This article takes a critical look at 'the ontological turn'. Illuminating 'the turn's' theoretical point of departure, and clarifying its anthropological implications, the article argues that two key problems arise if the theory is to be taken at face value. It points, first of all, to the difficulty in studying 'radical alterity', in the manner proposed by the new understanding of ontology within anthropology. If anthropology is, as the ontological turn advocates, not a study of multiple 'world-views' but of essentially different 'worlds' altogether, how, we ask, does one approach this methodologically? Put in other words, if we really believe in radically essential, fundamental ontological difference with what registers can we, then, conceive and describe ontological others in ways that do them ethnographic justice? Secondly, the article ponders the issues of radical essentialism and immanence advocated by the ontological turn, and shows how an anthropological endeavour that advocates incommensurable difference, as an analytical point of departure, may be problematic in relation to the impact that anthropology has outside academia. As history has so vividly shown us, anthropological constructions of radical alterity and ontological difference offer themselves, in social terms, all too easily to political constructions of Otherness.

In police research, dominant explanations of why law enforcers harbour xenophobic attitudes are most often dressed in cultural or political rationalizations. Based on an ethnographic study of Danish police detectives and their noticeable negativity towards foreign suspects, this article offers an additional explanation of xenophobia. It demonstrates how resentments are spurred not only by cultural prejudice or politics but also by the ways in which foreigners complicate quite ordinary yet, from a police perspective, valued work practices. Following this ethnographic observation, the article ultimately constitutes a call for a better grounding of our criminological theories in the wider context of the workday situations and sensibilities of law enforcement.

No abstract

A common conclusion in criminology is that fears of terrorism are being (mis)used. The media have used them to market their products, politicians to promote themselves as protectors, and the police have profited through being granted increased powers and resources. Some scholars even argue that one outcome has been a growing militarization of the police. This article revisits this debate. It does so by taking an ethnographic look at how the war on terror has affected a number of Danish police detectives’ daily work. In doing so, the paper shows how the idea that police (mostly) benefit from the war on terror somewhat misses the mark – at least when seen from the perspective of frontline officers. As the article demonstrates, rather than mobilizing Danish detectives, terrorism most often makes them feel mired.

No abstract