From both the New New Left and from libertarians, we're getting all sorts of teh stupidz on modern police being created as an instrument of control (labor control on the New New Left, general quasi-fascist control from libertarians) rather than what they really were created for by Robert Peel, and that was first and foremost as a way to control crime.
Showing again why I rightly removed Counterpunch from my blogroll,
Sam Mitrani spouts the New New Left nonsense.
Edited from an exchange of emails, here's my refudiation of his piece.
First, something halfway like policing existed 2,500 years
ago with the Shah's eyes and ears in the Achaemenid Empire, or the Imperial
urban cohorts in Rome. Chinese of antiquity also had police forces that even did detective work. Roman vigiles and urban cohorts, Middle English constables and Chinese prefecture patrols did patrolling, and even did some criminal investigation. That and more (except the Persians, who were like a state trooper unit, not city police) are discussed in the "
ancient policing" section of Wiki's generally good article.
So, right there, Mitrani is wrong as rain:
Before the nineteenth century, there were no police forces that we would recognize as such anywhere in the world.
Simply not true. And, for a professor of history giving me an "invitation" to learn more about police history, an "invitation" that seemed a mix of earnestness and lecture, it's somewhat disconcerting to see him not just minorly wrong, but majorly wrong, even while issuing that "invitation."
Now, on to modern times, which is where Mitrani's "narrative" proper starts. Recent readers here will note that when I have the word "narrative" in scare quotes, I'm not talking about a literary device but rather, a sociological one.
That said, on to examination of Mitrani's "narrative."
In 19th century London, second,
Robert Peel's
Metropolitan Police weren't invented as the first modern police force as "an instrument of oppression"
or whatever.
Sadly, I've seen this meme or variations of it running
around both portions of the New New Left and libertarianism, and it's just not
true.
It's true that Americans refused to follow Peel's attempts
at professionalization. It's also true that, at times, police were used to
"thump" labor. (As was the US Army, which Mitrani admits.)
The modern police weren't created for labor control in
general as their primary focus, "oppression" or not. While the
"betters" may have been worried about the "lessers"
bringing more crime to the city, it was the influx of numbers in general that
was part of the issue. That's why Paris, a major city before London, had a
police force long before London did.
And, 17th century Paris wasn't the same thing as 19th century London, anyway. They were separated by a gulf of a steadily growing British democracy, and by nearly 200 years of British idea-making and philosophy.
In fact, Peel
based his ideas in part on the utilitarianism of
Jeremy Bentham. Far from being an oppressor, Bentham was a "leveler," if you will:
Bentham became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts. He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children.
Pretty hard to claim that's the stuff of "oppression." Peel's
Nine Principles of policing make clear his pragmatic approach, and the desire to move police in a non-military, non-oppressive direction.
Now, it's true that 19th-century American policing leaders didn't want to follow the "professionalizing" ideas of Peel. That's because urban American police in the 19th century were part of urban political power and thus responsible for many other
things, including ward heelers passing out the grafting favors to the working
class in exchange for their vote.
Between various portions of the New Left and various
portions of libertarians spreading memes in the last month about why the police
were "really" created, including the slave patrols claim, memes
that meet on the far side of the circle, we've got plenty of ... to borrow from
Chris Mooney ... "motivated reasoning" being spread around.
My motivated reasoning is looking at the actual history of
police, both Peel's, and before and after, around the world, as I told Mitrani.
His, it is clear, is indeed Mooneyite (love saying it that way!) motivated reasoning, which, contra Mooney, many liberals do plenty of. It's very clear that he wants to tell a narrative rather than (despite his earnestness of silken glove hiding small brass knuckles of a quasi-lecture inside in his reply to me) actually accurately discuss the history of modern policing.
So, spread the memes; spread them like fertilizer (hint, hint, Gentle Reader) to those who readily devour "narratives." But, I'm not buying.
This is why I call myself a skeptical left-liberal
(for American political stances).
That said, he's not the only one spreading the memes. I reference libertarians as well.
Radley Balko, in his book last year on the militarization of modern American police, to which I gave
an iffy three stars, makes some of the same errors. He gets ancient policing history wrong, and tries to shoehorn modern policing, specifically in America, into a preconceived narrative.
Behind this is the larger libertarian narrative, that "
tyranny" is lurking in, under and around every actual or proposed action by any level of government. I sometimes think libertarians have wet dreams about the word. In fact, I have mentioned that before,
as part of a discussion about libertarians' motivated reasoning on what counts as criminal behavior.
None of this is to say that "bad cops" don't exist. They do, and yes,
I've blogged about it. However, contra another narrative that runs through certain portions of, again, both the New Left and libertarians, that doesn't mean that the majority of cops are bad. That said, neither are the vast majority of cops Santa Clauses in uniform. Rather, they're people who are doing a job with a fair amount of stress, and probably no more, if not less, racial bias than America as a whole, at least in police forces that have a certain amount of diversity.
I noted above that these two narratives meet in a circle on the far side of nutbardom.
The "class repression" myth ultimately opens the door for Black Bloc types to steal and vandalize in the name of economic justice and equality. The "tyranny" myth, as noted at that "discussion" link, ultimately opens the door for stealing from the government.
Oh, well, this post does fit with a New Year's resolution — to be even more resolute, as part of
my developing neo-Cynicism, in rejecting "narratives."
