Rules Bloody Rules:

Safety, Security, Stockholm Syndrome, and the State

Simon Springer
Department of Geography
University of Victoria
simonspringer@gmail.com
The truth is out, the lies are old
But you dont ant to !no
" Blac! Sa##ath, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath
$ cant #elieve the nes today
$ cant close my eyes and ma!e it go aay
" U%, Sunday Bloody Sunday
&ain #ring me the strength to get to another day
'nd all $ ant to see
Set us free
" Sepultura, Roots Bloody Roots
The () 'pril #om#ing of the Boston *arathon and the e+plosion at a fertili,er storage and
distri#ution facility in -est, Te+as to days later on (. 'pril can #oth #e understood as
particular formations of violence. The former can #e read as a direct e+pression of malevolence
intended to maim and ound, hile the latter represents a more diffuse, or structural incarnation
of violence /Galtung (0102, as although %33 people ere in4ured and (5 lives ere lost in the
1
tragedy, it is much more difficult to pinpoint #lame on a particular actor. Both incidents have
rightfully produced a pu#lic outcry in the United States, here much of the discourse that has
folloed has centered on concerns for pu#lic safety calling for an even tighter ratcheting don
of the security regime that as initiated in the aftermath of 06((, along ith hat is #eing vieed
as a lac! of ade7uate regulations, particularly ith respect to the latter incident. 't first glance, a
regulatory mindset may seem contradictory as the call for stricter regulation is #eing articulated
ithin a societal conte+t that has #een undergoing intensive neoli#erali,ation for the past 83
years. Deregulation has evolved into a ta!en for granted concept under neoli#eralism precisely
#ecause it see!s conditions herein capital #ecomes unfettered #y the demands of the state and
may proceed along a more li#erated a+is of advance that, as the theory goes, stimulates groth.
The pro#lem ith 9actually e+isting neoli#eralism /Brenner and Theodore %33%2 of course is
that deregulation is never advanced in an emancipatory sense for people. $n freeing up the terrain
for the intensified roll out of accumulation practices, neoli#erali,ation alays involves intensive
re"regulation, something geographers have recogni,ed for some time no /:ec! and Tic!ell
%33%2. The type of re"regulation that has evolved has not necessarily coincided ith pu#lic
safety, and instead, re"regulation aims to produce the conditions herein 9properly
neoli#erali,ed su#4ects might #e made through the adoption of a mentality, or 9governmentality,
that is favora#le to capital /Barry et al. (001; <em!e %33(; Springer %3(%c2. The other side of
the coin is that pu#lic safety is increasingly spun in terms of the vilification of 9others /Springer
%3((#; %3(%d2 and the criminali,ation of the poor /-ac7uant %3302, ho are made to stand in as
the primary threats to society, all hile the real threat to society /i.e. neoli#eral capitalism2 goes
largely unnoticed in its pilfering of pu#lic resources #y undermining a cultural milieu herein
collective action and mutual aid are em#raced #y promoting individualism and self responsi#ility
in their stead.
-hile it is important to challenge the grip of neoli#eralism, e need to #e very careful
not to vie a lac! of regulation as ipso facto evidence of a more insidious form of
institutionali,ed violence. Such a position treads the slippery slope of more regulation #eing
someho tantamount to less violence, hich assumes a #enevolent state or at least the possi#ility
of one. 'ccordingly, it is imperative that e e+pand our political compass #eyond the #inary
idea of neoli#eralism=less regulation=#ad versus socialism=more regulation=good and start
thin!ing through the possi#ilities of 9other socialisms /i.e. anarchism, autonomism, feminism2
2
that ould tear up the social contract #y recogni,ing that it has alays and only ever #een in!ed
ith the #lood of innocents. $n other ords, e cant trade one form of violence for another form
of violence as this simply perpetuates the cycle. Unless of course #y 9regulation e are really
meaning community organi,ing and non"hierarchical consensus democracy ith respect to
decision ma!ing and safety protocols, in hich case e should instead #e as!ing 7uestions a#out
ho the contemporary functioning of capitalism limits such forms of voluntary co"operation and
direct action among or!ers precisely #ecause of its ongoing relationship ith the state /i.e.,
union #usting2, hich ostensi#ly, and only ever ostensi#ly, has the #est interest of the people in
mind. *y point is that states have repeatedly proven themselves untrustorthy insofar as safety
is concerned, and aside from the e+plosion in -est, Te+as, e only need to loo! to the claim to a
monopoly of violence and the toll this has ta!en in human lives through the centuries, often in
the name of 9pu#lic safety and 9security. The ongoing deception that heightened security
measures and safety concerns represent in the form of the notion that 9freedom is not free is
deeply offensive precisely #ecause it licenses more violence #y legitimi,ing the state. $n many
ays e can vie this a case of Stoc!holm syndrome at a societal level, as almost anyone can
appreciate the pro#lematics of the state and the violence it perpetuates /i.e. police #rutality, ar,
the death penalty, forced evictions, and so forth2, and yet so often there is a suspension of critical
thought vis">"vis the state as individuals cede to the logic of this captor. Victimi,ation and a#use
are reinterpreted through a lens of affinity for the state producing a form of 9traumatic #onding,
as although the state intermittently harasses, #eats, threatens, a#uses, and6or intimidates society,
most mem#ers of that same society develop strong emotional ties and adopt the same values as
the aggressor, presuming that in doing so, the threat to oneself ill #e minimi,ed /Dutton %33(2.
Thus, although the interpretation that peace can only #e secured through a collective illingness
to unleash violence at perceived threats is so self"evidently o+ymoronic, it nonetheless continues
to resonate as imprudent 9commonsense.
$t is time to start thin!ing critically a#out security and safety ithin the conte+ts of our
lives, neigh#ourhoods, and or!places in a different light, not as a 9neoli#eral
responsi#ili,ation, nor as something that can #e delegated to authorities on our #ehalf, #ut 9from
the roots as a radical endeavor to care for ourselves and as a practice of mutual aid ithin our
communities. ' neigh#orhood atch program, for e+ample, promotes the idea of loo!ing out for
each other #y passing authority over to the state and reporting all suspicious activities to the
3
police. The orientation here is not to #ring the community together, #ut to produce responsi#le
and vigilant su#4ects that maintain a property regime #y mitigating threats to this order through a
general distrust of 9outsiders. $n contrast, mutual aid promotes the idea of loo!ing out for each
other through a re4ection of authority and the em#race of voluntary association and the
cooperative e+change of goods and services /?ropot!in %33@2. The orientation here is to #ring
the community together #y casting suspicion and dou#t to the ind, and elcoming anyone ho
is illing to engage in a relationship of reciprocation ith others. Such an orientation turns the
7uestion of pu#lic safety on its head, and #ecause it is no longer e+clusionary to the poor or
hostile to 9others, mutual aid re4ects the idea of a punitive social arrangement herein e are
reliant on authorities to intervene. Some might o#4ect that a #ully could simply inter4ect and
disrupt the pattern of mutual aid, #ut the community is never poerless to such a process and can
ta!e collective measures that a#ate this potential /Alastres %33.2. The idea that e might
collectively need protection from latent #ullies is, after all, a state logic and argua#ly its
originary ruse. So far from advocating a neoli#erali,ed model of personal responsi#ili,ation that
treads too close to a neoli#eral tra4ectory, mutual aid and the practice of reciprocity are a#out
#uilding community as opposed to individualism, solidarity as opposed to alienation, and
empathy as opposed to apathy, hich are customary mechanisms that also ard off despotic
poer. <i!eise, regulation needs to #e unpac!ed and rethought #ecause if it does not come
directly attendant to #loodshed, it indirectly gives rise to it #y perpetuating the logic of
sovereignty. The etymology of the ord 9regulate hints at its underlying intentions, coming
from the <atin regula, meaning 9rule, hich signifies the e+ercise of ultimate authority.
&egulation is accordingly ine+trica#le from the state, and li!e all forms of rule, it implies
violence.
'lthough some on the political <eft may #e hesitant to entertain the idea of anarchism
and its revocation of all authority given the scourge of neoli#eralism over the past three decades,
a #etter appreciation for ho this particular form of capitalism has unfolded through re"
regulation allos us see the prover#ial forest and the trees /Springer %3(32. $m fully on#oard in
terms of a concern for not anting to #olster neoli#eral modalities, #ut $m also e7ually
enthusiastic a#out the potential of anarchism and the challenge it presents to all forms of archy,
or 9systems of rule /Springer %3((a; %3(%a; %3(%#2. This is not a contradictory position as some
contemporary political discourse in 'merica might have us #elieve. $ a#hor 9anarcho"capitalism
4
and the ay that it has misrepresented anarchism in the United States as a potentially right ing
agenda, hich severs anarchism from its decidedly anti"capitalist, socialist origins. $ also re4ect
the reactionary caricature of anarchism as chaos. 'narchism isnt pandemonium; it is the
emancipated condition of free cooperation and the actual practice of mutual aid. 's a reply to the
upta!e of anarchist organi,ing principles in contemporary social movements, along ith the
development of a more autonomist variety of *ar+ism /Bolloay %33%; Cederici %335; Bardt
and Degri %3352, e currently see a more vulgar form of *ar+ism rearing its ugly head once
more in the form of an argument that recapitulates the supposed need for the state /Dean %3(%2.
This thesis implicates itself in ho regulation is typically conceived, and as David Barvey /%3(%E
102 demonstrates hen he argues that, Fin some sense 9hierarchical forms of organi,ation are
needed to address large"scale pro#lemsG, it advocates for the continuing influence of regulation
as a form of social ordering in response to neoli#eralism. 'fter #eing so inspired #y Barveys
or! in the past, $ as profoundly turned off #y Rebel Cities and its !nee"4er! re4ection of all
things hori,ontal, rhi,omic, and decentrali,ed #y assuming that these 7ualities necessarily lend
themselves to a neoli#eral modus operandi /see Springer $n &evie for a criti7ue2. <i!e *i!hail
Ba!unin /(@1.2, $m Fconvinced that li#erty ithout socialism is privilege, in4ustice; and that
socialism ithout li#erty is slavery and #rutalityG.
The truth a#out the state and its monopoly of violence are #y no ell !non, and yet
the lies e are continually fed have #een met ith a certain sense of am#ivalence. The
illingness to sacrifice freedom at the altar of security has #een #uilding steadily since 06((, and
has no seemingly reached a fever pitch in the United States. $f humanity is ever to #e
collectively set free, e have to recogni,e ith eyes ide open that it is hierarchy, authority, and
the very idea of rule itself that shac!les us to violence. The notion that some agent or entity can
ma!e sovereign decisions for a collective and has the supreme authority to enforce these
ar#itrary hims through the violent force of la lends itself to the type of e+ceptionalism that
Giorgio 'gam#en /(00@2 disavos, and to the #lind o#edience to institutionali,ation that -alter
Ben4amin /(0@12 railed against. To see! deeper regulation here regulation has failed us is a
peculiar invocation that is indeed a 9road to serfdom /Baye! (0552, not least #ecause it concedes
that decision"ma!ing and community planning are activities that should not #e organi,ed
collectively. Het e need not respond, as Criedrich Baye! did, ith the idea that the only path
forard is one of mar!et li#ertarianism, for this ignores the tyranny of capitalism and the
5
divisive ine7uality it cultivates. $nstead e might find a significant degree of potential in the
direct action of anarcho"syndicalism /&oc!er %3352, here or!er"managed production systems
are netor!ed into a stateless socialist society, otherise !non as 9full communism. $n this
regard, $ see autogestion and the type of factory occupations e have seen ith CaSin:at in
'rgentina and Vio.*e in Greece as pivotal first steps, and importantly, as ays to avoid the type
of tragedy e sa in -est, Te+as. -or!er self"management provides a radical #asis of
organi,ation that not only loosens the grip of rec!less industry practice to ensure safety ithout
regulation on or!ers on terms, #ut also democrati,es the entire structure of operation #y
doing aay ith any purported 9need for more rules, #loody rules.
May 2013
References
'gam#en G /(00@2 Homo Sacer: Sovereign Poer and Bare !i"e. StanfordE Stanford University
:ress
Ba!unin * /(@1.2 FCederalism, Socialism, 'nti"Theologism.G Speech presented to the Aentral
Aommittee of the <eague for :eace and Creedom, Geneva, Sit,erland
httpE66tmh.floonet.net6articles6reasprop.html /last accessed (1 *ay %3(82
Barry ', Is#orne T and &ose D /eds2 /(0012 #oucault and Political Reason: !iberalism$
%eoliberalism$ and Rationalities o" &overnment. AhicagoE University of Ahicago :ress
Ben4amin - /(0@12 Ariti7ue of violence. $n Demet, : /ed2 'alter Ben(amin$ Re"lections:
)ssays$ *+horisms$ *utobiogra+hical 'ritings /pp%.."8332. De Hor!E Schoc!en Boo!s
Brenner D and Theodore D /%33%2 Aities and the geographies of 9actually e+isting
neoli#eralism. *nti+ode 85E850"8.0
6
Alastres : /%33. J(0@0K2 Society *gainst the State: )ssays in Political *nthro+ology. De Hor!E
Lone
Dean M /%3(%2 ,he Communist Hori-on. <ondonE Verso
Dutton D G /%33(2 ,he .omestic *ssault o" 'omen: Psychological and Criminal /ustice
Pers+ectives0 VancouverE University of British Aolum#ia :ress
Cederici A /%3352 Caliban and the 'itch: 'omen$ the Body$ and Primitive *ccumulation0 De
Hor!E 'utonomedia
Galtung M /(0102 Violence, peace, and peace research. /ournal o" Peace Research 1E(1."(0(
Bardt * and Degri ' /%3352 Multitude: 'ar and .emocracy in the *ge o" )m+ire. De Hor!E
:enguin
Barvey D /%3(%2 Rebel Cities: #rom the Right to the City to the 1rban Revolution. De Hor!E
Verso
Baye! C /(0552 ,he Road to Ser"dom. AhicagoE University of Ahicago :ress
Bolloay M /%33%2 Change the 'orld 'ithout ,a2ing Poer: ,he Meaning o" Revolution ,oday.
<ondonE :luto
?ropot!in : /%33@ J(03%K2 Mutual *id: * #actor in )volution. AharlestonE Corgotten
<em!e T /%33(2 The #irth of #io"politicsE *ichael Coucaults lectures at the Aollege de Crance
on neoli#eral governmentality. )conomy and Society 83E(03"%3.
:ec! M and Tic!ell ' /%33%2 Deoli#erali,ing space. *nti+ode 85E8@3"535
7
&oc!er & /%335 J(08@K2 *narcho3Syndicalism: ,heory and Practice. San CranciscoE '? :ress
Springer S /%3(32 Deoli#eralism and geographyE N+pansions, variegations, formations.
&eogra+hy Com+ass 5E(3%)"(38@
Springer S /%3((a2 :u#lic space as emancipationE *editations on anarchism, radical democracy,
neoli#eralism, and violence. *nti+ode 58E)%)")1%
Springer S /%3((#2 Violence sits in placesO Aultural practice, neoli#eral rationalism, and virulent
imaginative geographies. Political &eogra+hy 83E03"0@
Springer S /%3(%a2 'narchismP -hat geography still ought to #e. *nti+ode 55E(13)"(1%5
Springer S /%3(%#2 'narchism and geographyE ' #rief genealogy of anarchist geographies.
&eogra+hy Com+ass .E51"13
Springer S /%3(%c2 Deoli#eralism as discourseE Beteen Coucauldian political economy and
*ar+ian poststructuralism. Critical .iscourse Studies 0E(88"(5.
Springer S /%3(%d2 Deoli#eralising violenceE If the e+ceptional and the e+emplary in coalescing
moments. *rea 55E(81"(58
Springer /$n &evie2 Buman geography ithout hierarchy.
httpE66.academia.edu6%%%((%@6BumanQgeographyQithoutQhierarchy /last accessed (1 *ay
%3(82
-ac7uant < /%3302 Punishing the Poor: ,he %eoliberal &overnment o" Social 4nsecurity.
DurhamE Du!e University :ress
8