Customer Reviews

Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing California (American Crossroads)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Ruthie Gilmore's examination of California's prison-industrial complex paints a sobering portrait of the effects of the state's post-industrial decline in the past quarter century. Supplemented by numerous charts, maps, and statistics, Gilmore argues that the massive prison-building project that began in the early 1980s was rooted in earlier developments, namely the failure of the "welfare-warfare state" to absorb the numerous surpluses created by political and economic restructuring. Combining theory and historical-sociological analysis, this highly readable book is at once depressing and optimistic; it lays out the facts and guidelines for pursuing meaningful, antiracist struggles against the systemic dehumanization of immigrants, low-wage workers, and youths of color that continues to characterize U.S. political culture.

i purchased for a friend who is an inmate

he has praised the book to me

As a researcher in criminology and recidivism, this book proved to be very helpful!

This book could have used an editor. I struggled through 200 of the 250 pages (before the notes at the end) before giving up. I was hoping to read an inside account of how the prison unions gained power to promote the building of more prisons, or perhaps an in-depth review of how politicians manipulated the public to be tough on crime. Instead, I find a hard to follow mish-mash of various vaguely related topics (farm worker struggles in the central valley, problems in Latin America, etc.). Although never outright stated, it seems her main conclusion is that California built all these prisons, and then toughened the laws to fill them, because the state wanted to develop land in rural areas. Huh? Could it be that that instead no one else wanted prisons near them, and rural locations were the only place they would be accepted, partly because locals were more interested in the prison jobs? And if this is the conclusion, one would think there would be some analysis disproving that it wasn't politicians getting tough on crime first, and overcrowding then driving the building of prisons in rural areas, rather than the other way around.

The other problem is that the writing appears like someone trying to sound important, rather than trying to explain something. The sentence structure was difficult to follow, with too many adjectives, etc. Here is an example from page 54: "The pivotal verb 'to reproduce' signifies the broad array of political, economic, cultural, and biological capacities a society uses to renew itself daily, seasonally, generationally." Also, the constant quotes in the middle of the text, apparently to give the air of authority missing in the text itself, was distracting. Why not use footnotes? An example from page 43: "The location of defense and other high-technology jobs (Soja 1989; Oliver et al. 1993) exacerbated the state's residential and income segregation (Walters 1992; Mike Davis 1990; Bullard et al. 1994).

There are a few good points buried in this book. For example, the point that California politicians got tough on crime at a time when crime had already started to decline for two years. Or the fact that the definition of crime determines how many criminals there are - an increasing crime rate doesn't necessarily mean an increase in crime, it can simply reflect a change in the definition of what is a crime (possession of smaller amounts of drugs, etc.). Or that the determinate sentencing we now have was partly a result of prisoners suing to be treated equally under the parole rules, with a very unintended consequence. I wish the book had focused on aspects like these, and had been written in easier to follow language.