This blew my mind a bit. I didn't consider that designating someone as a stranger is an act of recognition. Previous to reading this, if you'd asked me to define what a stranger is, I would probably say "someone you don't recognize." Now I understand that this is contradictory because you must recognize someone as a stranger, as not belonging and/or a threat.

There is an immediacy to the danger of the unknown. We may be faced with it at any moment and anywhere. Does this mean any space has the potential to be invaded by a stranger? Is it possible to have a space where no one is a stranger?

Again, being a stranger automatically designates one as not belonging in a given space.

Argument; Ahmed states her argument outright. She asserts that we have methods of differentiating between who are strangers and those who aren't. She also highlights how the stranger is equated with non-belonging. A potential research question that follows could be "How do we determine who is a stranger in a given space and what effect does this have?"

This reminds me of our reading on Foucault this week. Criminality and insanity are linked here through the serial killer film. The serial killer is predatory and dangerous but able to disguise it. It makes me think of how Foucault describes the implications of the existence of a homicidal maniac. One implication is that insanity is hidden within a person, sometimes without their knowledge, and bursts out at random in a way that no one but a specialist can predict.

P. 91 Rafter argues that the antagonist in serial killer films is not much more believable than the antagonist of slasher films. The way the serial killer is constructed - as likeable yet unhinged and apathetic - highlights the way we link criminality and insanity (like Foucault argued in our other reading).

For some reason I am unable to select the text relating to my annotations. On p. 89, Rafter establishes a framework for their analysis. The author gives a nuanced description of the three film genres they are focusing on. As a method of setting up an argument, this is effective because it provides the reader with information necessary to understanding the overall argument about these films and what they say about criminal nature.

Punishment is directed toward the body of the criminal in an attempt to correct what makes that person a criminal. This implies that criminality is something intrinsic to a person, a part of who they are as a person.

Here, Foucault's list addresses questions of the relevancy of some of his assertions thus far. At this point, A reader could be wondering why it matters if homicidal mania exists. In this case, I'm taking "exist" to refer to whether what we characterize as homicidal mania is a natural phenomenon or a social construct. Foucault identifies 3 implications of the existence of homicidal mania. 1. Insanity (in its purest form) = crime 2. The crime produced by insanity is particularly heinous or outside "the laws of nature and of society" (135). 3. Insanity is like a ticking bomb that no one can see until it detonates, unless you are part of an elite bomb squad with advanced degrees in psychiatry and/or psychology.

Echoed by mental health professionals in the U.S. They are bound to the practice doctor-patient confidentiality, save for a few instances. Namely, the doctor and/or professional is not bound to confidence in the event that they assess the "patient" is a danger to themselves or others.

Leads me to believe Foucault is using a theoretical intervention. He challenges the notion that insanity is intertwined with crime "naturally". He characterizes insanity as an entity that can reside within a person and only manifests through criminal activity that the person may not even be aware of committing. Foucault does so by finding the origin of psychiatry's intertwining with law and recounting the particular instances in which criminality and insanity became so linked. I appreciate Foucault's emphasis on ethnographic accounts because, in this case, he is able to integrate a wealth of evidence (case studies, historical accounts) to support his argument.

This is a central concept in Foucault's argument. The psychiatrization of criminal danger As part of his methodology, Foucault provides the reader with a basis for understanding his argument before delving into it deeper. This is an effective method for presenting a complex and radical argument. Foucault opens into a series of case studies that mark the entry of psychiatry into law (in Paris?).

This is a common theme throughout history and something that comes up often in Foucault's work, though I've only read a bit of it. In this case, Foucault quickly characterizes what is (often still) expected from the accused. The accused must outwardly recognize what they have done and show comprehension of the wrongness of their actions. They have to take responsibility and explain why they acted in such a way (126). There is a level of importance placed on the accused's confession. If the accused fails in any of these respects, they upset the roles within the courtroom and risk the frustration of the judge and the jury (127).

This was something I found really interesting because it made me think of Ahmed's Recognising Strangers and the ways in which being recognized as a stranger operates to designate who "belongs" in a space and who is a threat to the purity of that space and the community that occupies it. By recognizing Ali as a masculine, Arab man, Dr. Phil designates Alias not belonging in the space of the U.S. making him a stranger and subject to being labeled a criminat/terrorist/threat.

This makes me think of how much our society loves binaries, to a fault. Ali and Jennifer are placed at two extreme ends of a binary: online predator or naïve victim. Predator/Prey. This binarization leaves no room for reality, which is rarely simple enough to fit into two clearly-recognizable, opposing categories. The author addresses an instance here where the assumptions that follow identifying someone as an on line predator were flawed and damaging. This also reminds me of the in-class articles on the woman who was killed in South Africa and how the men implicated seem particularly monstrous (and the beliefs of the woman's parents particularly contusing) when juxtaposed with a woman made out to be exceedingly selfless, generous, brilliant, etc.

This is an important point because it helps undermine the dominant assumptions surrounding sexual violence, in this case what constitutes a sexual predator.

Intervention: this information is relevant because the dominant conceptualization of sexual violence is flawed and arguably damaging. This sentence indicates q theoretical intervention because a dominant social construct is being analyzed and challenged.

Method: providing sources is effective in adding credibility to this analysis of media representations of Ali and Jennifer

Here Davis criticizes the idea of the prison being rehabilitative. If prisons were focused on rehabilitating prisoners, then educational programs and libraries would be made available. Instead, prisoners are kept within the system when they are deprived of information that could allow them to enrich themselves.

She draws attention to how technology has expanded the reach of prisons, allowing for the creation of the super-maximum facility which tightly controls the people it imprisons. People take super-max for granted because it is generally assumed that the people incarcerated in super-max are deserving of whatever horrors befall them while there. Foucault would argue that prisons do not really undergo reform so much as they integrate new technologies that allow for social control on a grander scale, across society beyond prison. In the case of the super-max security facility, an attempt to improve the prison with more advanced technology only led to a more effective, more restrictive, and more heavily disseminated version of the social control exhibited by prisons.

Since the idea of incarceration developed out of a very specific historical setting, Davis leads us to question whether it is still applicable today. Previous to this, Davis delves into a Marxist critique of capitalism that allows her to further explain how it has shaped the prison system in the U.S.

Davis continues to draw upon history to examine the purpose of the prison and undermine its place in our society. In this case, she talks about the history of prison and reform to show how linked they are. It is easy to get caught up in reforming the prison when our society takes its existence for granted, but the answer isn't to keep the prison or reform it, but abolish it altogether.

Prisons today similarly operate partially to control black labor. In states like Colorado, slavery is permitted in the case of imprisonment. This means that someone who is imprisoned is stripped of all of their rights and must work for minimal, if any, pay. Prison is commonly used as a source of cheap labor, as prisoners do not have to be paid a living wage. With the disproportionate amount of black people in prison, prison becomes a way of controlling black labor by stripping black people of their rights so that their labor may be exploited.

Not only are slavery and prisons similar, but the institution of slavery shaped the penal system we have today. Providing a history supports Davis's argument for the obsolescence of prison by comparing it to a currently obsolete institution.

Davis describes aspects of slavery that were intolerable enough to abolish it and shows how the prison system replicates these intolerable aspects. This helps to undermine the idea that prisons are 'natural' and encourages the audience to challenge their presumptions about the prison. This also helps Davis to make a connection between the role race plays in both slavery and prisons.

Davis opens this chapter by drawing upon a historical example of an institution (slavery) that was similarly intertwined into society. Presenting the example of slavery is effective for a number of reasons. As an institution, slavery is considered to be largely absent in America (despite incarnations of it). Davis talks about how long it took to abolish slavery and how much a part of "common knowledge" it was for many people to accept slavery. In a way, providing the example of slavery acts to show the audience that abolition of an institution so seemingly ingrained into society is possible. This prepares the audience to understand her argument for the abolition of the prison.

As part of her method, Davis considers different perspectives while formulating her argument. She recognizes that change has been happening in the way the public talks about the prison, even if we still have a ways to go before reaching her goal of the abolition of prisons.

Again, this is partially a commentary on capitalism and its need for a place to make people disappear that do not benefit capitalism and reap a profit from their incarceration.

Part of why people take prison for granted is because they separate themselves from the people who they assume belong there. It is easier to believe that everyone who goes to prison deserves imprisonment and that imprisonment is effective than challenge a system that is so intertwined in the functioning of our current society.

Here, Davis states the main research question for the first chapter. She poses this question so that she may lead into a discussion about why the prison goes largely unchallenged despite the incredible amount of people housed in prisons. Why do we let the prison system continue, despite its obsolescence?

This highlights the intervention for chapter one. Here, Davis uses a theoretical intervention to address why her research question (Are Prisons Obsolete?) is important. As Patrycjah points out, this paragraph relates to Graff's "So what?" question. In this paragraph, Davis emphasizes the importance of her argument by drawing attention to the overwhelming number of people incarcerated in the U.S. She highlights how the majority of people in prison are from "racially oppressed communities."

This is another instance where the author makes an assertion, but chooses not to support it. Like Alissa, I find this frustrating. Spade's second point (of the five) is important in forming the framework for his writing. He supports his point with more assertions, like the one I've highlighted, but chooses not to offer any evidence or further examination of each new assertion. Throughout Spade's writing here, he attempts to educate his audience by confronting common assumptions head-on. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but when Spade offers no evidence or proof, it becomes easier for the people in his audience to dismiss his arguments. It is really unfortunate in this case because Spade is doing important work, but it is easily misunderstood. When I read Spade's statement about most violence not being reported to the police "because people have complex relationships with those who have hurt them" I felt myself immediately push back. Because he preceded this statement with a few statements on sexual violence, I started to think about the multitude of reasons that people struggle to report sexual violence to the police. Particularly the fear of being blamed for their victimization or the fear of not being taken seriously by law enforcement. I wanted to understand how Spade came to this conclusion, but he doesn't provide support for it. When I realized that it says "violence is never reported" and not "sexual violence", the statement seemed a little more plausible. However, he does not provide a lot of clarification for what he means by violence (what kind of violence?) or people (which people?) in this instance. This comes off as generalizing rather than credible, leaving the assertions Spade makes open to misinterpretation.

Like the other four realities stated, this reality contradicts commonly held beliefs about prisons and violence. The author again encourages the reader to challenge their assumptions and accept the reality of prisons--in this case, it is that "prisons and jail are spaces of extreme violence [...] and caging people, not to mention exposing them to nutritional deprivation, health care deprivation, and physical attack is violence." This statement would benefit from some kind of support whether anecdotal or quantitative.

Intervention: Here the authors highlight the consequences of failing to address "who cares?" or "so what?" Members of the audience may feel "like outsiders to what they've just heard" or like they have been "left hanging." This also addresses the "so what?" of this work. Why does answering "so what?" and "who cares?" matter? Because otherwise your audience may feel alienated from your work and won't understand why it is relevant or why they should be interested.

Method: In addition to providing an example of writing that effectively addresses the question of "who cares", the authors provide an example of a speaker/author that does not address "who cares." Offering a counter-example is an effective method for ensuring the audience understands what the authors mean when they stress the importance of clearly identifying "who besides [themselves] has an interest in what [they] say."

The authors work to make their writing reflect the type of writing they are arguing for. This gives them more credibility as they are able to demonstrate their argument with case studies, but also through their work as a whole.

I agree that this is the main argument. While the authors assert that all writing is conversational, this is not their argument. Instead, the argument is that speakers often fail to explain why their argument is important, usually because they set unrealistic expectations for their audiences. One example the authors provide is that speakers may expect the audience to discern the importance of an argument on their own.