Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-02T03:43:06.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Looking Again at Discipline and Gender: Theoretical Concerns and Possibilities In the Study of Anti-Social Behaviour Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2009

Helen Carr
Helen Carr*
Affiliation:
Kent Law School, University of Kent E-mail: H.P.Carr@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper suggests that current theoretical approaches to the contemporary governance of anti-social behaviour have certain limits which may be overcome by emphasis on its gendered dimensions. It argues that the paradoxical relationship that women have with the state may prove a fruitful starting point. Third way ideologies recognise and respond to the vulnerabilities of the ordinary citizen. The governance at a distance that they practice means that the responsibility for reassuring citizens falls disproportionately on women who have had a historical role in managing the anxieties provoked by proximity. Yet women's acknowledged vulnerability means that this is an incoherent strategy.

Type
Themed section on Disciplining Difference
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 77 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blair, T. (2006), Speech 10 January, 2006, http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page8898, last accessed 30 March 2009.Google Scholar
Brown, W. (1995), States of Injury, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, H. and Hunter, C. (2008), Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 30, 4, 293–307.Google Scholar
Chunn, D. and Gavigan, S. (2004), ‘Welfare law welfare fraud and the moral regulation of the never deserving poor’, Social Legal Studies, 13, 219–43.Google Scholar
Dean, M. (2007), Governing Societies: Political Perspectives on Domestic and International Rule, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J. and Scott, S. (2001), Evaluation of the Dundee Families Project, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
Donzelot, J. (1979), The Policing of Families, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2003), ‘Housing and ethopolitics: constructing identities of active consumption and responsible communities’, Economy and Society, 32, 4, 611–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortier, A.-M. (2007), Multicultural Horizons: Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ghate, D. and Ramella, M. (2002), Positive Parenting: The National Evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's Parenting Programme, London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.Google Scholar
Holt, A. (2009), ‘(En)Gendering responsibilities: experiences of parenting a “young offender”’, Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 4.Google Scholar
Nixon, J. and Hunter, C. (2001), ‘Taking the blame and losing the home: women and anti-social behaviour’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23, 4, 395–410.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Hunter, C., Parr, S., Whittle, S., Myers, S. and Sanderson, D. (2006), Interim Evaluation of Rehabilitation Projects for Families at Risk of Losing Their Home as a Result of ASB, London: ODPM.Google Scholar
Nixon, J. and Hunter, C. (2009), ‘Disciplining women: anti-social behaviour and the governance of conduct’, in Millie, A. (ed.), Securing Respect Behavioural Expectations and Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp.119–38.Google Scholar
O'Malley, P. (2001), ‘Genealogy, systemisation and resistance in “Advanced Liberalism”’, in Pavlich, G. and Wickham, G. (eds.), Rethinking Law, Society and Governance: Foucault's Bequest, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 13–25.Google Scholar
Pavlich, G. (2001), ‘Transforming images: society, law and critique’, in Pavlich, G. and Wickham, G. (eds.), Rethinking Law, Society and Governance: Foucault's Bequest, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.1–12.Google Scholar
Procacci, G. (1991), ‘Social economy and the government of poverty’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 151–68.Google Scholar
Ramsay, P. (2008), ‘The theory of vulnerable autonomy and the legitimacy of the civil preventative order’, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers,1/2008.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. J. D. (2004), Making English Morals Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England 1787–1886, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999), Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sites, W. (2007), ‘Contesting the neoliberal city? Theories of neoliberalism and urban strategies of contention’, in Leitner, H., Peck, J. and Sheppard, E. (eds.), Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban Frontiers, New York: The Guildford Press, pp.116–38.Google Scholar
Swindon, Web (2006), www.swindonweb.com.Google Scholar
Welshman, J. (2008), ‘Recuperation and rehabilitation and the residential option: the Brentwood Centre for Mothers and Children’, Twentieth Century British History, 19, 4, 502–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed