Technologies of the body, technologies of the self: House arrest as neo-liberal governance

Between the ‘Home’ and ‘Institutional’ Worlds: Tensions and Contradictions in the Practice of House Arrest

“…On the one hand, the rigidity and disciplinary aspects of the program, which were designed to normalize them in an efficient and rational manner, ignored their personal differences, disrupted their home lives, damaged their sense of agency, and left many of them broken down and filled with anxiety. On the other hand, many of those same people were quick to claim that house arrest was a ''good deal,'' a ''much nicer alterative'' and one that, for many, provided needed ''structure'' in their lives and encouraged them to govern themselves by regulating their own bodies and conduct (Staples and Decker 2008).…”

“…For Foucault (1977, p. 155), disciplinary techniques aim to produce ''docile bodies'' or ones that may be ''subjected, used, transformed, and improved''. In this case, we see an attempt at neo-liberal, ''responsibilising'' punishment (and we have explored this dimension of the program elsewhere, see Staples and Decker 2008; see also Lee 2007;Lemke 2002;Robinson 2002;Kemshall 2002;O'Malley 2001) and the production of pliable cooperative ''clients'' who not only adhere to the program's small acts of ritualized compliance but who stop violating the law, go to work or school, and become less troublesome citizens. Here we cite a number of techniques imposed on program participants, including loss of personal efficacy, humiliation, exposure, sleep deprivation, and loss of agency in presenting the self.…”

Specialization and the Use of GPS for Domestic Violence by Pretrial Programs: Findings from a National Survey of U.S. Practitioners

“…Prior research has measured EM's "effects" (e.g., on recidivism; Bales et al, 2010;Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000;Padgett, Bales, & Blomberg, 2006;Renzema & Mayo-Wilson, 2005), addressed the policy implications of using EM (e.g., for specific groups; Ball, Huff, & Lilly, 1988;Buchanan, 2008;Corbett & Marx, 1991;Medick, 2008;Satine, 2008), and documented the experiences of offenders (and to a lesser degree, victims) with EM (Erez & Ibarra, 2007;Erez, Ibarra, & Gur, 2013;Erez, Ibarra, & Lurie, 2004;Hucklesby, 2009;Ibarra & Erez, 2005;Payne & Gainey, 1998;Staples & Decker, 2008), but has not given commensurate attention to the organization of "justice work" by EM-using institutions (Bullock, 2011;Cheliotis, 2006;Hucklesby, 2011;Paterson & Clamp, 2014;Seiter & West, 2003). Focusing on EM/GPS technology in the context of domestic violence (DV) 1 cases during the pretrial stage, the current study analyzes practitioner views and agency practices as documented by a U.S.-based survey.…”

Beyond the ‘All Seeing Eye’: Filipino Migrant Domestic Workers’ Contestation of Care and Control in Hong Kong

“…The emphasis on control is also evident in the wider theoretical debates that have dominated surveillance theory. Thus, while some writers argue that the emergence of new surveillance technologies is consistent with the 'disciplinary power' and 'self-governing capabilities' identified by Foucault (Staples and Decker, 2008), for others disciplinary power has been replaced with 'modulation' which works through models, simulation, codes, statistical tracking, and new methods of social sorting (Bogard, 2012: 32-33).…”