Civilising the police: reconceptualising the role of the state in theories of American policing

ABSTRACT

The three eras in American policing – political, reform, and community – has become the default theoretical framework within the study of criminal justice, explicitly and implicitly shaping the discourse of police studies. Despite historically informed criticisms of this three-era model, no alternative theory has been proffered as a way of critically thinking about the police. This paper draws on Norbert Elias’ civilising thesis and the role of the state as an alternative theoretical framework to explain the evolution of American policing. We argue that changes in policing are more cogently explained by assuming a long-term view of change and that the intrusion and the retreat of the state from society better captures the evolution of the police through time.

KEYWORDS:

• Civilising thesis
• police history
• police change
• risk
• risk society

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Laura Huey for providing very helpful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Cockburn, “Patterns of violence in English society”; Eisner, “Modernization, self-control, and lethal violence”; and Monkkonen, “Homicide.”

2. Elias, The civilizing process.

3. Elias, The history of manners.

4. Spierenburg, “Faces of violence.”

5. Gurr, “On the history of violent crime.”

6. Gartner, “The victims of homicide.”

7. Eisner, “Modernization, self-control, and lethal violence.”

8. Johnson, “Cities don’t cause crime.”; and Roth American Homicide.

9. Kelling and Moore, “The evolving strategy of policing.”

10. Ericson and Haggerty, Policing the risk society

11. Spierenburg, “Deviance and repression.”; and Stone, “Interpersonal violence.”

12. Monkkonen, “Toward an understanding.”

13. Websdale, “Disciplining the non-disciplinary spaces.”

14. Foucault, “Governmentality”; and Foucault, “Security, territory, and population.”

15. Foucault, “Governmentality.”.

16. Dupont and Pearce, “Foucault contra Foucault”; and Liera, “Taking Foucault beyond Foucault.”

17. Johnson, “Foucault”; and van Krieken, “The organisation of the soul.”

18. Rose et al., “Governmentality.”

19. Rose and Miller, “Political power beyond the state.”

20. See note 13 above.

21. Rose and Miller, “Political power beyond the state,” 275.

22. Spierenburg, “Punishment, power, and history.”

23. Spierenburg, “Faces of violence.”

24. See Adler, “Halting the slaughter of the innocents.”

25. van Krieken, “The organisation of the soul.”

26. Elias, “Power and civilisation”; and Lever, “Urban regeneration partnerships.”

27. Elias, “Power and civilisation.”

28. Harsgor, “Total history.”

29. Braudel and Wallerstein, “History and the social sciences,” 182.

30. Iggers, “Two contrasting French.”

31. Friedman, Crime and punishment.

32. Sharpe, “The history of crime.”

33. Lane, “Crime and the industrial revolution.”

34. Ericson and Haggerty, Policing the risk society; Foucault, “Governmentality”; Foucault, “Security, territory, and population”; and Garland, “The limits of the sovereign state.”

35. Lyng, “Edgework.”

36. Foucault, “Governmentality”; Foucault, “Security, territory, and population.”

37. For example, see note 19 above.

38. For example, see note 13 above.

39. See note 21 above.

40. See note 18 above.

41. Johnson, “Foucault,” 11.

42. Lever, “Urban regeneration partnerships.”

43. Kelling and Coles, Fixing broken windows.

44. See note 9 above.

45. Uchida, “The development of the American police.”

46. Elias, The civilizing process.

47. See note 9 above.

48. See note 45 above.

49. Walker, “Broken windows.”

50. Thale, “The informal world.”

51. Sharpe, “Quantification.”

52. Lane, Murder in America.

53. Spierenburg, “From Amsterdam to Auburn.”

54. Lane, Roots of violence.

55. Williams and Murphy, “The evolving strategy of police.”

56. Adler, “A historical analysis of the law.”

57. Brown, Strains of violence.

58. Loewen, “Sundown towns.”

59. Strecher, “Revising the histories.”

60. See note 9 above.

61. See note 45 above.

62. See note 49 above.

63. See note 9 above.

64. See note 55 above.

65. See note 49 above.

66. Green and Gates, “Understanding the process of professionalisation in the police organisation.”

67. Lane, “Urban police.”

68. Monkkonen, “Municipal reports.”

69. Monkkonen, “The organized response”; and Monkkonen, “History of urban police.”

70. See note 9 above.

71. Goldstein, Problem-oriented policing.

72. Buerger and Mazerolle, “Third-party policing.”

73. Herbert, Citizens, cops, and power.

74. See note 72 above.

75. See note 9 above.

76. See note 49 above.

77. See note 59 above.

78. Brunson, “Police don’t like black people.”

79. See note 9 above.

80. Oliver, “The fourth era of policing.”

81. Bayley et al., The changing environment for policing.

82. Kim and de Guzman, “Police paradigm shift after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

83. See note 9 above.

84. See note 59 above.

85. See note 12 above.

86. See note 46 above.

87. See note 34 above.

88. Johnson, “Cities don’t cause crime.”.

89. See note 24 above.

90. Monkkonen, “History of urban police.”

91. Monkkonen, “The organized response.”

92. See note 56 above.

93. Hay, “Crime and justice.”

94. See note 90 above.

95. Ignatiev, How the Irish became white.

96. See note 9 above.

97. See note 59 above.

98. See note 67 above.

99. See note 45 above.

100. Gultekin, “The reform era of policing.”

101. See note 9 above.

102. See note 55 above.

103. See note 9 above.

104. See note 55 above.

105. See note 9 above.

106. See note 80 above.

107. See note 10 above.

108. O’Malley, “Revisiting the classics.” 430.

109. See note 10 above.

110. Beck, Risk society; and Beck, The reinvention of politics.

111. Young, The vertigo of modernity.

112. Ehrenreich, Nickeled and dimed.

113. Beck, The brave new world of work.

114. Beck and Willms, Conversations with Ulrich Beck.

115. See note 10 above.

116 Beck, Risk society.

117. See note 10 above.

118. See note 9 above.

119. See note 111 above.

120. Wacquant, “Three pernicious premises.”

121. Hagedorn, A world of gangs.

122. For example, Sherman et al., Team policing.

123. For example, See note 71 above.

124. For example Sherman et al., “Hot spots and predatory crime.”

125. For example Scheider et al., “Towards the unification of policing.”

126. For example Brownlee and Walker, “The urban crime fund and total geographic policing initiatives in West Yorkshire.”

127. For example Wilson and Kelling, “Broken windows.”

128. For example Punch, Zero tolerance policing.

129. For example Schaible and Sheffield, “Intelligence-led policing and change in state law enforcement agencies.”

130. For example Ferrandino, “An integrated theory.”

131. For example Joyce et al., “Commentary on smart policing.”

132. For example Bullock and Sindall, “Examining the nature and extent of public participation in neighbourhood policing.”

133. For example Crawford and L’Hoiry, “Boundary crossing.”

134. For example Fielding and Innes, “Reassurance policing, community policing and measuring police performance.”

135. See note 10 above.

136. Bayley and Shearing, “The future of policing”; Jones and Newburn, “Urban change and policing”; Jones and Newburn, “The transformation of policing?”; Kempa et al., “Policing communal spaces”; and  White and Gill, “The transformation of policing.”

137. For example Bullock and Johnson, “Faith in policing.”

138. For example Shearing and Wood, “Nodal governance, democracy, and the new ‘denizens’.”

139. For example, see note 133 above.

140. For example Paulle and Emirbayer, “Beneath rationalization”; and See note 22 above.

141. For example, Mythen and Walklate, “Criminology and terrorism.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christopher D. O’Connor

Christopher D. O’Connor is an Assistant Professor of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Calgary in 2010. His research interests include policing, youth, and energy boomtowns.

Phillip C. Shon

Phillip C. Shon is a Professor of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. He earned his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Illinois (Chicago) in 2003. His research interests include parricide and other forms of murder.