Making Sense of Neoliberal Securitization in Urban Policing and Surveillance

Abstract

Grâce à une analyse historique des fonctions de surveillance de police civile, cet article examine comment la titrisation civile se déroule en traitant disciplinaire‐surveillance et de sécurité‐surveillance des pratiques distinctes et des appareils qui fonctionnent respectivement à des moyens “centripètes” et “centrifuge” et en reconfigurant triangulation de Foucault de la gouvernance d'une matrice à deux par deux: la souveraineté‐gouvernement et de la discipline‐sécurité. Cet article montre comment la titrisation de police civile s'aligne avec la transformation actuelle du gouvernement à partir d'un centripète (Keynésienne) d'une centrifuge (néolibéral) la rationalité politique. Cela revêt une importance plus large de recherche: où la rationalité politique favorise l’équilibre n'avons‐nous pas trouver une prépondérance de la discipline‐surveillance? Où déséquilibre est promu n'avons‐nous pas trouver une prépondérance de la sécurité‐surveillance? Through a historic analysis of the surveillance functions of civil policing, this article considers how securitization is taking place by treating disciplinary surveillance and security surveillance as distinct practices and apparatuses that, respectively, function in “centripetal” and “centrifugal” ways and by reconfiguring Foucault's triangulation of governance to a two‐by‐two matrix: sovereignty government and discipline security. This article shows how the securitization of civil policing aligns with the current governmental transformation from a centripetal (Keynesian) to a centrifugal (neoliberal) governmentality. This has broader research significance: where governmentality promotes equilibrium do we not find a preponderance of disciplinary surveillance? Where disequilibrium is promoted do we not find a preponderance of security surveillance?

Reclaiming Citizenship in the Post-Democratic Condition

“…But at the same time, the social and civil rights have been diminishing as well, since there are no substantive political rights to demand and guarantee these. We, therefore, witness the collapse of universal welfare rights into a form of an option for supporting the 'deserving poor' (Crouch, 2000: 8), as well as the collapse of civil rights through intensified securitisation and ubiquitous surveillance (Andrejevic, 2012;Deukmedjian, 2013). This is a more fundamental and pernicious development because it erodes both normative bases of citizenship at once: neither a passive nor an active conception can be valid or have any meaning anymore, because citizens are no longer involved in any kind of political decision-making beyond the nominal periodic elections for very similar political parties or candidates.…”

The Lac‐Mégantic Derailment, Corporate Regulation, and Neoliberal Sovereignty

“…Security operates by assessing the seriousness and frequency of potential risks to determine tolerable and intolerable thresholds. When the risk threshold is crossed, security aims to preempt, contain, and eliminate the threat (Deukmedjian ). Hence, security ensures laissez‐faire liberalism by governing less, and in the process also secures markets, populations, and the state.…”

“…Apparatuses of security aim to prevent chaos by maintaining societal, state, and market equilibrium. This involves efforts to contain, preempt, and eliminate intolerable threats by measuring continuously shifting risk thresholds (Deukmedjian ). While neoliberal rationality increases risk thresholds to ensure continued economic expansion and growth, neoliberal sovereignty turns security against itself.…”

What Kind of Pedagogy Do We Need to Address Extremism and Terror?

“…The NSS framework functions through what Deukmedjian (2013), in the context of security surveillance, calls "thresholds of tolerance" (p. 55). The NSS sets the tolerance threshold for objects and events beyond which they are intolerable.…”