A Critical Theory of Police Power: The Fabrication of the Social Order

by Mark Neocleous

The ubiquitous nature and political attraction of the concept of order has to be understood in conjunction with the idea of police. Since its first publication, this book has been one of the most powerful and wide-ranging critiques of the police power. Neocleous argues for an expanded concept of police, able to account for the range of institutions through which policing takes place. These institutions are concerned not just with the maintenance and reproduction of order, but with its very fabrication, especially the fabrication of a social order founded on wage labour. By situating the police power in relation to both capital and the state and at the heart of the politics of security, the book opens up into an understanding of the ways in which the state administers civil society and fabricates order through law and the ideology of crime. The discretionary violence of the police on the street is thereby connected to the wider administrative powers of the state, and the thud of the truncheon to the dull compulsion of economic relations.

Genres: Politics, Political Science, Philosophy, Sociology, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Police

241 pages, Kindle Edition

Published January 12, 2021

Reviews

[Ramzey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent refutation of the liberal myth that the police exist to enforce the law or keep us safe,
Mark develops a systematic critique of the police in capitalist society.
He describes the history of police in Europe since the Renaissance and answer questions such as
what are the social causes of the police? why does social order require maintaining? in whose interests does the Police (as an institution of the State) operate?

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not sure how to rate this. 3 for writing and structure. 4 for research and content?
Frequently awkward, circular, or self congratulatory. I often found myself tripping on premature conclusions, as they appear loosely argued at best. Much of the time though, Neocleous will eventually present enough material for one to construct the argument in reverse. But because this is not always the case, I found myself wary to the point of distraction, trying to distinguish (with no hint from Neocleous) between what would prove to be unsupported conclusions and premature assertions that are actually a sort of introduction to the next argument. If this is a writing style then I’m not a fan; it felt like following an intelligent but drunk debate, where the content is 90% insightful 10% bluff, and totally out of order.

Overall, while loyal Verso readers are likely to be ready to believe Neocleous’s criticisms of capitalism / that police serve the bourgeoisie, I doubt this is tightly argued enough for a real skeptic to be convinced - too many leaps, or at least the appearance of leaps. However I’d still recommend it. Exhaustively researched, the text brings together the genealogy of policing with a fresh lens for a critical theory of the state - but its value to most may be in undermining assumptions about the origin of policing and stimulating further thought.
Do yourself a favour and skip the new introduction. I love patting myself on the back as much as the next card carrying leftist, but it felt almost gross in its nods to how supremely correct we are. The arrogance was palpable. The new introduction was similarly plagued with backwards argumentation - what could have been a normal overview of what will be discussed (aka “introduction”), the preview is mixed with and made indistinguishable from various other unsupported claims. Kind of baffling tbh. Might be a good conclusion though.

[Jordan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This might seem like a strange complaint about a book with "Critical Theory" in its title, but this was way too academic and, well, theoretical for my liking. I prefer my political harangues couched in a framework of supporting historical exposé (like Domenico Losurdo, for example) instead of insular references to previous works of philosophy and theory, which cause this book to become rather stuffy and abstract, in my opinion.

I also found it to be, frankly, poorly written. It often lapsed into redundant, self-referential breaks in argument ("I will argue," "to which I will return later in this chapter," etc.), which is a huge pet peeve of mine. You don't need to tell me what you're arguing or what will be explored when - just argue and explore!

[Chelsea]

Neocleous narrates how the 'police function' (which extends far beyond the organ of police) emerged and transformed with capitalism, and its fundamental imbrication with the emerging class relations.
He traces this function to the collapse of feudalism, when the concept of police had already been established as “legislative and administrative regulation of the internal life of a community to promote general welfare and the condition of good order…and the regimenting of social life” (53). This regulation became a pressing need as growing mercantile trade and mobility of labor crumbled the power of the feudal estates. A new class of dispossessed serfs were freer than before to gamble, drink, ‘wander’ and demand higher wages, threatening the social order and centralizing politico-legal force (54-55). Early policing thus served to manage social disorder in the place of the former regulation of the estates (55), but its primary purpose was to re-form relations of authority and service once upheld by them by quelling disorderly conduct (55, 60-61).
As capitalism emerged from the wake of feudalism with its wage labor relations, however, police function shifted from abolition of disorder to active shaping of the social body, from negative to positive (61). In this absolutist state ordered by the sovereign instead of divinity, policing was ever more concerned with ensuring prosperity and the general welfare of society (61), because the state had the task of “actively promoting the general welfare and common good by fostering its productive energies” (63). By implementing increasingly interventionist policies, the police state not only maintained order but constituted it. In an epoch increasingly defined by equivocation of state and the social body, this fostering of commerce and productivity was justified in terms of general welfare (69). The new science of government (mercantilism/Cameralism) unified political economy and police, the happiness of the state and prosperity (72). This meant that policing functioned to maintain good order and prosperity. Crucially, the question of prosperity entails those of poverty and work: “behind the police of the state of prosperity as the basis of order was a more specific concern over the place of the poor and the potential threat posed by the new ‘class’ of poverty to the emerging structures of private property” (76). Capitalism and its good order demanded a dependent working class to produce its surplus value. Ensuring dependence on wage labor thus became the crucial function, the fabrication of the bourgeois order by regulating and shaping the class of poverty, regulating those who threatened this order, particularly beggars and vagrants (76). Thus the principle of police power is the administration of poverty (79).

[Jesse]

The main thesis is that police exist and have always existed primarily to maintain and enforce the dominant social order, not, as they are often perceived, to enforce laws. Neocleous sets about debunking a number of myths aimed at obscuring the political nature of police power.

There are some interesting points about vagrancy laws and the way they enable the discretionary power vital to police function—their origin lies not in a reaction to crime or social disorder, but in an enforcement of the performance of labour vital to the constitution of capitalist order. "Vagrancy is regarded by the ruling class as a crime against capitalist order in general, a kind of ur crime from which all other crime stems."

While there's undoubtedly some good stuff in here, I didn't find it compellingly written and threw in the towel after about 100 pages.

[noor · Rating 4 out of 5]

where is the race Neocleous where is the race

[Colin Thin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Real good stuff.