Re zero-tolerance policing -
Wouldn't it be helpful to do as Margot does and establish some kind of
context for the occurence of Zero-tolerance policing before trying to
theorize about it? I can imagine tht it would have different
significance in different cultural/political contexts, and they may not
be reducible to the same thing, in California or in the Northern
Territory. It does seem likely that there is a large element of racism
in it in some contexts, again as Margot implies, but that elsewhere it
may be more about class or about individualising responsiblity or
off-loading responsibility from political groups to individuals or
definable, easily condemned groups. Or perhaps all these things are the
same thing. but in the sameness something unique and important to a
specific community might get lost. I think in economistic terms it could
be theorized as increasing the cost of individual decision-making to the
point where that equals the amount of externality generated by the
individual's action, but that is meaningless outside of a political
context. In the relation of zero-tolerance to theft and infringements on
personal and property rights there is the enormous assumption that the
state exists to support personal and property rights, and that this is a
universal value.
And isn't this willingness to allocate people to the criminal classes,
an instance of normalization gone crazy: that the 'normal' line is being
drawn ever tighter and more and more people are being excluded, and
thereby forcing those within the circle to be ever more circumspect?
Docile?
cheers,
Nesta
Wouldn't it be helpful to do as Margot does and establish some kind of
context for the occurence of Zero-tolerance policing before trying to
theorize about it? I can imagine tht it would have different
significance in different cultural/political contexts, and they may not
be reducible to the same thing, in California or in the Northern
Territory. It does seem likely that there is a large element of racism
in it in some contexts, again as Margot implies, but that elsewhere it
may be more about class or about individualising responsiblity or
off-loading responsibility from political groups to individuals or
definable, easily condemned groups. Or perhaps all these things are the
same thing. but in the sameness something unique and important to a
specific community might get lost. I think in economistic terms it could
be theorized as increasing the cost of individual decision-making to the
point where that equals the amount of externality generated by the
individual's action, but that is meaningless outside of a political
context. In the relation of zero-tolerance to theft and infringements on
personal and property rights there is the enormous assumption that the
state exists to support personal and property rights, and that this is a
universal value.
And isn't this willingness to allocate people to the criminal classes,
an instance of normalization gone crazy: that the 'normal' line is being
drawn ever tighter and more and more people are being excluded, and
thereby forcing those within the circle to be ever more circumspect?
Docile?
cheers,
Nesta