HRSJ 5010
Foundations of Human Rights and Social Justice
This course provided me with a foundational and theoretical understanding of Human Rights and Social Justice. I was able to take abstract theories and apply them to a case study with a group of my peers. Working together on this project allowed me to get to know some of the intellects in my cohort, while engaging in interdisciplinary knowledge sharing.
HRSJ 5020
Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Resurgence of Land Based Pedagogies and Practices
This course provided me with a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the traumatic colonial history in Canada and its continued effect on the Indigenous peoples of the land we have settled. I was able to learn from the land, elders, and ceremony. Visiting sites of suffering, such as the Kamloops Indian Residential School, to see how resistance and healing is emerging was an emotional experience. Going to the land and being guided on how to learn from it was powerful.
One reading for this course that was impactful for me was selected chapters from Shawn Wilson’s book, Research is Ceremony. I had read these previously and had thoroughly enjoyed them. They became more significant for me when the author was invited to give a presentation at the university and the class was invited to a private talk with Dr. Wilson beforehand. Deeping my understanding of the material through a personal lens allowed me to appreciate the readings on a different level. I was able to view the material in a distinct context. The book discusses relationships in research and I was able to form a more personal relationship with the author.
Wilson, Shawn. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing, 2008.
HRSJ 5030
Problem Solving in the Field: Study Techniques and Methods
I had never taken a methodological course before. Learning about the process of this kind of academic research was inspriring. Getting to hear about all the interesting projects my peers were working on opened my eyes to vast areas of opportunity.
HRSJ 5040
HRSJ Field Experience
Getting to apply the knowledge I had gained in the classroom to real world experiences was so satisfying. I ended up in a placement that I had never considered to be a Human Rights issue in the past. I now have a deeper understanding of the local impact my studies can have.
HRSJ 5110
Genocide in the 20th Century
Expectedly, this was one of the darkest classes I have ever taken. The learning experience was, however, one of the most profound and memorable of any class I have taken. Connecting emotionally to the material allowed me to internalize and personalize my learning. I won’t soon forget the lectures, the vulnerability of my classmates, and the contextualization of a genocidal event that began on the other side of the world while taking this class.
HRSJ 5120
Settler Colonialism: Decolonization and Responsibility
This class changed me. It changed how I think. It changed how I look at the world, and how I interact with it. It happened slowly throughout the term. I didn’t realize the profound impact it had on me until after I had presented my final project and discovered that I moved through the world differently.
One assignment for this course was a final project where I was asked to “Unsettle (My) Research.” The assignment asked me to disseminate my findings from the class. It asked me to share my knowledge with the communities from where my understanding came. It instructed me to reflect on the idea that change comes not from thinking, but from doing. I struggled with this assignment, at first. It was uncomfortably different. The instructors asked me “were do we go from here?” My presentation was the answer. I offer a write up of my presentation, which explains my approach and why it was impactful:
I went on a journey for this assignment, and I’d like to share some of that journey with you. I collected some ideas and then spent a lot of time in contemplation, asking the universe to show me where I needed to go to express what I wanted to share about my findings and research from this class. I asked how I could create something to put out into the world, then listened for an answer to how the world thought I could change it. I thought about the disciplinary background in which I was educated. Not just the discipline of philosophy from my undergrad, but the colonial education I received that is western-centred. I considered my positionality as the descendant of uninvited settlers, my privilege as white-passing, and my biases, both implicit and explicit. The question asked of us in the assignment is a big one. It reads: “So how do we translate all that we have learned in our lives and time together in this course and put out into the world in ways that will affect the change we desire to be a part of?” I felt overwhelmed and lost. It seemed too big. But I kept asking; and more importantly, I kept listening for an answer. I didn’t just ask the universe. I asked the land, and I spoke with elders when I spent time working at Cplul’kw’ten. The answers started coming; I kept listening. I read articles, books, and class materials. I attended workshops and talks by scholars engaged in work echoing this assignment. Especially helpful was the research I did for our article presentation assignment. Like I heard from some of you, I read many articles before settling on one that resonated with me. I went into that assignment researching for this project. I found “Braiding Sweetgrass” and I fell in love. Unfortunately, a book chapter did not qualify for the article sharing assignment, so I hunted further for an academic article that embodied the subtitle of the book: “Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants.” I began to have visions of braids using modern materials attached to structures formed by plants or other natural forms. I read articles about yarning circles and incorporated physical yarn into the idea catalogue forming in my head. (fun fact, yarning circles have nothing to do with actual yarn!) I read book chapters about indigenous research methodologies and ceremony, so I included those approaches and principles into my catalogue of ideas. I reviewed my lecture notes from class and repeatedly found words like, “discovered,” “terra nullis,” and “signs, metaphors, and narratives.” I wanted to include a metaphor and narrative to counter concepts of discovery; I was hearing that I needed to make a sign that the earth was something wonderful. I was starting to change inside. I wanted to find the palimpsest fingers of Indigenous ways of knowing that were peeking through the colonized discourse that I thought was reality. Actually, I wanted to scream to the world what I had learned, what I was awakening to, and share with everyone. But I knew that would be ineffective and probably wouldn’t get me a good grade on this assignment! I was starting to feel defeated. I was getting sucked into the idea that the problems created by colonialism are too big. We’re too entrenched. I’m too small. But then I found an article by Dr. Dustin Louie from UBC. He had presented his research at a talk I had missed, but I had the pleasure of speaking to four people who had attended. I didn’t realize I was doing research for this project when I listened to them sharing their experiences with me. I didn’t know how impactful his second-hand words would be. His point is that our work (and I quote from his paper) “is only a small fraction of the change we are working toward, my theory of change is incremental and not revolutionary. Change happens through hundreds, if not thousands, of small projects, teachings, and approaches that gain momentum until a critical mass is formed.” And so, I offer you my story and this physical expression of incremental, non-revolutionary change, contributing to a collection of small projects gaining critical mass. This is a dream catcher – to catch the dream of indigenization to be released into the colonized world. The yarn braids represent talking circles, or yarning circles; the conversations I had where I learned both in and outside of the classroom. The braids themselves symbolize the weaving of indigenous wisdom with science and lessons from non-human relationships; the decolonizing we learned about in this classroom woven into the colonial structure of this institution. The web the braids create portray protection via their use as a filter; filtering out my old paradigm to make room for the new. The ring of braided and woven willow branches expresses the circle of connections, the circle of life, and interconnectedness; it represents the relationships I’ve formed in this room, with the people I discussed this project with, and the ones I didn’t meet, but whose research I read in academic papers. The colour of the yarn is symbolic of a removal of the black and white thinking that I used to get into when I thought of decolonization and the massive project I took it to be. The grey expresses a balanced approach that isn’t rigid, allowing for the flowing of ideas and sharing of space. The “feathers” that hang came from the package of a gift I received at a wellness circle; it was gifted to me at a time I was asking the universe to send me some feathers for this project! They are women representing that there should be no more Murdered and Missing Women. So, I present to you my metaphor for a new narrative I understand. It is small and simple, but what it means is profound. It represents my commitment to not just listening, but to hearing. It’s a small step in the right direction and a willingness to bring those with me who are also willing to come.
HRSJ 5130
Body Rights: Systems and Social Movements
This topic became so much larger than I had originally anticipated it to be. How the world and the people in it, the structures, the symbolism, and the environment affect the bodies in the world is a profound realization. I did not expect to become so conflicted about my opinion on issues. Being able to see and feel the world through the bodily experiences of others challenged me to embrace different perspectives I hadn’t previously considered.
One assignment for this course was to provide a verbal introduction to selected readings and then lead the class is discussion via questions. We were asked to tie in the introduction to previous readings in the course as well as place it within the topic of the week. The following is the introduction I prepared:
L. Song Richardson, a lawyer, focuses her work on the science of implicit bias. Much of her research investigates the implications of policing black people, courtroom bias, and the effects of biased laws. In “Criminal Policing in Human Experimentation” Richardson transitions from research focused on examining biases in the medical system to criticizing police and justice system biases.
Biases, hidden from their owners, impact decision-making, perceptions, and judgements. They play a crucial role in Richardson’s research, examining how bias permeates both the medical system and structures of justice. Richardson justifies why researchers are not being punished for their “crimes,” arguing that researchers are protected by two different types of identified biases.
The first is “idealization bias.” This article analyzes medical experimentation, where doctors conduct research on human patients. Society tends to elevate doctors to a higher status. According to Foucault, doctors wield power because of their expertise. For instance, last week Nick shared an example of a doctor telling us we had a broken hand, and we all agreed to trust the good doctor. Richardson describes this trust as “idealization bias.”
Next, let’s discuss “social benefit bias,” which Richardson explains may be why doctors face medical malpractice charges instead of criminal charges. This bias has a utilitarian construct, which means if something benefits society as a whole, it is acceptable to prioritize the greater good over individual rights and autonomy. Since utilitarian ethics seek the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, social benefit bias aims to maximize social benefit. However, when individual rights are sacrificed and compromised, bodies become objects open to exploitation. These biases connect with our readings this week, which explore the theme of body commodification.
In Braun, women idealize a specific standard they want to achieve through Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS). The bodies portrayed in media—whether in porn, social media, or advertisements—appear more attractive than the one in the mirror, their own. When women don’t realize they are conforming to societal ideals, their idealization bias takes over. They become objects open to exploitation, as capitalism profits from their need to transform into something perceived as “more worthy.”
Similarly, in the Lamkin article, idealization bias appears in the colonial ideology that people with white skin are superior to people with dark skin. This bias is evident in policies on the medicalization of skin-lightening products. In this context, black bodies receive resources to conform to a societal ideal, making them susceptible to capitalist exploitation.
Social benefit bias surfaces in both articles. It is expressed in the notion that when individuals “improve” their bodies to conform to societal ideals, everyone benefits. An extremely reductive example is Hitler’s racial cleansing bias, suggesting that making society homogenous would solve all problems.
Dickenson argues that the stem cell debate over-values a woman’s potential progeny, effectively erasing the woman herself. By focusing on the embryo and its status as a human or potential human, the debate places the rights of the embryo above those of the woman’s body. This reflects a Western bias of valuing youth over age. Although the donor women may still be young, the implicit bias favours the potential over the present. Additionally, the benefit to society is considered more valuable than the individual who donated the stem cells, effectively sidelining her in the discussion.
In Craighead, a tattooed body represents Foucauldian resistance to the power structure that idealizes a clean, unadorned body as superior. A tattooed female body opposes conventional femininity. Tattoos of feminine objects like flowers and fairies are less offensive. There is a hierarchy of idealized bodies when it comes to tattoos. The social benefit bias is again expressed in the structure Craighead resists. Society has norms and those conforming bodies at the top of the hierarchy are deemed “more beautiful,” “more desirable,” and “worthy.”
Finally, Richardson and all the articles this week demonstrate how objectification occurs when some bodies are elevated in status over others and society’s desires are prioritized over bodily autonomy, whether consciously or not. Together, the articles show how biases, along with the pressures of society, contribute to objectification and exploitation of different bodies. The questions we are about to discuss will allow us to critically examine these biases and hopefully we will be able to better understand the complex interplay between power, societal norms, and bodily autonomy.
Richardson, L. Song. 2013. “Criminal Policing of Human Experimentation.” In The Global Body Market: Altruism’s Limits, edited by Michele Goodwin, 160-182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HRSJ 5210
Law, Human Rights and Justice
Discovering the rich history of Human Rights and the philosophical underpinnings was pivotal to understaning modern social movements and fights for justice. I have a new understanding of my place in time and an appreciation for the rights I take for granted that were not available to some of those in the past. What I do with this education, the information from this course, the degree I obtain really matters to future generations.
We were each assigned a reading to introduce to the class. Below is the verbal presentation I gave on the reading I was assigned:
In Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose,” the main point is that humanity is slowly and steadily advancing according to natural laws. In the nine propositions that follow, Kant attempts to show how using reason is the tool nature uses in humans aimed at forming a cosmopolitan society. The following is a brief explication of those propositions, a discussion of how Kant differs from Hobbes regarding human nature, and why Kant’s argument is essential to consider today, almost 250 years later.
First Proposition
Kant’s first proposition is that humans have a purpose. Nature gave us the ability to grow. Nature’s lack of waste means that the laws of nature do not exhibit randomness. The freedom we experience is as nature intended. There is a path shaped for us by nature, yet there is also freedom.
Second Proposition
Reason progresses by way of humankind as a whole rather than through individuals. It is more significant than instinct and has no limits. Unfortunately, our human bodies do. Humanity must undergo experiences and training to move through iterations of insight to develop its use of reason. These iterations are generations. The life of individuals may be short or cut short, so reason passes the baton through subsequent eras, sharing its knowledge through the centuries. In this way, nature’s plan extends beyond the individual, encompassing generations. For this reason, humanity should not waste freedom. Nature’s perfect goal is to develop reason over our individual lifetimes, then pass knowledge to the next generation, and the next, and the next.
Third Proposition
Nature deliberately leaves gaps for humans to fill with our reason. We are purposefully deficient and must use our reason, not instinct, to figure out how to fill these gaps. As Kant stated in the first proposition, our reason is not useless, so we must put this natural ability to good use. When we look around nature, we see that the lesser beings, animals, have physical traits with a clear purpose. For example, bears have fur to keep them warm. Humans have no such protection from the cold. We must use our reason to determine the best way to stay warm in cold environments or avoid such environments. We have the freedom to decide how best to do this. When we produce something practical, like clothing, we can take pride in knowing we figured it out. Then, we can teach others and show them how to adapt. They benefit from our reason and can then use their reason to work out other problems. Through overcoming life’s difficulties using reason, nature appears to be concerned with building human self-esteem rather than just using it for instinctual survival. How we freely live should maximize our reason so that we have something worthy to pass down through subsequent generations. Nature aims not to preserve life but lives worthy of building a foundation for future generations to build upon. We will not reap the maximum benefits of our work, yet it is still essential to accept the responsibility given to us by nature. We will die, but future generations will benefit from the knowledge we gain. Reason lives on.
Fourth Proposition
Humans desire to live comfortably and quietly in isolation and to do what they want for themselves; this is selfish. Kant employs the term concordant but asserts that nature, aiming at discord, knows better. The fourth proposition is an apology or Kant’s justification for tyranny and why humans are unpleasant towards each other. Our actions have a purpose; it is part of the plan. A famous phrase from Kant explains this dichotomy; “unsocial sociability.” When humans want what they want and go about getting it, we run into other humans doing the same thing; resistance arises. Kant explains, “Now it is this resistance that awakens all the powers of the human being, brings him to overcome his propensity to indolence, and driven by ambition, tyranny, and greed, to obtain for himself a rank among his fellows, whom he cannot stand, but also cannot leave alone.” Here, Kant is explaining how we need to overcome struggles to evolve, over generations, from barbarism into cultured beings. We become moral and practical, transforming into a society of good humans.
As an individual, I can make pacts with others to form a society. I obtain moral safety by building on this pact. As Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have explained in their theories of social contracts, we agree to be in society with others for security reasons. We can see this exemplified as their concepts of rights evolve. Hobbes believed the state could protect us from chaos. Locke expanded on this to include the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Further, Rousseau advanced rights to the level of freedom and harmony. We haven’t quite attained the level of morality Kant argues nature desires for us, but let’s consider the kinds of rights people in our modern societies are familiar with. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a 20th-century document, may be interpreted to include rights such as reproductive, environmental, language, and LGBTQ rights. Kant’s prediction of the evolution of rights from the basics of food, clothing, and shelter through expansion to economic safety and moral safety appears to be progressing as planned. The natural resistance we encounter today is the means to Kant’s proposed end.
Fifth Proposition
The best accomplishment humans can achieve with their reason is building a society with universal rights. That society will have the greatest freedoms arising from the resistance Kant speaks of in the previous proposition. Overcoming these points of resistance leads to individuals working together in harmony. Kant uses a metaphor to describe the process; trees grow straight due to competition with other trees to reach sunlight. Trees that grow in isolation are bent and disfigured with no others to direct their straight growth. It is the unsociability that fosters discipline to live in civil society. Kant terms this straight growth “freedom under external laws…i.e., a perfectly just civil constitution.” Once this is in place, it leaves the door open for more. Once the problem nature has given us to solve has been achieved, we can focus our aims on even greater freedoms.
Sixth Proposition
Overcoming resistance is the most significant problem ever to be faced by humanity and will be the last problem we solve. Humans are like animals and need a master. Despite being rational, humans misuse power. While we desire laws to govern us all, we selfishly also desire to be personally excluded from such laws; this is problematic as humans are the only beings capable of mastering other humans. Kant sees the impossibility of finding a single human, or a group of humans, capable of performing the role of master. All will misuse the freedom and power given to them. This point contradicts Hobbes’ Leviathan and absolute monarchy, a sovereign and supreme authority. Unfortunately, laws are necessary in a just civil constitution, but they require enforcement by judges. Further, that judge needs to be some finite rational being. Kant states the solution is very difficult to obtain. If it happens, it will only occur after trial and error over many lifetimes. A footnote expresses Kant’s thoughts that individuals can never fulfill the end of their nature as only in society may this be achieved.
Seventh Proposition
The solution, as proposed by Kant, is a cosmopolitan society; this looks like other groups of people in their own formations of just civil constitutions, parallel societies that have lawful relationships with each other and lack superiority between them. The resistance between states is a mirror of the antagonisms between individuals. Each state maintains sovereignty, so any agreement between states cannot be a rigid constitutional authority. There is a different power relationship between the cosmopolitan relationship of state to state than the relationship between the state and the individual. Cosmopolitan-to-state relationships are harmonious; state-to-individual relationships are authoritative. A war between states parallels the discord between individuals. Through war, nature aims states toward forming new cosmopolitan relationships between themselves; unfortunately, there is a stunting of individual moral growth during war, so this will be the most challenging time in human history. There are a variety of ways for this to occur. The first is by chance after many collisions. A step-by-step process working from animality to humanity is the second. And finally, the complete destruction of all states and a return to the state of nature, a fresh slate to try again. Once achieved, humanity will be cultivated, civilized, equal, and moral; however, the danger in the security of not destroying each other lies in the potential to become dormant.
Eighth Proposition
Nature aims to develop humans into a perfect constitution, bringing about the ideal state constitution. We take notice of humanity’s past and history just as we can determine the state of the cosmos by observing the skies; this is important so we can work to bring about the best possible future. States have an interest in maintaining their culture and have no interest in sacrificing this to others if it means diminishing their power. They are ambitious in maintaining their security, similar to the struggle Kant described in the sixth proposition of individuals requiring a master and those in power desiring to be outside the laws. Just as individuals must relinquish some freedoms to live in the state, states must accept infringement upon trade, commerce, and power. In this way, they obtain safety from war, just as individuals obtain personal safety within the state. Kant likens the enlightenment of individuals accepting personal restrictions and maintains that states’ rulers have not made the parallel inference. The short-sightedness of rulers hinders the growth of society through the continued waging of wars, the accrual of debt to finance such wars, and the lack of money left over for public education. The evolution of war will make the outcome so uncertain that states will become willing to form a grand cosmopolitan body; this was a novel idea when Kant wrote it. Many revolutions will occur to fulfill nature’s aim, resulting in a “universal cosmopolitan condition.”
Ninth Proposition
By looking at history, philosophy must work out the aim of nature to obtain the most perfect civil union possible, but also how to further this aim. Kant states that it is strange to want to predict the future by learning about history, but it could also be helpful to assume that nature does not have an aim or plan for human freedom; however, it could also be beneficial to assume that nature does and to use that as a guide to form a system from the “planless aggregate of human actions.” Worshiping God and not considering history as a lesson is not a good use of reason. He does not believe it is practical to hope for fulfillment after death in heaven. Kant’s knowledge of history shows him an improvement in the state constitutions in his corner of the globe. Even when conquest destroys a part of the world (one of the options expressed in the seventh proposition of how humanity could form cosmopolitan relationships between states), Kant observes that it left seeds to develop enlightenment and improvement. Thus, humanity progresses to fulfill its vocation on earth. We cannot just consider empirically written history. We must consider how future generations will learn from our history. A small goal of the government, suggests Kant, should be to share their knowledge with the future so that they may have “glorious remembrance.”
Final Thoughts
Hobbes had a very pessimistic view of human nature. His famous statement that in the state of nature, life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” is not contrary to Kant, but it serves no purpose for Hobbes except as a motivation to escape it. Kant gives meaning to human struggle; it is not without purpose. Hobbes desires to break free from struggle, and Kant utilises these conditions. Their aim is ultimately the same: both aspire to social order and to prevent conflict. Their point of difference lies in how they believe humanity may achieve this.
I think Kant’s argument is relevant today. The solution of Hobbes’ Leviathan is impractical. Kant provides hope through faith in nature’s grand plan; it is a bigger picture. Even though we cannot see nor benefit from the ultimate end, we are privileged with our predecessors’ gains. Kant, always the moral one, encourages us to pay it forward. It boils down to leaving the world a better place than we came into it.
Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose, trans. Lewis White Beck (1784; repr., Cambridge University Press, 2009), 41–53.
HRSJ 5260
Moral Economies and Social Movements in Contemporary Capitalism
Probably one of the most interesting and relevant courses I’ve ever taken. The title of the course became a running joke–how can economies be moral if they are capitalist? The political landscape at the time was fuel for animated discussions and provided real-time context to the topics.
We were assigned four “Very Short Assignments” where a prompt was given and the assignment was the answer. I was fascinated by the topic of how the illicit economy functions within the capitalist system. Below is my response to the prompt, “Capitalism is associated with the growth of legal markets and institutions, but it also has a complex relationship with the illicit economy. In your view, how does the illicit economy function within a capitalist system? Is the illicit economy an inherent byproduct of capitalism or does it arise from contradictions within the capitalist system? What impact does the illicit economy have on legal markets, state power, and socioeconomic inequality, and what are the implications of this growing economy if nation-states fail to collaborate to address it?”
There is a relationship that exists between the illicit economy and capitalism. While legal markets and institutions grow, the black market operates in its shadow. Using the case study of prohibition in the United States, I aim to show how the illicit economy functions within a capitalist system; how it could unintentionally become an inherent byproduct of capitalism; give examples of the impact of the illicit economy on legal markets, state power, and socioeconomic inequality; and describe some of the implications of unchecked expansion of the illicit economy.
The illicit economy functions within a capitalist system by filling gaps in supply to meet demand. Capitalism is built on the supply/demand relationship. Alcohol has been a commodity in demand since the beginning of recorded time. When the United States outlawed it for moral reasons, the demand remained. The vacuum created by prohibition was occupied by the endeavours of criminals willing to work outside ethics and the law. Alcohol continued to be traded outside of the legal markets, but still within the capitalist system.
“As long as there has been trade, there has been criminal activity (highwaymen, pirates) and efforts at security.”[1] Security creates conditions ideal for criminals to operate. Prohibition is a great example of how security can create opportunities for illegal means of increasing capital. The black market as an inherent byproduct of capitalism may arise unintentionally. The temperance movement was a morally and religiously driven endeavour; it partially intended to protect wives from drunken husbands and prioritized values, such as productivity and self-discipline. The resulting rise of gangsters, thugs, cartels, and criminality was probably never anticipated.
To handle the increase in crime created by prohibition, the state had to respond with crime prevention measures. Policing is expensive and it takes time to train a police force. Confounding efforts by the state is the practice of bribes to officers and government officials to benefit crime bosses and their empires. Further, prohibition has been identified as a pre-cursor to the current war on drugs and the expansion of the carceral state and prison industrial complex.
The prison industrial complex is the epitome of inequality. Today, it is criticized for being a replacement for slavery and Jim Crow.[2] During prohibition, the gangsters who profited were mainly immigrants. They were the people who were the recipients of racism and suffered the effects of inequality. To achieve the American Dream, they found novel ways of capitalizing. This is still the case for people affected by the inequality created by the capitalist system. For some, to survive, the illicit economy is their only choice. Those who have want more and more for less and less; and those who don’t have are willing to do more and more for less and less. It’s a vicious cycle that feeds the unchecked growth of illicit activity.
When the illicit economy evolves, legal markets, state power, and socioeconomic inequality are affected. What is deemed legal or illegal depends on what the government decides. This can often depend upon what is profitable. It can also be influenced by the public conscience; however, it is more likely to be shaped by powerful lobbyists with deep pockets sponsored by big business. When profit is the primary motivation, the adage of the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer holds true. The relationship between capitalism and underground economies is complex. Prohibition in the United States failed because capitalist supply and demand won supreme. The obvious success of the bootleggers to turn a profit, stay in business, and expand their empire demonstrates how the illicit economy can exist as a byproduct of capitalism. There is a complicated interdependence between markets that operate under the law, government policy, economic tiers, and illegal activity. For many, what is criminal is predicated on unstable assumptions. The two financial systems are so intricately connected that the lines have become blurred.
[1]. Terry Kading, “The Illicit Economy,” (lecture slides, HRSJ 5260 Moral Economies and Social Movements in Contemporary Capitalism, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, B.C., March 4, 2025).
[2]. Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, New Press, 2012.