1 / 21

Angela D. Broadus University of Nevada, Reno Pacific Sociological Conference March 31, 2007

Murder in Mexico: Collective Responses to Mass Murder of Women in Ciudad Juarez & Chihuahua, Mexico. Angela D. Broadus University of Nevada, Reno Pacific Sociological Conference March 31, 2007. Eréndira Ponce. Background.

joie
Télécharger la présentation

Angela D. Broadus University of Nevada, Reno Pacific Sociological Conference March 31, 2007

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Murder in Mexico: Collective Responses to Mass Murder of Women in Ciudad Juarez & Chihuahua, Mexico Angela D. Broadus University of Nevada, Reno Pacific Sociological Conference March 31, 2007 Eréndira Ponce

  2. Background • 1993-2006: 232-621 women were raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered in Ciudad, Juarez and Chihuahua, Mexico • Victim Characteristics: • Females • Age 14-30 • Most worked in the maquiladoras • Poor, Lower SES

  3. Government Response • Lacked organized effort • Arguments over jurisdiction • Blamed victims • Police accused of indifference, ineptness and collusion (Livingston, 2004; Wright, 2001) • Failure to respond in timely manner • Families forced to wait 72hrs before police responded to missing person report

  4. Internet Review • Few Internet reports during 1st four years and 104 victims Table 1: Internet Discourse 1995-2006 (Crossley, 2006; El Paso Times Online)

  5. Research Question • RQ1: Is there an explanation for the delayed governmental response to the Juarez murders?

  6. Two Possible Explanations • Mexican officials deemed other social issues to be more salient than the Juarez murders • Mexican officials perceived the murders as a ‘personal’ rather than ‘public’ issue

  7. “Social Problems exist in relation to other social problems” & “Social problems compete for public attention and societal resources” (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988) • Mexico’s economic crisis as a social problem • 1980’s – 1990’s: Bankrupt nation • 1993: Ratified NAFTA – open economy • 1998: 325 U.S. owned factories – maquiladoras but without restrictions

  8. Juarez poverty as a social problem • Unemployment - Discrimination in factory hiring • Rampant crime • City lacking infrastructure to handle population • Changing gender norms • Movement into factories – increased economic independence • Women challenging historical Mexican culture -- Americanized • Increased prostitution

  9. Choice of Action Depends Upon How an Issue is Framed • Murders: • As a consequence of victim behavior – Diminishes governmental responsibility, lowers priority for resolution • As “just another crime” in crime-ridden Juarez – Late response from police, insufficient staff rationale • Under “other’s” jurisdiction – total non-response

  10. Delayed governmental response to murders may reflect that the femicide was framed as less important than national economic issues, city-wide issues of poverty and crime, or as the responsibility of the victims/families due to changing gender norms

  11. The Social Construction of a Social Problem • Individual affective reaction to a situation may be insufficient to generate public definition as a social problem, because public agencies can more easily discount individuals than groups (Kitsuse & Spector, 1973) • Personal issues must be socially constructed as Public issues to incur public response

  12. The Social Construction of a Social Problem • “Personal” issues become “Public Social” issues through a 4-stage claims-making process: • Stage 1:Collective Attempts to define an offensive, personal issue as a public issue requiring action • Stage 2:Governmental and other agency recognition of the collective claims • Stage 3:Governmental legitimization of the problem • Stage 4: Collective attempts to develop alternative solutions outside of the system (Kitsuse & Spector, 1973 in Schneider, 1985)

  13. Stage 1: Collective Attempts to define an offensive, personal issue as a public issue requiring action • 1993-1995 – Virtually no collective behavior • 1995-1998-Mothers of murders victims began to organize in protest

  14. Collective Action Begins • Grupo Feminista 8 de Marzo – Esther ChavezCano, founder – • First public protest of the murders included marches blocking downtown streets • Increased public awareness • Hounded officials to allocate investigative resources • Castigated officials for blaming victims and their families • Criticized police for failing to respond • Called for Federal Prosecutor to launch an investigation

  15. Casa Amiga – 1998, Esther Chavez Cano, founder Initiated media campaigns via CNN, ABC, national newspapers, and national magazines REDEFINED murders as “FEMENICIDIO” – Femicide in contrast to homicide Voces sin Ecos – 1998, non-profit, advocacy group Demanded information on missing women Challenged governmental complacency Invited reporters to accompany them on forays into the desert to look for victims

  16. Stages 2 & 3:Governmental recognition of the collective claims, Followed byGovernmental legitimization of the problem • 1998 – Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) issued 3 recommendations to Mexican President: • Investigate the murders • Bring murderers to justice • Punish officials who failed to respond • Mexican Government legitimizes femicide

  17. Stage 4: Collective attempts to develop alternative solutions outside of the system • Nuestras Hijas de Regreso a Casa Norma Andrade (cofounder – NHRC), Amigos de las Mujeres de Juares, & Alto a la impunidad: ni una muerta mas – 2001 • Created Internet websites to increase public awareness • Generated international interest by providing information to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur

  18. Stage 4 Continues • Amnesty International – 2002 • Claimed - Mexican Government failed to follow U.N. recommendations • Mexico State government responded • Powerful organization - worldwide focus • Mexico Solidarity Network: Red de Solidaridad con Mexico – 2005, Chicago-based group • Passage of U.S. House & Senate legislation urging Mexico to take action

  19. Conclusion • The social issue of femicide lost the competition for public attention and societal resources to other social issues: • National economy • Juarez poverty and crime • Changing social norms

  20. Conclusion: Claims-Making Process • Stage 1: 1995-1998 – Advocacy groups redefined the personal problem (murder of their daughters) into a public social problem (femicide) • Stage 2/3: 1998-2001 – Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) legitimated the problem and Mexican officials began to give lip service to finding a resolution • Stage 4: 2002-2006 – Advocacy groups, frustrated with the Mexican governmental response, appealed to the U.S. and the United Nations.

  21. However • The 10-year delay in the Mexican’s government’s response to femicide can never be justified. Memorial crosses are erected in Juárez by victims' families and supporters. Photos: Kari Lydersen, http://www.americas.org/item_35

More Related