‘Let’s talk about it’: Why social class matters to restorative justice
| Date | 01 April 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895818804307 |
| Published date | 01 April 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818804307
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2020, Vol. 20(2) 187 –206
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895818804307
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
‘Let’s talk about it’: Why
social class matters to
restorative justice
Roxana Willis
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Communication is universal to human beings, regardless of gender, ethnicity, class, sexuality,
disability and so forth. But though communication is a shared capacity, individuals and groups
communicate in diverse ways. This study investigates how specifically social class influences
participation in scripted restorative justice by affecting how participants communicate. Data from
an ethnographic study indicate that restorative justice implementation is not class-neutral because
it appears to privilege middle-class forms of communication, and participants from middle-class
backgrounds may therefore be more powerfully positioned in restorative justice processes than
participants from less advantaged backgrounds. To show this, a comparative methodology is
adopted, which involves ethnographic observation and critical discussion of two contrasting
restorative justice conferences. The implications of class-based linguistic disadvantage for
restorative justice theory are subsequently discussed. The author recommends that restorative
justice commits itself to an equality of opportunity which allows stakeholders to participate fully
irrespective of their class background.
Keywords
Bourdieu, class, ethnography, inequality, language, restorative justice
Language is the most active and elusive part of the cultural heritage which each individual owes
to his background. (Bourdieu et al., 1996: 8)
Restorative justice is a dialogue-heavy process. The value of such a dialogical and par-
ticipatory process is often emphasized by restorative justice scholars (Braithwaite, 1996;
Braithwaite and Parker, 1999; Marshall, 1999; Zehr and Mika, 2003). Accordingly,
Corresponding author:
Roxana Willis, Centre for Criminology, University of Oxford, St Cross Building, St Cross Road, Oxford, OX1 3UL
Email: roxana.willis@law.ox.ac.uk
804307CRJ0010.1177/1748895818804307Criminology & Criminal JusticeWillis
research-article2018
Article
188 Criminology & Criminal Justice 20(2)
restorative conferencing, which involves victims, offenders and their supporters assem-
bling in a circle to talk through the effects of an offence, is the most commonly researched
form of restorative justice (see Shapland et al., 2008; Sherman et al., 2014). In these
restorative conferences, participants describe events, express their feelings and explain
wider effects of offending behaviour. However, my research indicates that such a com-
munication style may require certain linguistic skills and abilities which are not distrib-
uted equally in society. Consequently, some participants could arrive at restorative justice
conferences better equipped to participate than others. In this article, I focus specifically
on how social class affects participation in restorative justice conferences.
There is recurrent concern about power imbalance in restorative justice, which is most
apparent in debates over whether restorative justice is an appropriate response in cases of
domestic and sexual violence (for a bibliographic overview, see Hoyle, 2010). But sub-
tler forms of power imbalance can be found in the unequal communicative abilities of
participants. Ethnicity, for instance, may affect communication style, and language bar-
riers could prevent the flow of conversation in restorative processes (Albrecht, 2010;
Davidheiser, 2008; Gavrielides, 2014). Equally, face-to-face verbal interaction may be
especially challenging for persons living with disabilities such as autism (Littlechild,
2011; Snow, 2013; Snow and Sanger, 2011). As a result of differential communicative
needs, then, some participants are expected to be more powerfully positioned in dia-
logue-heavy restorative processes compared to those who struggle to express and present
themselves in the required way (Cohen, 2001; Cook, 2006; Levrant et al., 1999). While
restorative justice theory recognizes the possibility of language-based disadvantage, for
the most part, the extent of this disadvantage is underappreciated, especially with respect
to social class.
Echoing concerns about ethnicity and disability, Levrant et al. (1999) warn that the
restorative justice processes could favour those with stronger verbal skills, such as (typi-
cally) the socio-economically advantaged. Instead of having professionals speak on
behalf of victims and offenders, restorative justice encourages participants to speak for
themselves, usually in response to questions asked by a facilitator (Umbreit, 2010; Van
Ness and Strong, 2014; Zehr, 2015). Restorative questions can either stem organically
from a facilitator, or from a recited restorative justice script. The type of questions stake-
holders might be asked include: what happened? What were you thinking of or feeling at
the time/since? Who has been affected? and so on. It is plausible to think that people with
greater verbal ability will be able to give more expressive – and thus effective – answers
to such questions. This is problematic if socio-economic background affects an individ-
ual’s linguistic development.
Sociological research indicates that communicative disadvantage may very well
result from class inequality. In Unequal Childhoods (2011), Annette Lareau argues that
while both middle-class and working-class parents support their children’s development,
how parents do so is dissimilar. Lareau (2011: 96–103) observed a tendency among
middle-class parents in her study to engage in continual discussions with children,
prompting their descriptions of events, encouraging their opinions and choices on house-
hold decisions and providing them with explanations for given adult directives. As a
result, Lareau (2011: 19) records middle-class children as acquiring verbal agility,
extended vocabularies, a grasp of abstract concepts and confidence to converse with
To continue reading
Request your trial