Search results

What counts as evidence of good performance, behaviour or character? While quantitative metrics have long been used to measure performance and productivity in schools, factories and workplaces, what is striking today is the extent to which these calculative methods and rationalities are being extended into new areas of life through the global spread of performance indicators (PIs) and performance management systems. What began as part of the neoliberalising projects of the 1980s with a few strategically chosen PIs to give greater state control over the public sector through contract management and mobilising ‘users’ has now proliferated to include almost every aspect of professional work. The use of metrics has also expanded from managing professionals to controlling entire populations. This chapter focuses on the rise of these new forms of audit and their effects in two areas: first, the alliance being formed between state-collected data and that collected by commercial companies on their customers through, for example loyalty cards and credit checks. Second, China’s new social credit system, which allocates individual scores to each citizen and uses rewards of better or privileged service to entice people to volunteer information about themselves, publish their ‘ratings’ and compete with friends for status points. This is a new development in the use of audit simultaneously to discipline whole populations and responsibilise individuals to perform according to new state and commercial norms about the reliable/conforming ‘good’ citizen.

This chapter explores the competing perspectives (i.e., the “community advocates” and the “community skeptics”) on the recent move toward community in an attempt to conceptualize what this “move” means for social control. An examination of the inclusiveness of community initiatives with a focus on community policing is used to demonstrate that the move toward community contains elements of both empowerment and responsibilization. In particular, the move toward community is paradoxical in that empowerment and responsibilization occurs simultaneously and to varying degrees within inclusive community initiatives. It is argued that a socially inclusive approach to community-police partnerships works to enhance society's web of social control. However, at the same time, community members hold the potential to work together to shape this web of social control.

Media attention on nonconsensual intimate image dissemination has led to the relatively recent proliferation of academic research on the topic. This literature has focused on many areas including victimization and perpetration prevalence rates, coerced sexting, legal and/or criminal contexts, sexual violence in digital spaces, gendered constructions of blame and risk, and legal analysis of high-profile cases and legislation. Despite this research, several gaps exist, including a lack of empirical research with service providers. Informed by in-depth interviews with 10 sexual violence frontline professionals in Southern Ontario (Canada), this chapter focuses on their perspectives of the additive role of technology. With respect to nonconsensual intimate image dissemination, technology acts as a digital “layer” that operates in addition to the commission of physical acts of sexual violence, and compounds the harms experienced by the victim by adding a virtual – and indelible – “permanent remembering” of the violence. Nuancing the contours of consent in a digital age, this chapter concludes by considering what consent means in a technological context.

This chapter provides a historical contextualisation of health tracking and public health communication from the post-World War Two development of the welfare state, through the birth of neoliberalism, until today’s individualising practices of digital health tracking and quantification of bodies. Through an examination of these three phases of public health quantification of bodies, encompassing the socio-economic, cultural and political shifts since 1948, combined with the development and wide adoption of digital health and self-quantifying technologies, this chapter traces the changing landscape and the dramatic implications this has had for shifting who is responsible for maintaining ‘good’ health. This chapter illustrates how neoliberal free market principles have reigned over UK public health discourse for many decades, seeing health as no longer binary to illness, but as a practice of individual self-quantification and self-care. In turn, the chapter explores how the quantification and health tracking of bodies has become a dominant discourse in public health promotion, as well as individual citizenship and patient practices. This discourse still exists pervasively as we move into the digital society of the 2020s, through the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond; with public health strategies internationally promoting the use of digital health tools in our everyday, further positioning citizens as entrepreneurial subjects, adopting extensive technological measures in an attempt to measure and ‘optimise’ health, normalising the everyday quantification of bodies.

The ‘fit healthy’ body has been invoked in popular discourse as far less vulnerable to communicable diseases like the novel coronavirus both in mainstream accounts of the pandemic and in more fringe anti-vaccine discourse. Those opposed to vaccination argue the management of the body through diet and exercise allows for natural immune processes to manage COVID-19. This chapter interrogates anti-vaccine sentiment in Western countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States to demonstrate the pervasiveness of discourses that position the maintenance of a ‘fit healthy’ ideal body as an alternative to preventative medicine such as vaccines. Drawing on several key examples, this conceptual chapter explores the ways bodily ‘wellness’ became a part of vaccine hesitancy discourse during the pandemic, as risk is balanced through calculations of what vaccines might ‘do’ to a body and the body’s capacity to respond to illness.

This chapter argues that neoliberal governmentality in immunization relocates the Turkish state's position regarding vaccine and immunization policies. Neoliberalism is often discussed in the context of privatization, performance, and effectiveness separately. However, more attention should be paid to the set of strategies that are employed in public policy processes to manage populations in terms of immunization, while intertwining power with knowledge. Following Foucault's concept of governmentality and taking it further within the context of biopolitics, this chapter focuses on different knowledge practices regarding vaccine and immunization policies in Turkey. In doing so, this case study applies a post-structural analysis to examine vaccine production, vaccine know-how, and immunization policies inscribed in policy documents as a form of knowledge practice. The analysis sheds light on the reflexive transformation of the concept of biopolitics, which is moving from state-oriented knowledge practices toward a neoliberal governmentality of immunization.

Metaphorically, the garden invokes a repertoire of skills, arts, and virtues that run counter to the act of confinement but are embedded in its disciplinary practice: spaces in punitive environments where care, growth, health, and cultivation are emphasized. Gardens and the force of law and labor are foregrounded in Judeo-Christian myths, in slavery, and in prison farms as spaces of expulsion and brutality. Yet as abandoned, fortress-style prisons dilapidate, and vines and weeds break through concrete, we can begin to ask, What might it mean to imagine the prison through the lens of the garden?

This chapter draws on data from two studies, one in Canada and another in the United States, focused on the experiences of pedagogical partnership as described by students traditionally underrepresented and underserved in higher education. These students argue that such collaborations with faculty hold promise for creating more inclusive and responsive practices. Using the concept of epistemic justice, the authors explore how partnerships can facilitate epistemological forms of equity and inclusion by (1) creating more equitable conceptions of knowing and knowledge that open possibilities for (2) fostering students’ confidence in their knowledge and willingness to share it with others. The authors argue that partnerships – in their epistemic, relational, and affective impacts – are one powerful way to recognize underrepresented and underserved students as “holders and creators of knowledge” (Delgado-Bernal, 2002, p. 106) and bring about greater epistemic justice in higher education.

Drawing from interviews with individuals on parole, this chapter explores experiences of and responses to penal misrecognition. It documents that participants feel fundamentally misrecognised by the parole agency and penal state. They believe that the penal state views them as dangerous, defective and incapable of virtuous self-governance. Yet this is not how they perceive themselves. This leads to a delicate balancing act where participants refuse certain aspects of the penal state while accommodating others. On the one hand, individuals refuse parole’s misrecognition of them and reject the state’s authority to define who they are. On the other hand, they largely acquiesce to parole’s authority to supervise and regulate conduct. Turning to the concept of refusal highlights that individuals do not just attempt to resist penal power; rather, they flatly reject the state’s epistemic constructions. They do this by turning away from parole and by turning towards other forms of sociality beyond the penal state. This creates material and affective distance from parole and opens up space for self-recognition and for receiving positive recognition from others. In this way, individuals seek to minimise, move away from and/or bypass a penal intervention that is ostensibly designed to assist and support them.