Medieval Security in the Modern State

Abstract

Abstract. The size of the private security industry has increased substantially in recent decades. While previous research has focused on the industry's growth trajectory, less emphasis has been placed on explaining the nature and diversity of private security services. This article investigates the possibility of studying private security with the feudal model. Feudalism is introduced as an ideal type and the paper explains why it is necessary for understanding the independent control of violent force—termed here as ‘private coercion’—in contemporary society. The feudal model provides a unique historical lens through which to re-examine previous studies on this subject. In many ways, private coercion is incongruent with the traditional vision of liberal, capitalist society. The feudal model reveals these inconsistencies as it identifies private coercion as a means of creating wealth that violates the state's monopoly on violence, challenges the public sphere of governance and redefines the boundaries between public and private space. This article suggests that any explanation of modern modes of securing life and property is incomplete without the feudal model.

Acknowledgement

A similar version of this article will be published as a chapter in a book by Vladimir Shlapentokh and Joshua Woods, Feudal America: Elements of the Middle Ages in Contemporary Society (Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011).

Notes

Using comparable data from 1997 and 2002, the number of establishments in the area of investigation and security services (guards, armoured car services, investigation services, security system installers and locksmiths) increased from 21 494 to 22 957 and the number of paid employees increased from 682 891 to 761 291 (Economic Census, 2002; accessed on-line in May 2008 at: www.census.gov/econ/census02/). These numbers only include establishments with payrolls. The absolute numbers would be greater if small, single-person businesses were included.

As defined by Congress and formalised in the USA Patriot Act, critical infrastructure refers to “systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the US that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters”. See ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism’ (USA PATRIOT ACT), Public Law 107-56, 26 October 2001 (retrieved on-line in August 2008 at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_lawsanddocid=f:publ056.107.pdf).

The data from the American Housing Survey for the United States (2001, 2003, 2005) were retrieved on-line in August 2008 at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html.

For further details about the private security efforts in the Georgetown community, see the Public Safety Program of the Citizens Association of Georgetown at: http://www.cagtown.org (retrieved in June 2008).

As one example, Correction Corporation of America attempted in 2008 to withhold information regarding legal settlements with prisoners, judgements and complaints against the company. Although CCA lost its case, attorneys for the company vowed to appeal the ruling (Associated Press, 2008).

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the number-one consumer complaint against the industry is that “a collector is attempting to collect either a debt the consumer does not owe at all or a debt larger than what the consumer actually owes”. Other complaints include repeated calls and continuous harassment, threats of dire consequences if the debt is not paid and calls to the consumer's place of employment (Federal Trade Commission Annual Report 2007; accessed on-line in December 2008 at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/fdcpa07/P0748032007FDCPAReport.pdf; see Gross, 2005).

Another possible boon for collectors may come with the renewed intent of governments to privatise the gathering of state and federal taxes. In 2006, as part of a plan by the Bush Administration, the IRS. turned over information on 12 500 taxpayers to three collection agencies (Johnston, 2006; see Krugman, 2007). The measure was part of the administration's broader plan to privatise tax collection.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joshua Woods

The author's gratitude goes to the Editor Ronan Paddison and the anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments and guidance on an earlier draft of this manuscript. The author would also like to thank Vladimir Shlapentokh for his suggestions on this paper