“Purity Politics” Is Ruining Progressivism

The American Left needs to spend less time hitting the pavements criticizing government and institutions outright. Instead, they must do the less glamorous: study the policies that best help working people and then go to the polls and vote that way.

A worrying realization washed over me, sitting in a graduate seminar on prison justice activism in 2016. This happened as the PowerPoint slide transitioned to an obscure meme featuring two screenshots of Canadian rapper Drake taken from his music video for “Hotline Bling.” The first screenshot showed Drake appearing to gesture his disapproval. The second shot showed his approval. One of the instructors proudly proclaimed that the approach we would be taking in the seminar was exemplified by this meme. Everything was to be one way or the other.

As the semester progressed, it became clear that one of the course’s main takeaways was that arguments for prison reform are often just veiled attempts at preserving the status quo. Thus, to argue that we should reform within the system is to betray authentic radical politics. Moreover, endorsing prison reform means you are endorsing some parts of an inherently unjust system. Thus, prison abolition is the only morally viable path.

My classmates nodded enthusiastically. But I was counting the reasons why this was the wrong conclusion. To be sure, when it comes to the criminal justice system—especially as it exists in North America—I think there is little to suggest that it makes our communities safer. And it certainly does not make our society more cohesive. In fact, it seems to do the opposite; it tends to perpetuate criminality and socio-economic inequality. But to say that there should be no mechanism available to remove people from society, under any circumstances, seemed like an odd conclusion. There are alternatives to how we do prison in North America that still allow for the possibility of incarceration. For example, Norway has pioneered some techniques that seem to be working.