Coercive Occupations as State Facilitation: Understanding the U.S. State’s Strategy of Control
Montes | Understanding the US Strategy of Control
Vince Montes
The continuation of structural inequalities cannot be understood based solely on the power of the elite, such as conceived as a 1% and 99% dichotomy; it needs to be understood within the complex and sophisticated system that is supported and carried out by many non-elite. Central to this argument is the idea that segments of the population, including some of the most exploited and oppressed, derive material and ideological benefit from the misery associated with the inequalities that are rooted in the current established social arrangements.1 It is this phenomenon that demands an explanation that can move beyond simple dichotomies (e.g., elite vs. non-elite, white vs. black, etc.) to a greater understanding of how individuals collaborate with a system that is rooted in inequality. This article examines one of the ways that the U.S. state facilitates the incorporation of millions of individuals into the rank-and-file of policing, correctional, national security, and military organizations.
According to many leading theorists (such as Christie 1993; Garland 2001; Parenti 2008; Wacquant 2008a), the economic and political changes that have occurred starting about forty years ago lead to increases in the surplus population and a growth in the “dangerous class.” The economic crisis of declining profits and racial and class rebellion contributed to a move away from the politics of the carrot (a Keynesian welfare state) and the labor/capitalists compromise to the politics of the stick (i.e., the police build up and mass incarceration) (Parenti 2008, 240). According to Parenti, the implementation of neoliberalism in the 1980s and the 1990s re-established profit margins for the capitalists, while the state went about managing “the excluded, and cast-off classes” (2008, 241). Yet, as the state relied more on policing and imprisonment of particular sectors of the population, there was also a parallel growth in coercive occupations. Had it not been for this boom in coercive employment many more individuals would have more than likely joined the surplus population and dangerous classes.
The basic premise in this article is that the above circumstances created a positive correlation between the implementation of neoliberal policies and increased inequality and the increasing dependency on a vast amount of coercive forces required to sustain it. In understanding U.S. state power, we must understand its role as the enforcer of the status quo—i.e., unequal relationships that primarily benefit a national and a global network of elites, which the global and domestic repressive apparatuses are tasked with maintaining. A preliminary account of the pervasive coercive forces below illustrates a glimpse into the rise and pervasiveness of coercive occupations.
The role of state coercion in disrupting and neutralizing the mobilization of contentious action and the managing of marginality cannot be minimized.2 Yet, what is often missed and is of equal importance is the role that the state plays in facilitating large segments of the population into the established order as enforcers of the status quo (Christie 1993; Katz 2007). As we will see, the U.S. state utilizes a multitude of strategies in order to maintain stability. This article is concerned with one particular state strategy: the use of employment in coercive occupations as a means to neutralize contentious action by incorporating individuals into the system as a compliant and loyal member employed in one of the various coercive forces. There are over 10 million people employed in policing organizations, correctional, and military types of occupations. The U.S. has the largest number of coercive forces in the world, especially when you examine the actual versus official figures. One needs to consider coercive forces as the premier job suppliers, from law enforcement officers, prison guards, soldiers, to members of Homeland Security and in addition, all the supportive civilian and private contractor jobs that comprise its employment matrix. Incalculable millions of communities and families are also dependent on these organizations for their livelihoods. If we add the approximately 23 million military veterans, many of whom remain connected to military service through their active participation in veterans’ organizations and/or through veteran benefits, we can begin to see the larger implications of this particular strategy.3 Furthermore, coercive institutions have far-reaching influence in academia as being benefactors of research funding and employment, which also offers a partial explanation for why critical analysis that addresses this phenomenon is largely absent. Upton Sinclair may in fact have been correct when he stated: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding it” (in Parenti 2011, 2).
Understanding coercive forces such as policing, correctional, and military organizations is important because they employ large numbers of people with stable and secured jobs; this is increasingly true in the current times of employment insecurity. The U.S. Department of Defense alone, for example, is the world’s largest employer, with the Chinese military being a distant second (Ruth 2012).4 Moreover, the U.S. has only 5% of the world’s population, but accounts for more than 40% of the world’s military spending (Quigley 2010). When one combines all the budgets of all the coercive organizations—i.e., policing, corrections, national security, and the military—it is nothing less than astonishing in terms of the degree of spending and employment it spawns, from direct and indirect employment, as we will see below. In addition, these organizations are, to varying degrees, highly bureaucratic hierarchical organizations, which instill strict discipline and demand a greater degree of obedience than other occupations found either in the public or the private sectors. The common denominator that links these coercive occupations is that they function to a large extent as arms of the state to protect and enforce the status quo.
Explaining loyalty and allegiance cannot be reduced to economic motives and interests. Loyalty and allegiance are also culturally contrived with feelings of group solidarity, sense of duty, and patriotism. In fact, many employed in coercive occupations receive elevated status not because they possess stable employment, but because many of these occupations are awarded high degrees of esteem. The elevated status granted to the members of coercive occupations is orchestrated by the state and other agents of socialization such as the media and educational institutions. For Glen Greenwald, the U.S. military receives a tremendous amount of veneration from U.S. society and can be seen as the central religion, which “is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the U.S. population” (2012). This is hardly an exaggeration when one considers the degree in which society is saturated with the political socialization to respect and honor the military (e.g., in the mainstream media, in schools, and in all sporting events, especially at the professional level). Yet, the worship of “all things military” appears to be just a tip of the iceberg. Law enforcement and national security, in many ways, appear to also be afforded the same veneration when it comes to the mainstream media and formal educational systems. The police, for example, are often portrayed by the media as heroic crime fighters (Surette 1998; Reiner 1985).5 This is not to say that the corporate media are not at times critical of the police and the military or that these institutions do not have their critics, but on the whole, much of the coverage either in the news, movies, or TV programing appears overwhelmingly supportive. As a result, critical analysis of coercive occupations is a difficult endeavor because U.S. society does appear to worship all things coercive, especially when they represent the U.S. and are sanctioned and rationalized by the state.
What also appears to be a salient feature is that these coercive organizations tend to foster a type of master status in which their members primarily identify themselves and are identified by others by their occupation—e.g., as a police officer or as a soldier. In fact, these identities tend to trump all other identities such as social class, ethno-racial, and gender and develop a sense of group solidarity amongst those in coercive occupations. The “we versus them” mindset permeates throughout these professions, which hinders attempts at creating a more unified and just society and world that is based on solidarity and commonality. Rather than mitigate inequalities within the U.S. or between nation states, the U.S. state instead allocates endless amounts of expenditures, resources, and lives in upholding the system of capitalism, the very system that simultaneously generates vast amounts of inequality, creates insecurity, and dysfunction at home and abroad, which then lays the groundwork for disruption—e.g., crime and organized/unorganized forms of resistance (e.g., Hagan 1994; Linebaugh 1976; Piven and Cloward 1977; Quinney 1977; and National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968).
This paper is organized in the following manner. First, its theoretical framework is presented as a means to contextualize coercive forces within the larger context of the U.S. state strategy. Secondly, the U.S. coercive forces are mapped out in order to illustrate their sheer size and the pervasive nature of their employment matrix. Thirdly, an analysis is presented that focuses on the capability of the hegemonic bureaucratic state’s ability to develop, in many cases, esteemed identities that are ideologically sanctioned and operate like master statuses because they hinder solidarity among the oppressed and exploited and isolate its members from social movements and protest.
Theoretical Framework
Not all state facilitative actions are meant to co-opt or integrate the dangerous classes. In fact, some facilitative actions are intended to appease contentious and potentially contentious individuals, groups, and segments of populations. Although the state utilizes many facilitative strategies, employment is but one; it may very well be one of the most effective strategies because like social aid provisions it addresses subsistence and material needs, which have served as one of the key impetuses for mobilization. Employment in coercive occupations goes beyond the general objective of filling empty bellies in exchange for compliancy. As we will see, employment in coercive forces is a deliberate strategy designed to integrate individuals more firmly into the social order. Besides economic reward, members receive greater levels of institutional socialization that transcend a job into a duty, which is in many cases honorific and virtuous.
By situating coercive forces within the context of the U.S. state strategy framework, we will attempt to analyze coercive forces, which appear to be a critical component of it. Coercive forces overlap with repressive and facilitative modes and serve dual functions: one as enforcers of the social order and second as facilitation (see Chart 1).
Mapping Coercive Forces
Mapping the far-reaching tentacles of the coercive state is a difficult enterprise, and mapping its pervasive coercive employment matrix is even more difficult. It is one thing to locate accurate data on the numbers of individuals in the various occupations and entirely another to account for the all the supportive personnel and private sector employees that serve to supplement them. Of course, the sketches below do not begin to address all of the industries, communities, and families that economically depend on coercive occupations as their lifeblood.
Police Coercive Forces
We will begin with crime control and what is often referred to as an industry. Nils Christie wrote, the problems facing Western societies are that:
Wealth is everywhere unequally distributed. So is access to paid work. Both problems contain potentialities for unrest. The crime control industry is suited for coping with both. This industry provides profits and work while at the same time producing control of those who otherwise might have disturbed the social process” (1993, 13).
This appears to be an accurate statement because it largely captures the multiple roles that the criminal justice system plays in managing inequality and the lack of employment. Christie explicitly states that the criminal justice system is required to maintain relations of inequality. This observation can be verified by the fact that most of the 7,053,977 adults supervised by correctional systems (Glaze and Bonczar 2010) are poor. Fewer than half of those incarcerated held a full-time job at the time of their arraignment and two-thirds were from households with annual income amounting to less than half of the official poverty line (Wacquant 2008b, 61).
There is a sizable amount of the U.S. population under the control of the criminal justice system (see Table 1). For example, 1 in every 35 adult residents in the U.S. is under some form of correctional supervision in yearend 2012 (Glaze and Bonczar 2010). In fact, the U.S. leads the world with the highest incarceration rate, with approximately 716 per 100,000 (Walmsley 2011). One of the reasons why this has not generated popular moral outrage is because the prison population and those under its surveillance do not reflect the greater population (Cole 1998). Yet, Table 1 illustrates a fuller picture of those incarcerated. By calculating together Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detentions, and military, Indian country prisons, juvenile detentions, and territories/colonies’ incarceration with all those in state and federal prisons and all the individuals under correctional supervision the overall number increases to 7,142,563. Of course, these numbers do not include all the individuals that are held in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, CIA black sites or other nations in which the U.S. military is involved with counterinsurgency operations. Besides the containment of the most marginalized that are perceived as posing a threat to the status quo, Christie argues that the crime control industry also provides employment for many who are without jobs (1993).
Table 1: Estimated number of persons supervised by adult correctional systems, by correctional status, 2012
Probation |
3,942,800 |
Parole |
851,200 |
Federal and State Prisons |
1,483,900 |
Local jails ICE Military facilities Jails in Indian country Juvenile facilities Territorial prisons |
744,500 9,957 (2008) 1,651 (2008) 2,135 (2008) 92,845 (2008) 13,575 (2008) |
Total |
7,142,563 |
Sources: Glaze and Herberman (2013) and Sabol, West, and Cooper (2009)
Besides correctional officers, parole and probation agents, and all its supportive personnel, the policing matrix includes various law-enforcement officers, which operate at the city, state, and federal levels and are attached to traditional policing and national security. According to a 2011 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, in 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million persons on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers) (Reaves 2011). These organizations also employed approximately 100,000 part-time employees, including 44,000 sworn officers. (Reaves 2011). There are approximately 120,000 federal full-time sworn law enforcement officers (Reaves 2012). Not all of the federal enforcement officers are assigned to crime control; their role in policing varies. In all, there are 73 federal law enforcement agencies, which are divided into two branches: the Department of Homeland Security (e.g., U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Homeland Security Investigation) and the Department of Justice (e.g., FBI, DEA, ATF, and Federal Bureau of Prisons). Both departments combined employ approximately 120,000 sworn officers: this figure is up from 69,000 since 1993 as a result of the USA Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
While accounting for members of coercive forces in policing we estimate that there are approximately 4,514,158 million in direct and indirect occupations performing various supportive personnel roles in upholding the social order. This estimation is a mere glimpse into the policing matrix of employment. The coercive matrix increases when factoring in the military members and personnel.
Table 2: Police Coercive Forces
City and State Law Enforcement Officers
(full and part-time)21
|
809,000 |
120,000 |
|
493,100 |
|
60,000 |
|
Probation and Parole Agents25
|
90,600 |
Private Security Guards 26, |
2,000,000 |
Supportive Personnel (known) |
|
City and State Policing Personnel27 (►) Federal Policing Personnel 28 (►) |
424,946 166,512 |
Prison Supportive
Personnel 29
(►►) |
350,000 |
Total |
4,514,158 |
Military Coercive Forces
In the grand scheme of things, the actual numbers aren’t all that important. Whether the most accurate total is 900 bases, 1,000 bases or 1,100 posts in foreign lands, it’s undeniable that the US military maintains, in Johnson’s famous phrase, an empire of bases so large and shadowy that no one—not even at the Pentagon—really knows its full size and scope. (2010)
For the historian, David M. Kennedy, today’s military
wield unprecedented firepower and hold in their hands an almost incalculable capacity for focused violence. Not since the time of the Roman Empire have a single country’s arms weighed so heavily in the global scales. (2013, 2)
According to Andrew J. Bacevich, “Americans… have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsized expectations regarding the efficacy of force” (2013, 2). As a result of a militarized foreign policy, the U.S. military consumes a large part of the national budget. Lindorff provides a more comprehensive account of the U.S. military budget:
The US, in fiscal year 2012, budgeted a total of $673 billion for the military, plus another $166 billion for military activities of other government departments, such as the nuclear weapons program, much of which is handled by the Department of Energy, or the Veterans Program, which pays for the care and benefits of former military personnel. There’s also another roughly $440 billion in interest paid on the debt from prior wars and military expenditures. Altogether, that comes to $1.3 trillion, which represents close to 50% of the general budget of the United States—the highest percentage of a government budget devoted to the military of any modern nation in the world—and perhaps of any government of any nation in the world (2012).
What this also means is that there are not only millions of soldiers who are connected to the coercive military employment matrix, but millions more civilians and industries which require a large budget to keep the empire afloat.
In a recent attempt to capture the actual number of people employed directly and indirectly by the military, a CNN report stated in 2012 that the military employed 3.1 million military personnel and civilians, with another 3 million who work for the defense industry, making weapons and operating various other businesses (Rizzo 2012). According to Robert Reich, the military is the biggest jobs program in the U.S. and any reduction to it would significantly affect unemployment (2010). Yet, this is only part of the story because the U.S. military or more specifically, the U.S. Defense Department is the world’s largest employer with 3.2 million employees (the Chinese military is second with 2.3 million; followed by Walmart with 2.1 million employers) (Ruth 2012). The total number is actually larger than Reich reports. By subtracting the numbers in Table 3, active and reserve armed forces from 3,100,000 million of military and civilian forces in the CNN report, we arrive at approximately 784,040 civilians directly on the payroll of the armed forces. Furthermore, within the Department of Defense is the National Intelligence Program, which has 16 intelligence agencies (e.g., the CIA, Army Intelligence, Department of State, and NSA) that make up the U.S. intelligence
Table: 3: The U.S. Military Jobs Program
Total 6,207,033
Sources: Author’s compilations. See footnotes.
community, with 107,035 employees and a budget of $52.6 billion of dollars in 2013 (Gellman and Miller 2013). As the result of recent revelations, a more accurate description is emerging of the real budget and number of employees attached to these agencies.
Chart 2: U.S. Coercive Employment Matrix38
Source: Author’s compilations
State Coercion, Legitimacy, and Facilitation
At the core of this inquiry is the argument that coercive forces are more firmly aligned with the social order than the other occupations. As we have seen these coercive forces range from the policing, corrections, national security, to military service. They are conjoined in their various tasks in upholding domestic and foreign policies designed to maintain the status quo in the U.S. and U.S. hegemony around the globe. It is important that we first understand why so many people, including some of the most oppressed and repressed, would participate, some very willingly, in coercive forces. Although the answer to this question cannot be reduced to individual economic self-interest or careerism, the economic factors are nonetheless important to consider. As we shall see, the best way to view this enigma is from the perspective that focuses on the capability of the hegemonic bureaucratic state’s ability to develop identities that are ideologically sanctioned and operate like master statuses because they defy class and ethno-racial identities and solidarities.
Jobs in coercive forces tend to be more secured than other jobs in other industries. This is one of the reasons why they appear detached and insulated from the general public because they are largely shielded from the economic harsh conditions and in many cases have honorific positions. With all the many reports of a shrinking middle class and serious problems with upward mobility, the various occupations in coercive forces appear more secure and promising than others.
Understanding class structures and class interests is important because it moves us away from simple dichotomies such as between the 1% versus the 99% and exposes the complex nature of how the social order is maintained and reproduced. It would be extremely difficult to conceptualize members of coercive forces as being members of the so-called 1% or as members of the 99%. What appears to be a more accurate statement is that these occupations draw from a cross-section of the population. Military generals, directors, chiefs of police, and other high level officials may largely be from the upper and middle classes, but many of the rank and files have historically come from the working class and the poor. Military service and, for that matter, employment in law enforcement and corrections is often seen by many from the disadvantaged classes as the only viable option for upward mobility, especially in times of economic insecurity. However, certain branches in the above occupations as well as for many positions in national security are reserved for middle and upper middle classes because of their higher requirements such as college education. In any case, coercive forces appear to be disconnected from some sense of class identity and solidarity, at least in the traditional sense, such as in the expression of a working class consciousness. Yet, they do appear to have a strong sense of solidarity and an alliance, but to themselves, the organizations they are embedded in, and the system that sustains them materially and ideologically.
The various organizations within coercive forces have lobbies, unions, and other organizations that operate like a “class-in-itself,” pursuing their own narrow occupational interests as opposed to broader “class-for-itself” interests. For example, their unions and associations are clear examples of how their organizations pursue narrow interests. Organizations such as The Fraternal Order of Police, Patrolmen’s Benevolent Associations, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, and the American Legion fight for job security, better wages, benefits, and they stand against legislation that will either reduce police sizes or prison populations. Many of these unions and associations also tend to circle the wagons and close ranks when a fellow officer or department is scrutinized by the public or media. Their organized power promotes their vested interests and appears to be firmly grounded in the continuation of the status quo rather than in a particular class, in the classical sense. After all, there have been very rare occurrences in which members in policing, corrections, or military organizations have joined or acted in solidarity with other workers or participated in social movements with other sectors of society.
There have been moments in which the police and correctional guards have gone on strike or engaged in other forms of contentious action, but much of their actions were restricted to the improvements of their working conditions and not the overall conditions of all workers or oppressed peoples. Ever since the Boston Police Strikes of 1919 laws were enacted to prevent law enforcement from striking. However, police now have the right to join unions; these unions are usually exclusively made up of police and excluded from broader labor coalitions. The police and correctional officers tend to be paid on average more and receive more benefits than other public employees and in many cases this includes the private sector and its millions of low-wage service sector employees. The state has enacted other mechanisms to prevent those in coercive occupations from sympathizing and identifying with the conditions of the exploited and oppressed by reducing discontent by raising wages and increasing pensions, which appears to have done much to increase separation not only from other occupations, but the general plight that many outside the employment matrix experience. Yet, there are rank and file police officers at city, state, and federal levels who have exposed corruption, racism, violations to the U.S. Constitution within their departments and as a result, many of these have suffered severe consequences.
In fact, rather than joining in solidarity with labor movements and social movements, the historical record actually illustrates the opposite. The various organizations within the coercive forces have historically followed orders and policed, surveilled, incarcerated, contained, killed, or otherwise neutralized contentious (or combatant) individuals and oppositional organizations. The separation that divides the individuals in coercive occupations from a large part of the general public can be attributed to salaries, benefits, and job security, which all point to economic motive and interests. However, it would be a mistake to underestimate the degree of institutional socialization that individuals within these paramilitary and military bureaucratic organizations are subjected to. Many of these organizations are designed to instill discipline, loyalty, and to a large extent a particular sense of patriotism. According to Knottnerus, these organizations utilize ritualized symbolic practices such as trainings, drillings, parades, and other ceremonies that impact the cognitions or symbolic thoughts of actors and generate ritual experiences that heighten group and wider system allegiance (2005). For Weber, “The discipline of the army gives birth to all discipline” (Gerth and Mills 1946, 261). Bureaucratic organizations are capable of producing efficiency, but this is largely dependent on the development of hierarchical lockstep discipline. For example, bureaucratic structures in the military and police forces are designed to make obedient self-sacrificing soldiers and police officers, who have, by design, been socialized into being disciplined individuals that “go along” and comply with command hierarchical structures, and above all do not disrupt the system but defend it.
According to Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce’s extensive research on police paramilitary-bureaucratic organizations, police departments are “highly specialized, with complex divisions of labor, vertical authority structures, and extensive rule systems” (2010, 2). Even in the era of community policing, all the characteristics of highly bureaucratic structures, which are often associated with the production of individuals into cogs are seen in police departments. The paramilitary-bureaucratic structures in police forces move police officers away from “problem solving, community involvement, organizational decentralization, and prevention of crime” (Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce 2010, 2) and into top-down types of soldiers, who are removed from community involvement.
Unlike other types of occupations, coercive occupations draw significant numbers from the lower middle class, working class, and even from the poor, and since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 there has been in many respects the racial integration of many coercive occupations. In examining the all-volunteer armed forces since 1973, Blacks and Latinos, which are the two largest racial minority groups in the U.S., have been heavily recruited into the armed forces. For example, in 2006, 12.6% of the civilian workforce aged 18 to 45 were Black, compared to 19.3% of active-duty enlistments and although Latinos had a civilian labor force participation of 17.1%, they only accounted for 12.8% of the enlistments (Segal and Korb 2013, 113-114). The above numbers only account for active-duty and not all the reserve branches. Clearly, Blacks were and continue to be overrepresented in active duty enlistments. According to Segal and Korb, Latinos would likely also be overrepresented had it not been for enlistment requirements such as high school/GED and citizenship or permanent resident status (2013, 114).
According to Sklansky, the virtually all-white, all-male, and heterosexual departments of the 1950s and 1960s have given way to departments with large numbers of female and minority officers, which are increasingly commonplace (2006, 1210). A report in 2007 largely illustrates this increased diversity by stating that 1 in 4 full-time local police officers was a member of a racial or ethnic minority (estimated 117,113); this was about a 10% increase from 2003 (Reaves 2007, 14). Even with this increase in diversity “Nearly three-quarters of all police officers are White, while the U.S. population is about 63% White, U.S. Census data show” (Alcindor and Penzenstadler 2015). However, increases in racial and ethnic minorities have not translated into a major breakdown in the separation between the police and the poor and the ethno-racially oppressed.
In fact, Sklansky argues against the well-established argument that the new demographics are merely cosmetic changes because occupational outlook and organizational culture trumps the personal characteristics of new recruits (2006). Ronald Weitzer, an expert on diversity in the police force states that “Even if police officers of whatever race enforce the law in relatively the same way,” the problem is an image problem for police departments who do not represent the communities they police (Ashkenas and Park 2015). In other words, “blue is blue” and the job shapes the officer, not the other way around (Sklansky 2006, 1210). However, after extensive research, Sklansky argues against the prevailing argument and states that police efficiency increases as a result of increases in the diversity of police departments. That basically, increased diversity has changed police culture to make it more effective in policing—i.e., more effective in maintaining the social order.
Perhaps the best way to address the supportive personnel’s sense of duty and allegiance to the state is to not only consider economic interests, but to understand their proximity to coercive forces and to understand that they too are immersed in the very same bureaucratic paramilitary and military structures as are the more direct members. One might conclude that direct frontline forces and supportive personnel as well as most of the population are embedded in larger bureaucratic structures (Bensman and Vidich 1971; Mills 1951, 1959). The need to connect the larger hegemonic and bureaucratic structures of the U.S. state to the coercive apparatuses and more specifically to the individuals that carry out and support the coercive functions is essential.
Yet it is also assumed that many join coercive forces because they do not view the U.S. state as an imperialist and oppressive power, but believe its power to be legitimate. Some might even subscribe to such interpretations as that of Robert Kagan and others who view the U.S. as the world policeman and the keeper of order based on democracy and freedom (2003). The emphasis on belief is important, because of the ability of the state to socialize individuals, who in many cases have internalized the values and norms of the state. In addition, people may not simply submit to the social order because they believe it is just, but they may believe that there is no acceptable alternative to it and thus align themselves with it. Some may even be operating with the idea that they will reform it from within. Although reasons for becoming a member in coercive forces vary, one cannot deny the power and influence that a highly bureaucratic and hegemonic state has over individual motives and actions. According to David Held, the state “appears to be everywhere, regulating the conditions of our lives from birth registration to death certifications” (1989, 11); this power certainly includes the shaping of educational institutions, the media, and the validation and promotion of particular ideas that reinforce the legitimacy of social order. When it comes to the U.S. state, the most dominant institution in the world, its hegemonic tentacles reach not only into the public and private spheres of U.S. society, but reach around the world.
In evaluating the success of the U.S. state’s ability to utilize coercive forces as a means to facilitate the integration of segments of the population into the social order, we need to address the notion of legitimacy, more specifically how the state is able to legitimize its actions. The result has been that there is no short supply of new recruits and all the millions who aspire to be members. Legitimacy is based on the acceptance of a citizenry to state authority. In the context of legal-rational authority, the state exercises its power in accordance with some general notion of consent; this is usually accomplished with a politico-legal system. Of course, a belief in the legitimacy of a social order is not the only means in which a state ensures it continuation. Weber’s definition of the nation state centers on the monopoly of the legitimate means of violence within a given territory (Gerth and Mills 1946, 78). For him the coercive apparatus of the state is fundamental to the formation of the state and its ability to maintain its right to dominate/rule. In other words, authority appears to be largely predicated on a (nation) state’s monopoly of the legitimate use of violence to enforce its order. In this context, the military and police forces play key roles in this conception of the modern nation state.
Charles Tilly’s research identified a link between coercion and legitimacy and wrote that whatever else nation states do, and however they go about legitimizing their power (e.g., the idea of social contract, etc.), “they organize and, wherever possible, monopolize violence” (1996, 171). For Tilly, state legitimacy is obtained over time because eventually “the personnel of states purveyed violence on a larger scale, more effectively, more efficiently, with wider assent from their subject populations, and with readier collaboration from neighboring authorities than did the personnel of other organizations” (1996, 173). Consequently, nation states, in part, maintain power through legitimizing themselves by creating ideologies, which socializes individuals to the norms and values of the state. As Tilly makes clear, control over the physical forces of violence is fundamental to nation states’ authority and the fact that legitimacy depends on the conformity to abstract principles such as the consent of the governed only helps to rationalize the monopoly of force (1996, 171). After all, for Tilly it is through the concentration and accumulation of capital and coercion and inter-state war waging that the present nation state emerged (1992).
Kent and Jacobs counter assertions that a society based only on coercion could not survive by stating that no social order, not even the most authoritarian, employs coercion by itself; it is often mixed with other means (2004). Kent and Jacobs nevertheless provide historical examples that illustrate what occurs when police suddenly become paralyzed (e.g., on strike) and don’t respond; their research suggests that the social order is reliant on coercive force, because without it poor people would not accept the conditions of inequality and would engage in redistribution of wealth endeavors. Robert Cover provides a good example of the state’s reliance on force by illustrating how “a convicted defendant may walk to a prolonged confinement, but this seemly voluntary walk is influenced by the use of force. In other words if he does not walk on his own he will most certainly be dragged or beaten” (in Green and Ward 2004, 3). As pointed out above, coercion is aptly referred to as a crucial component to the establishment and continuation of the social order. The amount of force necessary to maintain order in the U.S. is often underestimated. According to many critical theorists, stability is problematic even in the most “democratic” societies because resource distribution is so skewed that only a few reap excessive rewards, freedom, rights, and security. In order to maintain unequal relations there are over 12 million members of coercive forces maintaining this status quo. As a result, there are approximately 7 million individuals under supervision in the U.S. alone and countless populations around the world that live in wretched conditions so that the U.S. state can maintain its global dominance.
State power is complex and possesses a multitude of means by which to repress and/or incorporate and integrate many individuals and groups into its social order. As Weber made clear, the modern rational-legal state was similar to traditional domination because both provide social stability and are “rooted in [their] ability to supply the normal, constantly recurring needs of everyday life and thus has its basis in the economy—the supplier of everyday requirements” (Runciman 1978, 226). The U.S. state fits this description on many levels, two of which stand out: (1) it serves to guarantee the status quo—i.e., stability; and (2) it is the major supplier of everyday requirements such as the material means—e.g., a major provider of employment. Social order, or to be more accurate, state power, functions to reproduce itself, not merely through coercion but by the use of economic means and ideology.
Similar to other imperialist powers, systems of slavery, or authoritarian regimes, the U.S. has managed to legitimize its power. All these regimes were made legitimate by those in power because they possessed and controlled the means of violence, and controlled the distribution of wealth, resources, and employment. Those regimes also had systems of law and order. In addition, those societies also had a large degree of citizen participation; this occurred with the exclusion of others. And those regimes certainly had the ability to integrate various segments of the oppressed population into their social order. It was not unusual to find colonial subjects fighting alongside their European masters. Nor is it incredibly unusual to see the poor or oppressed ethno-racial minorities such as Native Americans, African Americans, and Puerto Ricans in the Armed Forces or in policing agencies managing marginalized communities and countries. One could make the claim that these groups are acting against their own self and collective interests, but perhaps, self and collective interests are too narrowly defined and one needs to re-contextualize them within the larger context of the state’s ability to define these. Understanding why so many have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo seems to be a pressing issue if real change is the objective.
The legitimacy of the social orders presented above did not have invisible coercive apparatuses. The injustice and violence employed by them was/is easily identified by the victims and by those whose interests were undermined. Yet, those employed in coercive forces and those who collaborate with the unjust, violent, and repressive systems are more likely driven to comply out of economic motivation and material interest as well as the desire to carry out their duties. States have the ability to normalize and institutionalize their coercion and violence by the use of various ideologies to justify their actions such as the use of nationalism, patriotism, ethno-racial supremacy, “humanitarianism,” or national security, and the upholding of the thin-blue-line that separates civilization from mayhem and disorder.
Conclusion
The above inquiry is an attempt to address how the U.S. state uses coercive forces to facilitate the integration of millions into its social order. This inquiry contributes to our understanding of how structured inequalities are maintained and reproduced, and how coercive occupations are the byproducts of unequal relations. There appears to be enough substantial evidence to be skeptical about a legitimacy that is dependent on millions of people who are tasked with upholding it through their participation in various coercive occupations. As seen above, large segments of the population, which cut across class and ethno-racial lines, feed off the current unequal arrangement of power within the U.S. and between the U.S. and a large part of the world by their active participation in the coercive employment matrix. This particular state strategy alone is indeed helpful in the development of an explanation of how organized contentious action is hindered when large segments of the population are either directly or indirectly dependent on its continuation.
By examining the coercive forces beyond their functions in maintaining the status quo, we can begin to understand these occupations in terms of their ability to integrate individuals firmly to the state. These occupations have organizational bureaucratic structures and cultures that integrate individuals more methodically into the social order. Further analysis is needed in order to explain the specific mechanisms that produce behaviors and mindsets of the individuals in coercive forces that appear largely detached and shielded from the realities faced by other segments of society because of their insulation from economic harsh conditions.
Ideology, economic reward, and elevated status are some of the ways in which the U.S. state hides and eases the burden for individuals employed in coercive occupations. One need not use the colonial social order or Nazi Germany to illustrate how problematic the concept of legitimacy is, especially the manner in which it is used to justify unjust authorities. What we know is that it is not only the 1% or even the 5% who benefit the most and who extract the greatest privileges from the continuation of the existing status quo. Clearly, the millions of non-elite (or the 99%) derive benefit as well and thus are also culpable. Although this inquiry is specific to understanding the role that coercive forces play in integrating individuals into the social order, it can be argued that large segments of the population in the U.S. as well as in other rich (or core) nations benefit from unequal global relations (see dependency theory, world systems theory, and theories of underdevelopment). As a result of these unequal relations, rich nations have higher standards of living and have more democratic rights because their core nation state in the capitalist world economy affords them the opportunity to appease its workers and alleviate poverty within the core nations (Wallerstein 1983).
It has always been difficult to question an enduring social order because it provides much reward and ideological justifications to many, including the academic scholar, while the needs of the rest are undermined. Analyzing the culpability and compliance of those involved in upholding unjust and violent social orders is no simple matter. Social orders are typically well camouflaged in deception and ideological justification. In fact, the U.S. state is no exception to the rule; it operates at a greater level of sophistication, which provides it the opportunity to better mask its coercion. It is in the tradition of sociology and its critical capacity, which has been largely reserved for authoritarian and non-western nation states, where we now hope to further our analysis on the U.S. state’s use of coercive forces in order to facilitate integration and assess the larger implications this has for mobilizations for social change.
References
Alcindor, Yamiche and Nick Penzenstadler. 2015. “Police redouble efforts to recruit diverse officers.” USA Today, 21 January. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/21/police-redoubling-efforts-to-recruit-diverse-officers/21574081/
Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Ashkenas, Jeremy and Haeyoun Park. 2015. “The Race Gap in America’s Police Departments.” New York Times, 8 April. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/03/us/the-race-gap-in-americas-police-departments.html?_r=0
Bacevich, Andrew J. 2005 [2013]. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bensman, Joseph, and Arthur J. Vidich. 1971. The New American Society. Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
“Billions Behind Bars - Inside America’s Prison Industry.” CNBC. NBC Universal. 2013.
Blackstock, Nelson. 1975 [1988]. COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom. New York, NY: Pathfinder Press.
Bobo, Lawence D. and Victor Thompson. 2012. “Racialized Mass Incarceration: Rounding Up the Usual Suspects.” Charles A. Gallagher, Rethinking the Color Line: Readings in Race and Ethnicity. New York, NY: McGraw Hill: 225-229.
Bowles, Samuel and Arjun Jayadev. 2007. “Garrison America.” Economists’ Voice, March.
“Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder.” 2004. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/BuildingPrivateSecurity.pdf
Burris, Val. 1995. “The Discovery of the New Middle Class.” In Arthur J. Vidich (ed.), The New Middle Classes, London, UK: Macmillan Press: 15-54.
Campbell, Alec. 1997. “American Veterans and Class Conflict after World War I.” Unpublished paper presented at the New School for Social Research, December 9.
Carson, E. Ann. and Golinelli, Daniela. 2013. “Prisoners in 2012: Prisoners in 2012 Trends In Admissions and Releases, 1991–2012.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 243920
Chappell, Allison T. and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. 2010. “Police Academy Socialization: Understanding the Lessons Learned in a Paramilitary-Bureaucratic Organization.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol. 39 no. 2: 187-214.
Churchill, Ward and Jim Vander Wall. 1988. Agents of Repression. Boston, MA: South End Press.
______. 1990. The COINTELPRO Papers. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Christie, Nils. 1993. Crime Control as Industry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cohn, Scott. 2011. “Private Prison Industry Grows Despite Critics.” CNBC, 18 October. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44936562/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/private-prison-industry-grows-despite-critics/#.VSwabvnF-So\
Cole, David. 1998. No Equal Justice: Race and Class in American Criminal Justice System. New York, NY: The New Press.
Corrections Corporations of American website: www.cca.com
Davenport, Christian. 2005. “Understanding Covert Repressive Action.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49: 120-140.
Davenport, Christian, Hank Johnston, and Carol Mueller. (eds.) 2005. Repression and Mobilization. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
della Porta, Donatella and Herbert Reiter. 1998. Policing Protest. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Department of Homeland Security website: http://www.dhs.gov/
Deutsch, Michael R. 1984. “The Improper Use of the Federal Grand Jury: An Instrument for the Internment of Political Activists.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminality, Vol. 75, No. 4, 1159-1196.
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control. Chicago: IL: University of Chicago Press.
Green, Penny and Tony Ward. 2004. State crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press, 2004
Gellman, Barton and Greg Miller. 2013.“‘Black budget’ summary details U.S. spy network’s successes, failures and objectives.” The Washington Post, 29 August. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
Geo Group, Inc. 2012 Annual Report. http://www.geogroup.com/documents/GEO_2012_Annual_Report.pdf
Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mills. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Glaze, Lauren E. and Thomas P. Bonczar. 2006. “Probation and Parole in the United States.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, December 2007, NCJ 220218.
______. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2010, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau Of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus10.pdf
Glaze, Lauren E. and Erinn J. Herberman. 2012. “Correctional Population in the U.S., 2012.” United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2013, NCJ 243936
Goldich, Robert L. 2013. “American Military Culture from Colony to Empire.” In David M. Kennedy (ed.), The Modern American Military. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 79-110.
Greenwald, Glenn. “Petraeus Scandal in Reported with Compelled Veneration of All Things Military.” Guardian, 12 Nov. 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/10/petraeus-scandal-media-military
Hagan, John. 1994. Crime and Disrepute. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Held, David. 1989. Political Theory and the Modern State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Isemberg, David. 2012. “Contractors in War Zones: Not Exactly ‘Contracting.’” TIME.com, 9 October. http://nation.time.com/2012/10/09/contractors-in-war-zones-not-exactly-contracting/#ixzz2pmEGGyuC
Katz, Michael. 2007. “Why Aren’t U.S. Cities Burning?” Dissent, Summer.
Kent, Stephanie and David Jacobs. 2004. “Social Divisions and Coercive Control in Advanced Societies: Law Enforcement Strength in Eleven Nations from 1975 to 1994.” Social Problems, Vol. 51, No. 3: 343–361.
Kennedy, David M. 2013. The Modern American Military. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Knottnerus, David. 2005. “Structural Ritualization Theory: Current Research and Future Developments.” Presented at the Sociological Imagination Group Conference, Philadelphia, 13 August.
Linebaugh, Peter. 1976. “Karl Marx, The Thief of Wood, and the Working Class Composition: A Contribution to the Current Debate.” Crime and Social Justice, No. 6, Fall-Winter, 5-16.
Lindorff, David. 2012. “The US is the World’s Biggest War-Monger: American Militarism.” Counterpunch, September 24. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/24/american-militarism/print
Loury, Glenn C. 2008. Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Boston: Boston Review Books, MIT Press.
Lovell, Jarret S. 2010. Good Cop / Bad Cop: Mass Media and the Cycle of Police Reform. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Marx, Gary T. 1970a. “Civil Disorder and the Agents of Social Control.” Journal of Social Issues 26: 19-57.
______. 1970b. “Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant.” In Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy (eds.), The Dynamics of Social Movements. Cambridge: Winthrop: 94-125.
______.1979 “External Efforts to Damage or Facilitate Social Movements: Some Patterns, Explanations, Outcomes, and Complications.” In The Dynamics of Social Movements, M. Zald and J. McCarthy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1985. The Communist Manifesto. Melbourne: Penguin Books.
Mills, C. Wright. 1951. White Collar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
______. 1956. The Power Elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Montes, Vince. 2009. “The Web Approach to the State Strategy in Puerto Rico.” David Knottnerus and Bernard Phillips (eds.), Bureaucratic Culture and Escalating Problems: Advancing the Sociological Imagination. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. 1968. New York, NY; Bantam.
Oliver, Pamela. 2008. “Repression and Crime Control.” Mobilization: The International Quarterly 13,1: 1-24.
Parenti, Christian. 2008 (1999). Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. New York, NY: Verso.
Parenti, Michael. 2011. The Face of Imperialism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Pelaez, Vicky. 2014. “The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery?” El Diario-La Prensa and Global Research, 10 March. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289
Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movements. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
______. 1971 [1993]. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
“Projected Veteran Population 2013 to 2043,” Prepared by the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics October 13, 2014. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/quickfacts/population_slideshow.pdf
Public Interest website: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/ (Search: Corrections Corporation America)
Quigley, Bill. 2010. “Corporations Profit from Permanent War.” Huffington Post, 25 May 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/corporations-profit-from_b_586896.html?
Quinney, Richard. 1977. Class, State, and Crime: On the Theory and Practice of Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Longman.
Reich, Robert. 2010. “America’s biggest jobs program: The US military,” The Christian Science Monitor, 13 August. http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2010/0813/America-s-biggest-jobs-program-The-US-military
Reiner, R. 1985. The Politics of the Police. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.
Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. 1968. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Rizzo, Jennifer. 2012. “Defense cuts: The jobs numbers games.” CNN, 22 Sept. http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/22/defense-cuts-the-jobs-numbers-game/
Robb, David L. 2004. Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies. New York, NY: Prometheus Books, 2004.
Rodriguez-Beruff, Jorge. 1983. “Imperialism and Militarism: An Analysis of the Puerto Rican Case.” Proyecto Caribeno de Justicia y Paz, Rio Pedras: Puerto Rico.
Rubenstein, Edwin S. 2012. “The High Cost of Cheap Detentions.” The Social Contract, Volume 22, Number 3, Spring. http://www.thesocial contract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_3/tsc-22-3-rubenstein-detentions.shtml
Runciman, W.G. 1978 [1998]. Max Weber: Selections in Translation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ruth, Alexander. 2012. “Which is the world’s biggest employer?” BBC News Magazine, 19 March. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17429786
Sabol, William J., Heather C. West and Matthew Cooper. 2009. “Prisoners in 2008.” United States Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. June 30, 2010, NCJ 228417.
Segal, David R. and Lawrence J. Korb. 2013. “Manning and Financing the Twenty-First-Century-All-Volunteer Force.” David M. Kennedy (ed.), The Modern American Military. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 111-134.
Sklansky, David Alan. 2006. “Your Father ’s Police Department: Making Sense of the New Demographics of Law Enforcement.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 96 Issue 3 Spring, Article 9.
Suchting, W.A. 1983. Marx: An Introduction. Sussex, UK: Wheatsheaf Books.
Surette, R. 1998. Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities 2nd Edition, New York, NY: Wadsworth Publishing.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. “The United States Security Industry: Size and Scope, Insights, Trends, and Data,” by ASIS International the Institute of Finance and Management (IOFM)
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
______. 1996. “State Making and War Making as Organized Crime.” Peter Evens, Dietrich Ruechemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, Bringing the State Back In, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
______. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Turse, Nick. 2010. “Empire of Bases 2.0.” Asian Times. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MA12Df01.html
United Nations Office on Crime and Drugs. “The Tenth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems” (Tenth CTS, 2005-2006). https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Tenth-CTS-full.html
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Correctional Officers: Occupational Outlook Handbook, Jan/2014. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective-Service/Correctional-officers.htm
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Section 5: Law Enforcement, Courts, and Prisons, p. 216. http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/law.pdf
U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. “Population Representation in Military Services.” http://prhome.defense.gov/portals/52/Documents/POPREP/poprep2010/summary/PopRep10Summ.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Justice. 2011. “Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008.” Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July, NCJ 233982. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf
______2012. “Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008.” U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June, NCJ 238250. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Justice. FY 2014 Budget Request at a Glance Discretionary Budget Authority. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/11/11/fy14-bud-sum.pdf
U.S. Dept. of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists, January 8, 2014. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Community-and-Social-Service/Probation-officers-and-correctional-treatment-specialists.htm#tab-1
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2014, 33-9032 Security Guards. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm#ind
“U.S. Military Personnel by Country” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.military.troops/
Wacquant, Loic. 2008a. Urban Outcast: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
______. 2008b. Forum on “Race, Incarceration, and American Values.” In Glenn C. Loury, ed., Race, Incarceration, and American Values. Cambridge, MA: Boston Review.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1983. “The Three Instances of Hegemony in the History of the Capitalist World-Economy.” Journal of Comparative Sociology XXIV, 1-2, January-April, 100-08.
Walmsley, Roy. 2011. World Population List, 9th Ed. Essex: International Centre for Prison Studies.
Western, Bruce. 2006. Punishment and Inequality in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
1 The established social arrangement is the result of cultural and material forces that combine to bring about a stable social order. Stability in this sense is the byproduct of combinations of value consensus that are precariously propagated by the dominate ideology, economic, and coercive means.
2For Katz (2007), the marginalized are people who are largely excluded from the rewards associated with full citizenship, including employment, housing, consumption, social benefits, and equal justice.
3“Projected Veteran Population 2013 to 2043,” Prepared by the National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (2014).
4According to Ruth (2012), the world’s largest employers are the following: the U.S. Department of Defense, 3.2.; the Chinese military 2.3; and Walmart 2.1 (in the millions).
5Lovell argues that police departments view the media as both supportive and adversarial and as a result developed specialized public information officers to insure that the pro-police message of professional crime fighting and how the brave men and women put their lives on the line every day to make the streets safe remain the dominant view (2010).
6These theorists focus on what is coined the repression and mobilization nexus, which analyzes how repression does not always produce demobilization; it in fact sometimes inspires greater resistance and wider participation in protest.
7Tilly provides examples to how the U.S. state authorities repressed some social movement groups, while protecting others and providing political access to them (1978, 100).
8According to Western, the highest rates of incarceration among blacks and whites males are among those who do not possess high school degrees: for black males it tripled to reach over 58% and for white males it more than doubled to 11.2% during the period between 1979 and 1997 (2006, 26).
9U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Correctional Officers: Occupational Outlook Handbook, Jan/2014.
10U.S. Dept. of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists, January 8, 2014.
11See Corrections Corporations of American website: www.cca.com.
12See the Public Interest website: http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/organization/corrections-corporation-america
13See Geo Group, Inc. 2012 Annual Report.
14See “Billions Behind Bars—Inside America’s Prison Industry.” CNBC. NBC Universal. 2013.
15 See “The Tenth United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems” (Tenth CTS, 2005-2006), United Nations Office On Crime and Drugs. In this survey, the U.S. reported that it had a police size of 683,396, which is 225.66 per 100,000, which is very similar to Canada’s ratio of 191.73 per 100,000. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Tenth-CTS-full.html
16See Department of Homeland Security website. https://www.dhs.gov/
17 See “Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder” (2004), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/BuildingPrivateSecurity.pdf In a more recent study titled, “The United States Security Industry: Size and Scope, Insights, Trends, and Data,” by ASIS International the Institute of Finance and Management (IOFM) find that private security in the U.S. is a $350 billion market and that there is estimated to be between 1.9 and 2.1 million full-time security workers.
18U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Section 5: Law Enforcement, Courts, and Prisons, p. 216.
19Figures obtained from Department of Homeland Security website: http://www.dhs.gov/
20U.S. Dept. of Justice. FY 2014 Budget Request at a Glance Discretionary Budget Authority.
21Reaves, Brian A. 2011. Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008. U.S. Dept. of Justice. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf
22Reaves, Brian A. 2012. “Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2008.” U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, June, NCJ 238250. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf
23U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Correctional Officers: Occupational Outlook Handbook, Jan/2014. http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective-Service/Correctional-officers.htm
28According to a 2012 U.S. Census Bureau report for the year 2006, there were 424,946 (368,668 full-time and 56,278 part-time) civilian employees (i.e., nonsworn) in city and state policing organizations (see Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Section 5: Law Enforcement, Courts, and Prisons, p. 216.). In adding the 230,000 in the DHS (Department of Homeland Security website: https://www.dhs.gov/) and the 116,512 in the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice. FY 2014 Budget Request at a Glance Discretionary Budget Authority) we arrive at a total of 346,512 of individuals employed at these two federal law enforcement branches. Then by subtracting the 120,000 estimated sworn federal law enforcement members and the 60,000 at the TSA, we arrive at the figure of 166,512, which we categorized as indirect federal personnel.
-
29.
-
See “Billions Behind Bars—Inside America’s Prison Industry.” CNBC. NBC Universal. 2013.
30 See “U.S. Military Personnel by Country” CNN.
31 U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. “Population Representation in Military Services.”
32 There were 113,376 in Afghanistan and 7,336 in Iraq. Of that total, 40,110 were U.S. citizens, 50,560 were local hires, and 46,231 were from neither the U.S. nor the country in which they were working (Isemberg 2012).
33 See Rizzo 2012.
34 See Rizzo 2012.
35 See Gellman and Miller 2013.
-
–By subtracting the 2,315,958 million individuals in active and reserve military branches (U.S. Department of Defense. 2010. “Population Representation in Military Services.”) from the 3,100,000 million of military and civilian individuals (CNN report), we arrive at approximately 784,040 civilians directly on the payroll of the armed forces.
37Refer to Table 2: Police Coercive Forces, we calculate that there are 591,458 indirect employees working in the policing sectors: 424,946 individuals as City and State Policing Personnel and 166,512 individuals as Federal Policing Personnel.
38← For chart sources, see also previous page, footnotes 36 & 37.
39 Since 1890, according to Bowles and Jayadev, guard labor (police, corrections officers, and private security guards) has increased four-fold, and today police outnumber those working directly or indirectly for the Pentagon (2007, 1-20).
40 According to Karl Marx, although this group does not produce surplus like workers, their role is to assist the capitalists to manage and realize the surplus produced (Suchting 1983, 115).
41See American Legion website: http://www.legion.org/history
42A possible explanation for higher levels of veterans’ opposition to the Vietnam War than the more permanent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and beyond is due in part to the military draft that was present during the war in Vietnam (among other factors).
43According to Robert L. Goldich, “Most first-term enlistees (like most people in the U.S.) certainly do not come from the more affluent sectors of American society,” but the popular belief that the military is the last resort for the “substandard” was never accurate based on enlistees having higher standardized test results, higher physical aptitudes, higher family income, and less criminal involvement than their civilian counterparts (2013, 93).
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Attribution to include the author or artist's name, date of first publication,
and the name of our journal: Radical Criminology.
ISSN 1929-7904 (Print) | ISSN 1929-7912 (Online)