Classify, Exclude, Police. Laurent Fourchard

Classify, Exclude, Police - Laurent Fourchard


Скачать книгу
I agree that ‘urban neoliberal order’ is marked by more systematic surveillance, the development of urban enclaves, and the delegation of security to citizens, it may miss other dimensions of urban policing in a poorer urban space that has not received the same scholarly attention (Jaffe 2012). Secured urban enclaves are common in wealthy Nigerian or South African neighbourhoods, but private security companies are rare or absent in low‐income neighbourhoods and if residents are involved in community police programmes, in Nigeria and South Africa, such programmes have often taken over earlier systems of security mobilisation by local residents. The neoliberal urbanisation argument marginalises or ignores other forms of urban transformation (Le Galès 2016; Pinson and Morel 2016). In our cases, the longer colonial and postcolonial trajectories of urban vigilante groups indicate that vigilantism cannot be fully explained by neoliberalism or weak state analysis.

      In articulating comparative history and comparative ethnography in two specific large urban areas in the cities of Cape Town and Ibadan, I inform how policing is the product of a very specific urban environment of police of subalterns by other subalterns. This specific genealogy has roots in the colonial and apartheid periods during which the administration delegated or ‘discharged’ (Hibou 1999) its security functions to very large number of groups and organisations at conditions that they did not challenge the overall colonial order. These groups were tolerated or supported by the administration but enjoyed a large autonomy. In many instances, policing the neighbourhood often appears to be the other side of the classifying colonial obsession: youth, migrants or people unknown from the local residents were the main targets of vigilante groups. These power relationships between groups and those threatening the community have strongly persisted in the everyday routine of urban policing. New unexplored issues have also come up since the end of the colonial or apartheid periods such as politicisation, commodification and feminisation of vigilantism. In other words, scrutinising daily anxiety in urban areas neglected by the state opens up new avenues for empirical and theoretical research on low‐cost and harsh forms of urban policing.

      Part Three moves from a genealogy of exclusion at the city level and police at the neighbourhood levels to dispositifs of power at the micro level on the streets and in office from the 1990s to date. It explores everyday relationships in bus terminals referred to as ‘motor parks’ and in local government offices between individuals in positions of authority (political leaders, civil servants, trade union members) and a host of subordinate actors (bus drivers, tax collectors, unemployed workers, ordinary citizens seeking a document) in three main metropolises of Nigeria (Lagos, Ibadan and Jos). Focusing on these places offers an opportunity to analyse everyday practices of exclusion and inclusion in a clientelistic network, a political community, or access to employment and forms of violence that such an exclusion might trigger.

      In Nigerian metropolises like in many other cities of the south, relations between economic actors and state agents commonly labelled the ‘informal economy’ – usually refers to self‐employment, i.e. either non‐wage work or to activities that are not subject to taxation or state regulation – have acquired very different political meanings over time. Many studies on urban informality have emphasised the vitality of horizontal ties and tended to overlook vertical relations even if the literature has informed crackdowns, evictions and brutal harassment by local and national authorities (Lindell 2008; Potts 2008), stronger control of CBDs, sometimes by re‐enacting old colonial measures (Morange 2015; Steck et al. 2013). Less has been said on hierarchical social relations within networks of informal actors and political leaders (Lindell and Utas 2012), the ambivalent politics of street trader organisations (Bénit‐Gbaffou 2016), the fragmented mobilisations to access services or collective resources and urban spaces (Bayat 1997, 2000) and the complex interplay between politicians, urban population and their intermediaries in the city (Auyero 2000; Haenni 2005; Solomon 2008).

      Notes

      1 1. A glossary at the end of this book explains


Скачать книгу