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

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