Globalization, Sovereignty and Criminology: The Case of Forced Migration

Sharon Pickering, Monash University

Conditions of late modernity and globalisation have prompted a renegotiation and even realignment of the field of criminology. As the discipline re-examines its traditional terrain as well as the vast spaces it has moved into, the intellectual questions that come to be posed redefine the focus, if not the craft, of doing criminology. In parallel, the territorially sovereign state, which has sustained various assaults on its power, grants dominion to those able to secure personal safety and mobility which comes with that secure (non-suspect) identity. To those unable to secure/afford their own personal safety their mobility becomes itself suspect. Their forced territoriality to home/prison is in contrasxt to what Bauman identifies as the mobility and safety of the extra-territorial elite. Those that seek territorial protection, through their suspicious mobility challenges the few territorially rooted functions of the state in an anxious condition and sees the refugee designated with the forced territorially of the unsafe and immobile. But this is to tempt an analysis that locates the deviant as actor and the state as merely responder (from misguided to malicious). However, deviance rarely precedes regulation and rather regulation often creates the conditions upon which the other is created and then censured, produced and then excluded. The drive to regulate, to control, to impose order/norms, to discipline the flow of forced migration creates and engages categories that upon application can only be failed and thus have regulatory subjects designated dangerous.

(Return to Program Resources)

Updated 05/20/2006