Book Review: Governing Paradoxes of Restorative Justice

by George Pavlich.  London, Sydney and Portland OR:  Glasshouse Press.  2005.  ISBN 1-90438-519-2

Mediation appears to be independent but is a way of indirectly expanding state control of people, according to Pavlich.  This is an aspect of ‘governmentality’, a Foucaultian term describing how ‘power both creates and is created by the subjects entangled within its orbits’ (p. 10).  (This description, as with much of Pavlich’s writing, would be clearer if he gave some examples.)  He summarizes restorative justice ideas, for example that it is based on healing instead of punishment, and tends to be personal, carried out by members of the community, rather than impersonal, carried out by officials.  The trouble is, according to him, that while it claims to be an alternative to criminal justice, it depends on the system for its supply of cases and its finances, and tends to respond only to those forms of harm which the state defines as ‘crime’;  thus it tries to be an alternative while really being an appendage.  As he says, we should not merely ‘restore’ an unsatisfactory, often criminogenic, status quo;  but he ignores writers on restorative justice who have made a similar point, and the fact that community mediation does deal with non-criminal conflicts.  It is true, though, that the restorative process has made little use of its potential to expose factors conducive to crime and press for action;  an exception, which he might have mentioned, is the programme for community peacemaking and peacebuilding in Zwelethemba and other South African townships (Roche 2003:  264-6).

For victims, restorative justice does offer more participation, but, Pavlich says, requires them to accept ‘victim’ status which focuses on their loss and disempowerment:  it promotes victimhood rather than deliver people from it (p. 60).  He comments that ‘one might consider various case studies’ (p. 53);  that would be a good idea, because it might make his position clearer.  In fact many case histories show victims not as losers but as people showing concern for offenders, even becoming benefactors, for example by offering jobs – in other words, not disempowered at all (Crosland and Liebmann 2003).  He claims that the restorative justice process ‘does little or nothing to enable subjects to engage politically with, and so substantially alter, the broader social conditions that have generated their suffering to begin with’ (pp. 59-60).  In fact, however, it does more than the criminal justice system to make both victims and mediators aware of social ills;  there is nothing to stop them engaging politically, but that will be in their capacity as citizens. 

There is a long discussion of the meanings of ‘community’.  He focuses on the definition which suits his stance, as people with something in common who thereby exclude others (pp. 100-1);  but not the (admittedly somewhat amorphous) one as ‘interactions between free individuals outside … formal state institutions’ (pp. 87-8);  and even they are members of the community when they come home (Wright 2003).

Pavlich is vague about how restorative justice could be improved.  He says that it ‘has proved to be … no match for that capricious old fox which is assembled under the banner of criminal justice’ (p. 105):  he would apparently like it to be independent of criminal justice, and many communitarians will agree.  Since the concept of crime is arbitrary, including some actions which are not very harmful and excluding some which are, he suggests a different concept :  injustice.  But how would this work in practice?  Would injustices be codified (which would be open to the same objections as crimes) or categorized case-by-case (which could be arbitrary, not to say capricious)?  But at this point the book stops.

I hope my summary of Pavlich’s argument is reasonably correct, but if not, at least part of the reason lies in his use of language.    His most annoying habit is to use words in a peculiar non-dictionary sense;  for example, ‘calculation’ means (I think) ‘concept’, and ‘enunciation’ is ‘definition’.  He uses obscure words like ‘aporia’ (doubt) and ‘aporetic’, which the SOED says are alien and obsolete, respectively;  and how can doubt be ‘impossible’ (p. 109)?  He resorts to Latin to describe one of his key concepts (the ‘imitor paradox’), and mixes metaphors (can you puncture a horizon? - p. 117). .  Whole paragraphs contain no nouns except abstract ones.  .  The purpose of language is to communicate, and he might find it salutary to read Francis Wheen’s (2004: chapter 4) debunking of post-modern deconstructionist jargon.

Pavlich has a tendency to ‘hypostatise’ (≈lump together) different restorative justice theorists and practitioners, but he is right to point out that they have not addressed all the problems that it raises.  Some are not adventurous enough in challenging the state of present-day society, and practice falls far short even of current un-radical ideals.  This needs saying, but the book would be more balanced if it also acknowledged the merits of restorative justice.  There will be a better chance that something can be done about the objections if they can be more clearly expressed, and it is to be hoped that this author will explain them in a more accessible way.

---

REFERENCES
Crosland, P and M Liebmann  (2003)  40 cases:  restorative justice and victim-offender mediation.  Bristol:  Mediation UK.  www.mediationuk.org.uk

Roche, D (2003)  Accountability in restorative justice.  Oxford:  Oxford University Press. 

Wheen, F (2004)  How mumbo-jumbo conquered the world.  London:  Harper Perennial.

Wright, M (2003)  “Community involvement in restorative justice.”  Paper to DIKÊ seminar:  ‘Protection and promotion of victims’ rights in Europe.’  Lisbon, September 2003.  Published (in English and Portuguese) in Apoia á Vitima (APAV), Protection and promotion of victims’ rights in Europe.  apav.sede@apav.pt


Martin Wright
November 2005