Crime, Citizenship and Community: Neoliberal Communitarian Images of Governmentality

Abstract

This article discusses the emergence, in the field of crime and safety, of a formula of government that can be called neoliberal communitarianism. This is a paradoxical governmental strategy that combines a focus on ‘individual responsibility’, ‘community’ and a ‘selectively tough state’. The discussion is based on the Foucaultian triangle of strategy, political programmes and techniques. The substance of this application consists of a discussion of recent Dutch political programmes and techniques in crime and safety policies. The discussion includes the local case of Rotterdam, a city at times regarded as a ‘policy laboratory’. Specifically, the role that notions of citizenship and community play in crime and safety policies is analysed. We hereby point at two different manifestations of responsibilization – repressive responsibilization and facilitative responsibilization – aimed at two governmentally differentiated populations. In addition, we describe how neoliberal communitarianism entails the selective exclusion of subjects imagined as ‘high risk’. Because the government of crime tells us much about the government of ‘society’, neoliberal communitarianism is a useful concept to grasp contemporary changes in government in the Netherlands and in other European countries.

From culture to class - legitimate boundary making in German immigration debates on Southern and Eastern Europeans

“…On a very general level, we can observe in most of the western democracies that citizenship acquisition is becoming increasingly accessible for migrants. But in this overarching liberal framework some scholars refer to restrictive trends which have recently been witnessed and coined by the terms civic integrationism (Joppke, 2007), schmittanian liberalism (Triadafilopoulos, 2011) or communitarian neoliberalism (van Houdt & Schinkel, 2013;van Houdt, Suvarierol, & Schinkel, 2011). Thus, these terms point to the fact that "today it's not a Question of 'Who has Access?'…”

Laboratory Rotterdam. Logics of Exceptionalism in the Governing of Urban Populations

“…Three images of the citizen can be discerned from the local policy documents (see Van Houdt and Schinkel 2014;Schinkel and Van Houdt 2010;cf. Dekker and Van Breugel).…”

“…Following on from the logic of emergency (tough times demand tough measures), a new intervention was invented: the Frequent Offender Institution [Instelling Stelselmatige Dader]. 4 This is a total institution aimed at the incarceration of the so called 'frequent offenders' (see Van Houdt and Schinkel 2014). The high risk citizen is 'selectively incapacitated' and hence exempted from the larger community.…”

Responsibilisation at the Margins of Welfare Services

“…In advanced liberalism, responsibility for self-government is claimed to include not only personal self-management; self-governed citizens are also made responsible for the welfare of family members and community members and even for participating in sustainable policymaking at a wider societal level (Houdt and Schinkel 2014;Lister 2015). Cossman (2013: 898) writes about the changing role of families as follows: "responsibilisation within the family has taken on a new intensity, with a renewed demand on families to meet the needs of its members from child care to health care to welfare" (see also Cossman 2007: 11;Treloar and Funk 2008;Dahlstedt and Fejes 2014;Trnka 2014).…”