 ²

Perhaps,Merton was over-predicting the crime-pronenessof the poor whoare more likely toprotest peacefully againstmonopoly pharmaceutical companiesthan innovate criminal means ofacquiring the life-saving drugs(although the attemptby the pharmaceuticalcompanies to sue the governmentof South Africa for patent infringement could be said tobe consistent with the Mertonianmode of innovation, except that the governmentis not an individualadapting to anomie). Similarly, Mertonover-estimated the law-abidingnessof the middleclasses whoare apparentlyconformists whereas William Winship,Principal Paediatrician atAddington Hospital, Durban, argues that physical violence against children,for example, occursin all socialstrata (Winship 1990, see also the chaptersby Holdstock, Giles, The HumanRights Commission and by Thomasin the same book,chapters 12-15, for more on the roleof public institutionsin the useof violence as‘punishment’of the innocent). Someneo-positivists, such as Pollak (1950) discovered ‘ darkŽ gures’– the viewthat the ofŽcial records are not as reliableas the foundingfathers hadbelieved. Accordingto Pollak, assuming that men andwomen have the same humannature, there isno reason why men shouldbe over- representedin prisoncompared to women. The only probableexplanation, accordingto him, is chivalry orthe assumptionthat the predominantly male criminaljustice ofŽ cials treat female suspectsand female convicts moreleniently comparedto male ones.The womenare presumably treated like the sisters,daughters, girl friends or wives ofthe male ofŽcials (but that isnotnecessarily lenient incomparison to how brothers, sons, boy friends andhusbands are treated in a patriarchalsociety) whereas the men areseen asthe rivalsto the authorityof the ofŽcials, hence they aredealt with more severely, accordingto Pollak. Roger Hood (1992) agrees withPollak that whitewomen and African women equally beneŽt fromthe chivalry thesis butI have critiquedthis inferential fallacy enoughelsewhere (Agozino 1997,2000a). The moreextreme right-wingneo-positivists like CharlesMurray (1990) andJames Wilson(1983) argue that the underclassare responsible for brokenwindows in the innercities, that crime is part of human nature andthat what works is greater emphasis on punitiveness rather than welfarism.This type ofpositivism veers towardsthe biologicalpositivism ofLombrosoand the Eugenics-typebeliefs that were embraced by Nazism andApartheid especially when they suggestthat ethnic minority individuals arenaturally more deviant as the ofŽcial statistics indicate. The faiththat the New Rightplaces on social statistics that are socially constructed by politicallymotivated public ofŽ cials ignores the cautionsounded in the 1960sand the 1970sby liberal scholars such as Kitsuse and Circourel (1963)who warned that such ofŽ cial statistics should be seen assubjects 128 Agozino ² fordebate rather than asfool-proof evidence forcriminological theory. Accordingto the labelling perspective,we should be moreinterested in how the criminallabels aremanufactured than in whohas the greatercriminal propensity.McClintock (1974) added to thisnote of cautionby reminding criminologiststhat the reasonwhy ofŽcial statistics were produced was notto provide data for criminological research but precisely for political andŽ nancialaccountability. He impliedthat criminologists could use the statisticsto hold criminal justice ofŽ cials accountable regarding how they exercise theirpolitically-charged powers of discretion (as he attempted earlier(McClintock 1963)) but that it is completely inappropriateto use suchŽ guresfor predicting who is likely tobemorecriminal than another. In spiteof the cautionsounded by the labelling perspective,reliance on ofŽcial statistics remains popular in criminological theory as a predictive tool.For example, the self-professedNew LeftRealists, Matthews and Young(1992) combine inferences fromofŽ cial statistics and Ž ndingsfrom localcrime surveys thatwere supposed to illuminate the darkŽ guresof crimeto concludethat because African people in Britain are more likely to bepoor,their experience ofracismpushes them intoadapting individually inthe Mertoniansense byadoptingcrime as a wayto survive.This ‘ myth ofblack criminality’ has been adequatelycritiqued by Paul Gilroy (1987). Adifferentuse of ofŽ cial statistics is made by Tony Bottoms (1983) who usesthe bifurcationthesis toargue that penal policyis branching into disciplinarypenalty andnon-disciplinary penalty forminor and serious offences,respectively, inBritain. The bifurcationthesis resonateswith the penal-welfarestrategies identiŽ ed by Garland (1985). I have pointedout thatthe bifurcationthesis remainsunaware of a thirdbranch of penal policy– the branchof victimization as mere punishment(Agozino 1997, 2000a).However, the early workof Bottoms (1967), following McClintock (1963),indirectly suggests this third furcation given hisemphasis on the relative law-abidingnature of Africanimmigrants at atimethat they were the targetsof moralpanics in Britain. Amongthe criticalsociologists who make properuse of ofŽ cial statistics astools for holding ofŽ cials accountable is Steve Box (1983)who argued thatthe factsdo not Ž tthe class-speciŽc proŽling that is based on the assumptionthat poverty causes crime. According to him, the richget richerand the poorget prisonnot because the poorare necessarily morecriminal, but because they have noresources with which to defend themselves adequatelyeven when falsely accusedwhereas the richget away withmurder. Hall et al.(1978) illustrated how the ofŽcial statistics are sociallyconstructed by focusing on the moralpanics around mugging as a blacktype ofcrime in Britain when whitepeople also mugged and when there wasno proof that all Africanpeople that were racially proŽ led and AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 129 ² arrestedwere muggers. Brake andHale (1992)support the viewthat the ofŽcial criminal statistics are wrongly being used in Britain to create and sustaina ‘mythicalmental linkage’between blackness andcriminality. The New SouthAfrica retains this ‘ mythicallinkage’ through a discoursethat presentsthe crimeproblem as ablackproblem which affects the poormost adversely whilescaring whites, tourists and investors (see The Economist , February 24th 2001,for example). Attemptsto go beyond positivism are emerging in the formof post- modernismand chaos theory among writers who have arguedthat the applicationof positivistic science tohuman social organisation has also producednightmares rather than only the desiredimprovement in social conditions.Scholars like HomiBhabha (1992) follow Frantz Fanon (1963) andMichel Foucault(1988) to arguethat it is misleading to viewclaims to knowledgeas being concerned with truth alone, given thatall suchclaims arealso claims to power. Criminologists who adhere to this perspective borrowfrom Chaos theory to argue that positivism assumed a lineal explanationfor crime whereas the pictureis chaotic, comprising of a seriesof bifurcations that involve oppositesthat attract like the deviant andthe non-deviantfractal wings of the buttery effecton weather formations(Henry andMilovanovic 1996; Young 1991). I have argued elsewhere thatthe postmodernistintervention could contribute to attempts tohold criminal justice ofŽ cials as well ascriminologists more accountable regardinghow they exercise theirpower. However, such accountability wouldhave tobe extended topostmoderniststhemselves whohave tended toconducttheir knowledge-power discourse without much support for the strugglesagainst racism-sexism-classism within the societyand within the sociologyof crime and deviance (Agozino1999). The aboveoverview indicates that the critiqueof dark Ž guresis based onthe slightly misleadingassumption that the errorin ofŽ cial criminal statisticsis an errorof omission alone. In otherwords, if victimisation surveys andlocal crime surveys areable to illuminate the darkŽ gures, then the ofŽcial crime statistics would be corrected and made reliable. The critiqueof dazzling Ž guresin this paper assumes that the imperfection inofŽ cial statistics is not simply due to incompleteness but also due to superuity. The darkŽ guresof crimeclaim that the ofŽcial crime statistics representonly the tipof the iceberg.The dazzling Ž guresof crime insist thatthe tipof the icebergis not made up of ice and nothing but ice but alsoincludes foreign bodies like unfortunateŽ shes, innocentbirds and bird droppings,bits of woodand debris that are imprisoned in the icycolony of the iceberg.Confronted with the scandalousnumbers of African women, men andchildren held incaptivity in the prisonsof South Africa, Europe andNorth America, the darkŽ guresof crimewould sigh and say thatthey 130 Agozino ² arejust the tipof the icebergand that there areprobably many moreout there thatescaped the longarms of the law.On the contrary,the dazzling crimeŽ gureswould give the beneŽt ofthe doubtto the women,children andmen especially when they continueto protest their innocence as is oftenthe case. Thisorientation that is scepticalregarding the imputationof criminality toall prisonersis indirectly supported by Baudrillard (1996) who argues thatthe perfectcrime is actually no crime because a perfectcrime is acrimethat fails to be solved. By implication,many Africanwomen arein prison for having committedperfect crimes that do not exist. Furthersupport comes from the archivalresearch of Bosworth(2000) which indirectlyshows that the incarcerationof women in France was guided by an assumptionthat they weresick rather than the assumptionthat they werecriminal (and of course, there couldbe a false positivediagnosis of illness ina healthy body).The exceptionis that African women do not have tobe assumed to be sick before they comeunder disciplinary power given thatsince the daysof the Europeanslave trade,healthy African womenattracted torture and rape as ‘ punishment’simply because of their marginalizationwithin societies structured in racist-gendered-class-speciŽ c dominance(Davis 1981).A closeranalogy is providedby Wacquant (2000) whoargued much like Patterson(1996) that the prisonis a ‘peculiar institution’that is best understood as a ‘surrogateghetto’ . The unstated implicationhere isthat you do not have tobe guilty of a crimein order toinhabit the ghettoprison. Of course, the conceptof dazzling crime Žguresdoes not assume that all prisonersor ghetto dwellers or all African womenin captivity are innocent people suffering victimisation as mere punishment. The Economist (2001)reported that attacks on white farms in Gauteng, Mpumalangaand KwaZulu-Natal increased from 433 in 1997 to 809 in 1999,including 137 murders in 1999 alone. From 1997 to 2000, the policekilled 1550people while over 300 police ofŽ cers were killed in SouthAfrica. The fact that South African murder rate is only secondto thatof Columbia(a countrythat is Žghtinga bloodycivil war) and the fact thatJohannesburg is the citywith the highest murderrate in the world, arecauses for concern. However, the pointbeing made here withthe conceptof dazzling crime Ž guresis that victimisation as mere punishment remainsa relatively untheorisedaspect of colonialist sociology of deviance andsocial control. Simply harping on the darkŽ gures(as The Economist did) providesfuel for the lawand order politicians in theirenthusiasm to wage waragainst African communities under the guiseof trying to uncover the crimesunknown to the policeirrespective of the claimsof innocencebeing madeby the suspectsas Kalunta-Crumpton (1998) discovered. AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 131 ² DazzlingCrime Figures inColonialist Criminology The bestillustration of the signiŽcance of dazzling crime Ž gurescomes fromthe historyof colonialist criminology, a historythat criminologists have largely ignoredprobably because of their disciplinary complicity in the creationand concealment of the repressivehegemony ofthe dark Žgures.Any historianof colonialism who is familiar with the theoryof FrantzFanon (1963) would easily understandthe factthat when whole townsand villages arelevelled withthe gun-boatdiplomacy of colonial masters,there isno assumption that every residentis guilty of a crime. Rather,as Rodney (1975)pointed out, such massive oppressiveoperations canbe bestunderstood as nothing but victimisation of the innocentpeople. Thereis noneed toapplythe principleof individualresponsibility because colonialdespotism is based on an assumptionof collective responsibility. When enslaved Africanwomen were whipped to death after being raped, there wasno need topretend that they wereguilty and so there was noteven the ritualof trial and conviction (Rodney 1970;James 1980). When colonisedNigerian women were gunned down for protesting the practiceof taxation without representation, it was gun-boat sociology of crimeand deviance inpracticeeven thoughthe womenhad not committed any crime,even thoughthey weredemanding a basicdemocratic principle thatthey wereused to in their village republicanismbefore the advent ofcolonialism. When Kenyan womenwere gunned down for protesting the useof forced labour by the colonialauthorities in East Africa and when masses ofSouth African Women werejailed for protesting against the passlaw in the country,there wasno need topretend that they hadcommitted any offencein the Žrstplace. This neglected historyof victimisationas mere punishmenthas been summarisedelsewhere (Agozino 1992,1997). In an on-goingproject, I amadvancing this history of victimisation asmere punishmentby questioning criminological theory closely tosee whetherthe theoriesare capable of explaining the colonialistcrimes and byimplication, victimisation as mere punishment(Agozino 2002). As I have donein the past,it would not be adequate to stop at a description ofthe complicityof the sociologyof crime and deviance inthe project ofcolonialism. I wouldgo beyond colonialist sociology of deviance by highlightingthe theoriesthat have the potentialto support the on-going strugglesto decolonisevictimisation from the expandingempire of penalty. In thisconnection, notions of internal colonialism would help usto understandwhy neo-colonialismin Africancountries has continuedto treat the vast majorityof African women, men andchildren as shabbily as the colonialauthorities did. Similarly, internal colonialism would be used to capturethe natureof the relationshipbetween punishment, welfare and 132 Agozino ² victimisationby advancing the thesis oftrifurcation as an advancement on the bifurcationthesis when tryingto explain institutionalisedvictimisation mechanisms. Mostimportantly, it would not be enough to simply point out the articulationof punishment-welfare-victimisationin institutionalcolonialism orto highlight how this is supportive of imperialist domination of poor Africanwomen, men andchildren. This paper would go on to highlight howto begin the urgenttask ofdecolonising victimisation and by implication,welfare, from the penal colonyof law. Chaos theorists such as Young(1991) came close to thiswhen they talk abouta webof bifurcations thatdefy lineal analysis ofthe sortfavoured in positivistic sociology of crimeand deviance. However, by restricting themselves tobifurcation or only twodirections at any pointof departure, they failto note that the processis at least atrifurcation,if not a multifurcation,of policyeffects. As Iarguedin the past(Agozino 1997) a modelfor the trifurcationof criminal justicepolicy can be found in the triptychheld byRule Britanniawhich remindsus of the three-prongedfork of the devil.One prongis probably usedto illustrate the welfaristgood intention with which the roadto hell issupposedly paved, another prong is probably an iconfor the punitive armsof Britannia and hell Žrealike whilethe thirdprong of the forkcan only bethe mischievousfaculties of the devil andBritannia who sadistically victimisethe innocentunder the guiseof penalty andcolonialism. This is the neglected middleŽ ngerof the trifurcationthesis, the rudemiddle Ž nger thatTupac Shakur was fond of showingto the lawin hisdeŽ ant Hip-Hop performances. Institutionalisedviolence isconducted through the colonialpractice of collective victimisationof poor African men andwomen by which the crimeproblem becomes localised in the inner-city‘ colonies’of sizeable Africansettlements. Forexample, the Instituteof Race Relations(IRR 1987)documents evidence ofspecial police operations which hold poor Africanresidents of the innercities suspect. This originated from a ‘moral panic’in Britain as early asthe 1950s;the ‘colony’came ‘ tobe identiŽ ed witha particularrange of petty crimes,of which the mostcommon were brothel-keeping,living offimmoral earnings, and drug-pushing’ (Hall et al. 1978: 352). Itis clear from this policing focus that African women were seen asbad women who must be policed to check them frommixing with whitepeople, illegitimacy, prostitution, and drug trafŽ cking. The failure of specialpolice squads, targeted at the internalcolonies, to stamp out the unwantedactivities goes to show that “ : : : itis not a policingproblem; soaringstreet crime is caused by widespread alienation of West Indian youthfrom white society” (Hall et al.1978: 331). This sounds like the AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 133 ² simplisticpositivism of left realistsbut unlike them,Hall et al.critically analysed the ‘ampliŽcation’ techniques by which ‘ crime’Ž guresare used bythe policeto justify their special focus on Africanyouth, resulting in the victimisationof innocent people. The policingof prostitution also affects poorwhite women who inhabit the innercities but the policingof street crimes,which is focused on poor young African men, alsoexpose African womento indirectsurveillance dueto their proximity to African men. Thisshows that the problemsof African women are similar in some waysbut different in many respectscompared to the problemsfacing Africanmen andwhite women (especially Irishwomen in Britain, as Hillyard1993 shows). Hall et al.(1978: 369) loosely comparedthe struggles ofblacks and women and found that they areboth sectors of the general classstruggle. By sodoing, they madethe familiarmistake ofdeŽ ning Africanwomen out of existence (Rice 1990).Either you are in the black sectoror you are in the women’s sectorof the workingclass. The fact thatAfrican women are struggling in both sectors at once was not worth mentioningby Hall et al.in theircomparison of struggles, but it is crucial inunderstandingwhat they sawas ‘aligningsectoral struggles with a more general classstruggle’ (Ibid.). The strugglesof African women who resist racial discrimination and demandjustice and fair play have been documentedby Bryan et al. (1985).Their book contains records of resistance against discrimination inworkplaces and collective agitationby organisations like the Black Women’s Groupwhich picketed police stations to demand fair treatment fordetained African men andwomen. This practice of protest by African womenin defence ofboth African men andAfrican women is consistentin Africanhistory from slavery, throughcolonialism to internal colonialism. The separatisttendencies inWestern feminismby whichmen areexcluded fromthe campaignsled bywomen is ignored by African women who see men astheir allies inthe struggleagainst forms of colonialism (see Agozino2000c; Hooks 1984; and Davis 1974). Similarly, when African men organisea struggleagainst colonialist policing, this is often linked topolice brutality against African women. For example, the twopopular revoltsin Londonin 1985arose in similar circumstances where the police brutalisedinnocent African women simply because their children were suspectedof some crime (Agozino 1997; Chigwada-Bailey 1997). However,protest by African people against colonialist administration ofcriminal justice is not always overt as in the case ofpopular uprisings. Many suchcases ofthe victimisationof innocentAfrican women go without popularresistance for many reasonsthat I willnot go into in this paper. Forexample, when the widowof Mohammed Oufkir was detained for 18years inMorocco following an abortivecoup attempt by her husband, 134 Agozino ² there wasno popular movement demandingfor her release (see Amnesty International1992). Similarly, when the wives ofarmy ofŽ cers, the sistersof abusinessman and the girlfriendof a companyemployee weredetained in Nigeriabecause the men proximateto them weresuspected of attempting a militarycoup, there wasno mass protest to securetheir release (see Agozino 1997).Even inLondon where two mass protests occurred in 1985, there weremany morecases thatpassed without a similarprotest. For example, the Instituteof Race Relations(1987) published PolicingAgainst Black People andit is striking in that book that the majorityof the Africanwomen affectedadversely bycolonialistpolicing were either mothers, wives, sisters orgirl-friends of suspected African men (somuch for Pollak’ s Chivalry thesis). Iamyet tocome across evidence ofthe reverse scenario:cases of Africanmen beingbrutalised simply because they happento beproximate tosuspected African women. This is probablybecause internal colonialism carriesthe assumptionthat women are subordinate to men andso if a manis a criminal,the womenliving withhim must be accomplices or beneŽciaries of hiscrime whereas if the suspectis a woman,the manliving withher isnot automatically assumed to be a partyto the crime.This assumptionseems tohold even incases wherethe manis economically dependenton the womansuch as when she ownsthe houseand the man isonly co-habiting(Agozino 1997).

Conclusion Thispaper has triedto argue that, in some cases, African women are treateddifferently from African men andwhite women and in someother cases,they aretreated similarly. The problemsfacing African women appeardifferent because they arerelatively affectedby the specialpolice focuson the Africancommunity as well asby the predatorysurvival strategiesof African hustlers. White womenare relatively safe fromthe former,but share the latterto some extent. Africanmen arerelatively affectedby the latterbut are more closely affectedby the former. Althoughthe informalvictimisation of African women (by hustlersand employers,for example) doesnot seem toinvolve the criminaljustice system, the formal/informaldichotomy of victimisation breaks down when itisrecognisedthat the informalvictimisation of African women sometimes exposes them toencounters with the formalcriminal justice system as ‘victims’or as suspectsand defendants (Mama 1989). Many readerswill charge this paper with promising much more than itdelivered. From the title,it could be said that the paperpromises a completeunderstanding of African women but the discussionhas gone beyondthe womento more theoretical issues that affect African women AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 135 ² aswell asAfrican men andeven whitewomen. For the purposeof clariŽcation, this paper was not intended as an introductionto African Women’s Studies.The paperhas focusedonly ona speciŽc problem thatfaces African women and others like them.The paper has not offereda completeunderstanding of thisproblem of victimisation-as-mere- punishmentbut has triedto highlight the problemand call attentionto it fromscholars, policy-makers and activists. Thisraises the questionof whatis tobe done about the victimisationof the innocentfrom the eraof slavery, throughcolonialism, apartheid and nowneo-colonialism or internal colonialism in Africa and the Diaspora. The answeris still beingdeveloped by people of African descent who arecampaigning for the rightto be paid reparations by the slave trading nationsof Europe and north America in recognitionof the wrongsto our people.There are many historicalprecedents in law that provide support forthe campaignfor reparations but there isabsolutely no criminological interestin supporting the campaignso far. Just as the imperialpolicies thatwere tested in the laboratoryof the colonywere eventually extended tothe metropole,all scholarsshould support the strugglefor reparations tobe paid to Africans because such a policycould also be extended to Euro-Americanvictims of criminal justice. Historicalprecedents include the payment ofreparations to victims ofthe Naziholocaust, payments tothe Japanese Americanswho were detainedduring the Europeantribal World War II, and the Native Americanswho were paid in cashand kind for the genocidalcrimes against them andthe lossof their land. On the contrary,the AfricanAmericans whowere promised 40 acres and a mule inrecognition of their sacriŽ ces duringthe AmericanCivil War only gotthe lynch mobsof Jim Crow. The Truthand Reconciliation Commission in South Africa was a step inthe rightdirection but a very limitedstep that has been critiquedfor failingto address the issueof the millionsof Africans who lost their land dueto the Bantustanizationpolicy (Mamdani 2000). Gerhard Maré (1993) analysed the complicityof state and civil society apparatuses in what was oftenregarded as black-on-black crime and the gangviolence orchestrated by‘politicisedethnicity.’ According to him, ‘ The notionsof non-racialism, democracyand non-sexism areidealist and have tobe created out of theiropposites, out of a historythat had conŽ rmed racism, a profoundly anti-democraticpolity and patriarchy’ (Maré 1993: 110). This paper is suggestingthat the decolonisationof victimisation would be part of the processof the democratisationof civil society and the state. Toillustratethat the lessons ofdecolonisation learnt by Africanwomen canbe generalised to other categories of people, reference canonly be madeto men ofAfrican descent such as Mumia Abu-Jamal (1995) who 136 Agozino ² have been campaigningwith global support against the deathpenalty imposedon them regardlessof their innocence. The movie, The Hurricane , aboutthe strugglesof Rubin Carter against a raciallymotivated trial and triplelife sentences formurders that he didnot commit also illustrate this lesson thatAfrican women are not the only onessuffering victimisation as mere punishmentalthough they have been atthe forefrontof the struggle againstit. The strugglefor reparations is furthersupported by the victories wonby women in fairer divorce settlements thatrequire the betteroff spouseto pay alimony to the relatively deprivedspouse. Decolonisationof victimisation in the case ofAfrican women goes beyondadvocacy on behalf of innocent people who are victimised to includealso a questioningof some of the imperialistrules under which Africanwomen are more frequently convicted. At the timeof writing, this is the categoryof drugs offences which, unlike mostcrimes, are solved by the securityagents throughpro-active police work more than through reactive policingin response to calls fromconcerned members of the public.The waron drugs easily translatesto a waron the pooreven whilemore dangerousdrugs are legally available becausethey providerevenue tothe tax man(Chambliss 1995). African scholars and activists must therefore breaktheir silence onthe politicsof the waron drugs and come out openly like activistAfrican intellectuals suchas Fela Kuti,Bob Marley, LuckyDube, Mzwakhe Mbuli,Peter Tosh and The Fugees bychallenging the illegal statusof marihuana especially becauseit is known by scientists tobe 1000 times less deadlythan alcohol, 500 times safer than tobacco, has many medicinaluses and is a popularitem of consumptionaround the world(see Agozino1995c & 1997;Campbell 1985; and Goode 1993). The ConstitutionalCourt of South Africa contributed to the democratisation ofthe justicesystem byabolishing the racistdeath penalty. Asimilar democraticdividend could be reaped by the justicesystem bylegalising marihuana. The continuedproscription of marihuana may belinked tothe factthat itis relatively easy toproduce and difŽ cult to tax, hence the lawagainst itin America is called the MarihuanaTax Act of 1937 which allowed industrialiststo grow as much as they wantedso long as they paidtax onwhatthey grew.Peasant African women can subsidise their income by growinga fewplants near their food crops and marketing them legally incompetition against the multi-billiondollar known-killer industries of alcoholand tobacco (400,000 Americans die every year fromtobacco- relateddiseases and it is perfectly legal whereasno one has ever diedfrom the illegal butdifŽ cult to tax marihuana).The womenare given seven tofourteen year jailterms for a Žrstoffence even whilethey protesttheir innocenceand claim that they hadno mens rea orguilty intention to commit AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 137 ² any crime;that they werejust on an errandin return for a rewardand thatthey hadno idea what the parcelthey werecarrying contained. At the same time,a BritishPrime Minister, John Major, went to Thailand to successfullyask the Kingto pardon two British women who were convicted andsentenced toa lenient termin prison even thoughthe citizensof that countrywould have been executed iffoundguilty of similardrug offences. Insteadof asking forAfrican women to be pardoned, the hatedmilitary dictatorshipin Nigeria made a doublejeopardy law which stipulated that any citizenwho brought the countryinto disrepute by being convicted of a drugoffence abroad would be triedagain when they Žnishedtheir sentence andwere deported back to Nigeria, they wouldget afreshsentence onreturn. This paper agrees with organic intellectuals ofthe African communitythat an exceptionshould be madefor marihuana which should belegalised,not simply decriminalised (Agozino 1997, 2000a) following the relative successof decriminalisation policy in The Netherlands compared tothe woefulfailure of the racistpolicy of War on Drugsin America. Todecolonise victimisation, sociologists should address how to regain the knowledgeof love andnot concentrate only onhow to acquire the love ofknowledge. In aworldthat has been brutalisedby racism, sexism andclass exploitation, we should seek waysof increasing love forone anotherinstead of trying to engineer publicsafety exclusively onthe shaky groundsof mutualfear, loathing, hatred and vengeance throughthe theory ofPOO–the punishmentof offenders. Speaking in aninterviewwith The Economist (2001),Mamphela Ramphele, formerblack consciousness activist andformer Vice Chancellorof the University ofCape Town, now an ofŽcial of the WorldBank, statedthat the mainreason why SouthAfrica isone of the mostviolent countriesin the worldis becauseof the legacy of apartheid.According to her, having been robbedof their manhood, black men todaysee ‘theironly escapefrom complete powerlessness is the control they exercise overAfrican women and children : : : Violence,particularly sexual violence, directedat womenand children, tends to bethe dominant formof communication to assert the rightto claim the entitlements which the male bodyhas been promised.’The misleadingimpression here isthat only blackmen weretraumatised by apartheidand that they alone arethe onescommitting all the violent crimesin the country. Thisprobably misled The Economist intoconcluding that the problem canonly besolvedthrough punitive law and order policies. An alternative approachcan be found in a recentreport (Agozino and Idem 2001) onhow to democratise the militarisedNigerian civil society. Following preliminaryethnographic research in Nigeria, we recommended a series ofsociologically imaginative democracy literacy classes modelledafter the literacyclasses thatI usedto run for workers as Director of 138 Agozino ²

Administration,Directorate for Literacy, a non-proŽt organizationin Nigeria.The published report has sincebeen proposedto the Council forthe Development ofSocial Research inAfrica for possible translation intoArabic, French andPortuguese and circulation as a WorkingPaper foran eventual MultinationalWorking Group on the democratisationof militarisedAfrican civil societies. Needless toadd that this proposal to systematically teachthe artof love andjustice in Africa is relevant tothe lawand order crisis facing Africans not only inSouth Africa but in the innercity locations of many industrialisedcountries today. Finally, todecolonise victimisation, we need torecognise its autonomy fromthe expandingempire of punishment. When werecognise that victimisationis not punishment, then wewill stop talking blandlyabout the punishmentof the innocentand start accepting that such practices arenothing but victimisation. Once wehave reachedthis understanding ofthe problem,we will begin to Ž ndways of addressing the criminality involved invictimisation-as-mere-punishment. What thisconcept suggests isthat the statecan and does commit crimes against innocent individuals andgroups and since this is the case,how do we punishthe crimesof the state? Somepeople will say thatwhen youvote againstan oppressive regime,assuming that such a regimepermits free and fair elections, youare judging and punishing the ‘executive lawlessness’associated with oppression(Fawehinmi 1993) or what the SouthAfrican Justice Minister, DullahOmar called, ‘ crimesof the state’(Omar 1990). In societieswhere electionsare banned or are too periodic to have any effect,popular protestsbecome ways of punishing the criminalstate (see Cohen1993; Schwendingerand Schwendinger 1970). Othersmight add that when anationcomes under military action by alliednations due to human rights abuses, such actions are presented to the publicas acts of punishment for the criminalstate. However, due to the chances ofvictimising innocent citizens and the environmentthrough collateraldamages during such military actions, many preferthe option oflimited economic, diplomatic and military trade sanctions against the criminalstate. Others will add that the criminalstate should be made to paycompensation to the victimsof crimesof the stateas partof the process ofdecolonising victimisation from the empireof penalty. Forexample, the stateof apartheid was not directly called to testify at the Truthand ReconciliationCommission in SouthAfrica but if the post-apartheidState ofSouth Africa recognises its genealogical culpability and pays a billion Randeach incompensation to the familiesof Steve Biko,Ruth First andothers who were victimised by the criminalstate, not many people wouldquarrel with that. However, some of the familieswould reject such ‘bloodmoney’ and prefer that the governmentdemonstrate its commitment AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 139 ² byspending more on the welfareof all, redistributingland urgently and decolonisingvictimisation from the empireof punishment as Steve Biko, ChrisHani and Joe Slovo would have wanted.In thatconnection, many Africansare calling for reparations in connection with the crimesof the slave trade,colonialism and internal colonialism in Africa but such calls arelikely toremain ineffective untilAfrica is truly decolonised and democratisedand Africans empower themselves throughgenuine African Unity (Agozino1996). This conclusion is not only relevant toAfricans but toall formercolonies and residents of internal colonies for, as Said (1993) observed,the recolonisationof the worldremains a viable projectunless the strugglefor decolonisation is able to halt it.

References

ABU-JAMAL, M. 1995 LiveFrom DeathRow .New York:Avon. AGOZINO, B. 1992“ The Victimizationof African Womenas Punishment” in O.Nnaemeka(ed.), Womenin Africa& theAfrican Diaspora: Building Bridges of Knowledge andPower , VolumeVIII, Culture andSociety ,pp.107-124. University ofIndiana Women StudiesProgram. 1995“ Legaliseit: Popular Culture andthe Politicsof Abolitionism” 7th International Conference OnPenal Abolitionism,Barcelona, Spain, in Abolitionism: ARealistic Utopia,conference proceedings. 1996“ The Third Debtto the Third World:The Politicsof Law and Order in Camp deThiaroye” in Third Text 36,Autumn, pp.3-13. 1997 BlackWomen and the Criminal Justice System: Towardsthe Decolonisation of Victimisation . Aldershot:Ashgate. 1999“ SocialFiction Sui Generis: The FairyTale Structure ofCriminological Theory” in TheCritical Criminologist ,Vol.9, No. 3, pp. 11-14. 2000“ Theorizing Otherness,The War onDrugs and Incarceration” in Theoretical Criminology ,Vol.4, No. 3. 2000b“ Methodsof Data Reception” in B.Agozino(ed.), Theoreticaland Methodological Issues in Migration Research .Aldershot:Ashgate. 2000c“ What Women’s StudiesOffer Men” in West AfricaReview ,Vol.2, No. 1. 2002 Counter Colonial Criminology: ACritiqueof ImperialistReason .London:Pluto, forthcom- ing. AGOZINO, B. AND U. IDEM 2001 Nigeria: Democratising aMilitarisedCivil Society .London:Centre forDemocracy and Development. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 1992 Womenon theFrontline .London:A.I. BAUDRILLAR D, J. 1996 PerfectCrime .London:Verso. BONGER, W. 1916 Criminality andEconomic Conditions .London:Heinemann. 140 Agozino ²

BOSWORTH, M. 2000“ ConŽning Femininity:A History ofGender, Powerand Imprisonment” in TheoreticalCriminology ,Vol.4, No. 3. BHABHA, H.K. 1992“ PostcolonialAuthority andPostmodern Guilt” in Grossberget al.(eds.), Cultural Studies.London:Routledge. BOTTOMS, A.E. 1967“ Delinquencyamongst Immigrants” in Race,Vol.VIII, No. 4, pp. 357-384. 1983“ NeglectedFeatures of Contemporary Penal Systems”in D.Garland andP. Young(eds.), ThePower to Punish: Contemporary Penalty andSocial Analysis . London: Heinemann. BOX, S. 1983 Power, Crimeand MystiŽ cation .London:Tavistock. BRYAN , B., S. DADZIE AND S. SCAFE 1985 TheHeart of TheRace .London:Virago. CAMPBELL, H. 1985 Rastaand Resistance: From Marcus Garveyto WalterRodney .London:Hansib. CHAMBLISS, W.J. 1995“ Another LostWar: The Costsand Consequences of Drug Prohibition” in Social Justice,Vol.22, No. 2, pp. 101-124. CHIGWADA-BAILEY, R. 1997 BlackWomen’ s Experiences of theCriminal Justice System .London:Waterside. CIIR 1988 Cries of Freedom:Women in Detention in South Africa .London,CIRR, originally publishedas AWoman’s Placeis in theStruggle, not BehindBars byDPS/ Descom, Johannesburg,1988. COHEN, S. 1993“ Human Rightsand Crimes ofthe State:The Culture ofDenial” in Aust. & NZ Journal of Criminology 26. CRENSHAW , K. 1991“ Demarginalizingthe Intersection ofRace and Sex: A Black FeministCritique ofAntidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, andAntiracist Politics”in K.T. Bartlett andR. Kennedy (eds.), Feminist LegalTheory: Readingsin Lawand Gender . Boulder:Westview Press. DALY, K. 1993“ Class-Race-Gender: Sloganeeringin Search ofMeaning” in Social Justice 20, pp. 1-2. DAVIS, A. 1974 An Autobiography .New York:Random House. 1981 Women,Race and Class .London:The Women’s Press. DURKHEIM, E. 1982 TheRules of Sociological Methodand Selected Texts on Sociology andits Method . S. Lukes (ed.),W.D. Halls (trans.). London:Macmillan. FANO N, F. 1963 TheWretched of theEarth .Middlesex:Penguin. FAWEHINMI, G. 1993“ Human Rightsare Non-Negotiable” in Nigeria Now,Vol.2, No. 6, June. AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 141 ²

FOUCAULT, M. 1988 Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews andother writings, 1977-1984 .L.Kritzman (ed.). New York:Routledge. FREUD, S. 1963 Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis .London:Pelican Press. GARLAN D, D. 1985 Punishment andWelfare: a History of PenalStrategies .Aldershot:Gower. 1990 Punishment andModern Society: aStudy in Social Theory .Oxford:Clarendon. GILROY, P. 1987“ The Myth ofBlack Criminality”in P.Scraton (ed.), Law,Order and the Authoritarian State.MiltonKeynes, OUP. GOODE, E. 1993 Drugs in AmericanSociety .New York:McGraw-Hill. HABERMAS, J. 1987 TheTheory of CommunicativeAction , Vol. 2, Lifeworldand System: ACritiqueof Functionalist Reason .Cambridge:Polity. HALL, S. 1980“ Race,Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance”in UNESCO, ed., Sociological Theories: Raceand Colonialism .Paris:Unesco. 1988 TheHard Road to Renewal .London:Verso. 1996 Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies .London,Routledge. HALL, S., C. CRITCHER, T. JEFFERSON, J. CLARKE AND ROBERTS, B. 1978 Policing TheCrisis .London:Macmillan. HECTER, M. 1975 Internal Colonialism: TheCeltic Fringe in British National Development,1536-1966 . Beverley Hills:University ofCalifornia Press. HENRY, S. AND D. MILOVANOVIC 1996 Constitutive Criminology .London:Sage. HILLYAR D, P. 1993 SuspectCommunity: People’s Experienceof thePrevention of Terrorism Acts in Britain . London:Pluto. HOOD, R. 1992 Raceand Sentencing .Oxford:Clarendon. HOOKS, B. 1984 Feminist Theory: From Marginto Center .Boston,South End Press. IRR, INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS 1987 Policing Against BlackPeople .London:IRR. JAMES, C.L.R. 1980 TheBlack Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture andthe San Domingo Revolution . London: Allisonand Busby. KALUNTA-CRUMPTON, A. 1998 Raceand Drugs Trials .Aldershot:Ashgate. KITSUSE, J.I. AND A.V. CICOUREL 1963“ ANoteon the Useof OfŽ cial Statistics” in Social Problems , Vol. 2. KUPER, L. 1965 An AfricanBourgeoisie .London:Yale University Press. LOMBROSO, C. AND W. FERRERO 1895 TheFemale Offender .London:Fisher Unwin. 142 Agozino ²

MAMA, A. 1989 TheHidden Struggle .London:London Housing and Race Research Unit. MAMDANI, M. 2000“ The Truth Accordingto the TRC”in I.Amadiumeand A. an-Na’im (eds.), The Politics of Memory: Truth,Healing andSocial Justice .London:Zed. MARÉ, G. 1993 Ethnicity andPolitics in South Africa .London:Zed. MARX, K. 1981 Capital.Middlesex:Penguin/ NLR. MATTHEWS, R. AND J. YOUNG 1992 Issues in Realist Criminology .London:Sage. MCCLINTOCK, F.H. 1974“ Factsand Myths about the Stateof Crime” in R.Hood(ed.), Crime,Criminology andPublic Policy .London:Heinemann. 1963 Crimesof Violence .London:Macmillan. MERTON, R.K. 1968 Social Theory andSocial Structure .New York:Free Press. MURRAY, C. 1990 TheEmerging Underclass .London:Institute of Economic Affairs. OMAR, D. 1990“ An Overviewof State Lawlessness in SouthAfrica” in D.Hansson(ed.), Towards Justice.Oxford:Oxford University. PATTERSON, O. 1998 Rituals of Blood .New York:Basic Books. POLLAK, O. 1950 TheCriminality of Women .Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvania. QUETLET, A. 1842 ATreatiseon Man .Edinburgh:Chambers. RICE, M. 1990“ Challenging Orthodoxiesin FeministTheory: ABlack FeministIntervention” in L.Gelsthorpe andA. Morris(eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology . Milton Keynes,Open University. RODNEY, W. 1970 AHistory of theUpper Guinea Coast, 1545-1800 .Oxford:Clarendon. 1972 How Europe UnderdevelopedAfrica .London:Bogle-L’ Ouverture. 1975“ Contemporary Trends in the English-SpeakingCaribbean” in BlackScholar , Vol. 7, No. 1. SAID, E. 1993 Culture andImperialism .London:Chatto andWindus. SCHWENDINGER , H. AND J. ??? 1970“ Defendersof Order or Guardiansof Human Rights?”in Issues in Criminology 5. Oxford:Oxford University Press. SMART, C. 1990“ FeministApproaches to Criminology or PostmodernWoman Meets Atavistic Man”in L.Gelsthorpe andA. Morris(eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Criminology . MiltonKeynes, Open University Press. THE ECONOMIST 2001“ SouthAfrica Survey”in TheEconomist ,February24 th 2001,pp. 7-8. AfricanWomen and the Decolonisation of Victimisation 143 ²

VAN ONSELEN, C. 1982 New Babylon.London:Longman. WACQUANT, L. 2000“ The New “PeculiarInstitution” : Onthe Prisonas Surrogate Ghetto” in TheoreticalCriminology ,Vol.4, No. 3, August. WILSON, J.Q. 1983 ThinkingAbout Crime .New York:Basic Books. WINSHIP, W. 1990“ ViolenceAgainst Children: Physical Abuse”in B.McKendrick andW. Hoffmann (eds.), Peopleand Violence in South Africa .Oxford:Oxford University Press. WOLPE, H. 1972“ Capitalismand Cheap Labour in SouthAfrica” in Economy andSociety 1, p. 4. YOUNG, T.R. 1991“ Chaosand Crime: Non-Linear andFractal Forms of Crime” in Critical Criminologist ,Vol.3, No. 2, Summer.