A tainted trade? Moral ambivalence and legitimation work in the private security industry1

Abstract

The private security industry is often represented - and typically represents itself - as an expanding business, confident of its place in the world and sure of its ability to meet a rising demand for security. But closer inspection of the ways in which industry players talk about its past, present and future suggests that this self-promotion is accompanied by unease about the industry's condition and legitimacy. In this paper, we analyse the self-understandings of those who sell security - as revealed in interviews conducted with key industry players and in a range of trade materials - in order to highlight and dissect the constitutive elements of this ambivalence. This analysis begins by describing the reputational problems that are currently thought to beset the industry and the underlying fears about its status and worth that these difficulties disclose. We then examine how security players seek to legitimate the industry using various narratives of professionalization. Four such narratives are identified - regulation, education, association and borrowing - each of which seeks to justify private security and enhance the industry's social worth. What is striking about these legitimation claims is that they tend not to justify the selling of security in market terms. In conclusion we ask why this is the case and argue that market justifications are 'closed-off' by a moral ambivalence that attaches to an industry trading in products which cannot guarantee to deliver the condition that its consumers crave.

Private security policing by ‘ethnic matching’ in Swedish suburbs: avoiding and managing accusations of ethnic discrimination

“…As Thumala and her collaborators (Thumala et al 2011) have pointed out, this kind of legitimation work entails actions and claims made to justify the activities of private security companies as well as the purpose of these activities. It is also a means to manage reputational problems and strive for recognition Á in short, to claim legitimacy.…”

“…They not only are in the business of 'supplying services and products to [their] customers', but also wield considerable power through their ability to regulate the conduct of the public in private as well as public spaces of the city (Thumala et al 2011, p. 284). While the industry thus stands in need of public recognition and public legitimacy, it often finds itself struggling with problems that hamper its chances of winning any, including poor quality of staff, the 'cowboy' character of many of the companies operating in the field and associations with criminality and violence (Thumala et al 2011, p. 287, see also Zedner 2006.…”

“…Previous research in the field of private security has focused on the actual service delivery of private security officers (Hobbs et al 2003, Wakefield 2003, Button 2007b, the 'risk gaze' or risk profiling targeting specific categories of people (McCahill 2002, Wakefield 2003, Hutchinson and O'Connor 2005 and also ethnic profiling by private security officers (Gabbidon 2003, O'Dougherty 2006, Kempa and Singh 2008, as well as public perceptions of the industry (Livingstone and Hart 2003, Noaks 2008, van Steden and Nalla 2010, Berndtsson 2011, Thumala et al 2011. This article broadens and, in part, rearranges this focus of the previous research on private security by looking at 'policing by ethnic matching', which involves deliberate attempts by private security officers to gain legitimacy in relation to a specific public by claiming 'likeness' to it in terms of ethnic background.…”

Working on the edge: remediation work in the UK travel sector

“…Meanwhile VanCalster (2011) illustrates the difficulties shopkeepers have in incorporating government sanctioned anti-shoplifting responsibilities into their businesses in the Netherlands. The nature of security work itself is widely documented as having a reputational problem as it is poorly paid, de-professionalised and offers low levels of training and opportunities for collective organisation (Wakefield 2003;Thumala et al 2011). Within the context of the eBorders programme, it may be the case that its private sector 'nodes' are characterized by tensions which arise from conflicting public and private interests and that this tension plays out in the roles of front-line workers.…”

“…Within the context of the eBorders programme, it may be the case that its private sector 'nodes' are characterized by tensions which arise from conflicting public and private interests and that this tension plays out in the roles of front-line workers. Furthermore, if we follow Wakefield (2003) and Thumala et al (2011), the impact of additional security duties on the quality of work as it is experienced by front-line workers is certainly open to question.…”