McGruff
I sat outside Kerbey Lane looking at a poster about McGruff the Crime Dog. ‘Take a bite out of crime.’ ‘Crime bites.’
There’s a difference between seeking to eliminate a harm to people through a law that makes a particular act a crime, and seeking to eliminate ‘crime.’ The difference lies in how populations get defined and acted on by the police. The line changes from laws that seek to protect a population, and the police becoming the population. Take Mao’s China: the people Mao ruled through took his word as eternal law, just as some people here take written law as eternal law. Transgression was not an indicator of a possible transgression of a higher law, it was absolute transgression punishable by death, or other over-harsh penalty. Under this framework laws create their own set of social values to be protected. The appeal of eliminating crime draws on fear of general social disorder rather than any specific crimes. The idea that crime should be eliminated assumes a pervasive sense of disorder at the margins that threatens the smooth operation of society. ‘Crime’ is a very vague term, so it appeals to a very base (in the ‘fundamental/foundational’ sense of the term) fear of chaos. The appeal creates a value of social order- either one under Mao, or under the protection of McGruff the Crime Dog.
Of course, the idea is that the appeals also are directed at people who aren’t criminals, who deal with ‘those types’ likely to commit crimes through prevention measures. In constructing this, it is presupposed that: criminals can be identified through some sort of objective standards, and that someone objective does the analysis deciding what is a crime. Both of these ideas seem dubious, and perhaps draw on cultural stereotypes that transform these calls into racist/classist tools of control.
Duncan
There’s a difference between seeking to eliminate a harm to people through a law that makes a particular act a crime, and seeking to eliminate ‘crime.’ The difference lies in how populations get defined and acted on by the police. The line changes from laws that seek to protect a population, and the police becoming the population. Take Mao’s China: the people Mao ruled through took his word as eternal law, just as some people here take written law as eternal law. Transgression was not an indicator of a possible transgression of a higher law, it was absolute transgression punishable by death, or other over-harsh penalty. Under this framework laws create their own set of social values to be protected. The appeal of eliminating crime draws on fear of general social disorder rather than any specific crimes. The idea that crime should be eliminated assumes a pervasive sense of disorder at the margins that threatens the smooth operation of society. ‘Crime’ is a very vague term, so it appeals to a very base (in the ‘fundamental/foundational’ sense of the term) fear of chaos. The appeal creates a value of social order- either one under Mao, or under the protection of McGruff the Crime Dog.
Of course, the idea is that the appeals also are directed at people who aren’t criminals, who deal with ‘those types’ likely to commit crimes through prevention measures. In constructing this, it is presupposed that: criminals can be identified through some sort of objective standards, and that someone objective does the analysis deciding what is a crime. Both of these ideas seem dubious, and perhaps draw on cultural stereotypes that transform these calls into racist/classist tools of control.
Duncan
posted by Duncan at 11:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home