For 55 days, from March 17 to May 10, 2020, confinement prohibited the
movement of the population in France. This book questions how this
obedience was imposed through two axes. The first is the analysis of
forms of state coercion. The second is reserved for behaviors,
conformist or rebellious, and the issues that underlie them. Reading it
allows you to extract yourself from your personal experience and to have
a general snapshot of this period supported by many examples. We only
report the most salient aspects but the work is much richer than this
brief summary.
The first part of the book, the longest, returns to the form of
confinement applied in France, the State having opted for very strict
modalities compared to other countries, in particular by the absolute
ban on public spaces which will only rarely be applied elsewhere.
However, today, epidemiological studies seem to show that this has at
best had only a very weak effect on reducing contamination compared to
more flexible policies. The authors therefore question the motives of
the different policies and they note that the most coercive States are
those which have a greater presence of law enforcement: "There is a
marked affinity between confinement and usual repressive practices".
France has therefore experienced one of the most severe forms of
confinement which is linked to its usual repressive practices, in
particular the state of emergency (from November 2015 to November 2017).
She will thus experience the obligation to stay at home, with a shower
of even more restrictive local regulations which will be added to the
national rules. The new legal regime imposed has transformed any person
present in public space into a potential offender. Any exit required
completing a self-certification on "honour" justifying the reason. This
certificate "materializes the double play of constraint and obedience...
Do I have my form? Is it full? Am I overstepping the boundaries? Am I at
risk of an inspection? ". People "perversely" became the agents of their
subjugation, "transforming everyone into their own policeman." Access to
public space was regulated by the State and its relays. 100,000 law
enforcement officers were mobilized who had little else to do than
repress offenders, helped by auxiliaries (game warden, forest ranger...
and even hunters). There will be 21 million checks and more than 1
million arbitrary fines because anyone found outside was a priori
suspected of an offense (fine for buying only one baguette, for sitting
on a bench , to use a bike for shopping, to go out in flip-flops, etc.).
It was "a disciplinary device... to monitor and punish" relying on all
the available arsenal (from drones to boat or helicopter patrols). This
repression particularly affected the poorest and most immigrant areas,
with excessive verbalization in working-class neighborhoods ("financial
bludgeoning of young men from the "neighborhood"").
The second part discusses the different attitudes during confinement.
The authors look at the logic of obedience and we only take up a few of
their very interesting analyses. They recall that the repressive
situation prohibited organizing collective protest in the public space.
Apart from extremely rare public protests (all the media and political
organizations have generally relayed the need for this confinement in an
uncritical manner), people have had to "tinker" with individual
strategies. The absence of public protests should therefore not be
understood as a marker of consent because there have been discreet forms
of protest (such as chants in windows denouncing the government). A
fraction of people frequently circumvented the rules (falsifying
certificates, going out beyond 1 km, etc.). Another fraction of the
population scrupulously respected the rules imposed in the continuity of
respect for the social order. Furthermore, part of the population seems
to have remained cloistered at home... and the sociological profile does
not refer to elderly people. What explains this compartmentalization
refers to cultural and political capital. The unclear nature of the
exceptions allowing exits, their frequent modifications, seem to have
prevented these people from calmly understanding the possibilities
available to them and therefore did not resort to what the law
authorized them. There is therefore clearly a social divide in the
different strategies adopted, particularly between men and women. Women
will be caught between work (a result of the gendered segmentation of
the labor market) and domestic activities. In addition, the policing of
the home imposed by men means that "confinement has become an additional
instrument to regain control over their partner". Finally, the authors
return to the numerous accusations and try to understand the levers.
Confinement and the permanent imposed promiscuity will generate a
nuisance, particularly noise, "instead of saying 'my neighbor is making
noise', we could now say 'my neighbor is not respecting the
confinement'[...]These denunciations are not emanations of spontaneous
popular participation in the restrictions, but are part of the efforts
made to protect against their consequences.
This book is rich both in accounts of what really happened during
confinement and in detailed analyzes that go beyond the false evidence.
However, although the authors discuss methodological constraints at
length and in an educational manner, they seem to perhaps overinterpret
some statistical results. Despite this minor drawback, the approach
taken makes it possible to provide indications on the differentiated
strategies during confinement and in the end it is much more their
analyzes than the figures presented which are interesting.
VR
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4173
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
movement of the population in France. This book questions how this
obedience was imposed through two axes. The first is the analysis of
forms of state coercion. The second is reserved for behaviors,
conformist or rebellious, and the issues that underlie them. Reading it
allows you to extract yourself from your personal experience and to have
a general snapshot of this period supported by many examples. We only
report the most salient aspects but the work is much richer than this
brief summary.
The first part of the book, the longest, returns to the form of
confinement applied in France, the State having opted for very strict
modalities compared to other countries, in particular by the absolute
ban on public spaces which will only rarely be applied elsewhere.
However, today, epidemiological studies seem to show that this has at
best had only a very weak effect on reducing contamination compared to
more flexible policies. The authors therefore question the motives of
the different policies and they note that the most coercive States are
those which have a greater presence of law enforcement: "There is a
marked affinity between confinement and usual repressive practices".
France has therefore experienced one of the most severe forms of
confinement which is linked to its usual repressive practices, in
particular the state of emergency (from November 2015 to November 2017).
She will thus experience the obligation to stay at home, with a shower
of even more restrictive local regulations which will be added to the
national rules. The new legal regime imposed has transformed any person
present in public space into a potential offender. Any exit required
completing a self-certification on "honour" justifying the reason. This
certificate "materializes the double play of constraint and obedience...
Do I have my form? Is it full? Am I overstepping the boundaries? Am I at
risk of an inspection? ". People "perversely" became the agents of their
subjugation, "transforming everyone into their own policeman." Access to
public space was regulated by the State and its relays. 100,000 law
enforcement officers were mobilized who had little else to do than
repress offenders, helped by auxiliaries (game warden, forest ranger...
and even hunters). There will be 21 million checks and more than 1
million arbitrary fines because anyone found outside was a priori
suspected of an offense (fine for buying only one baguette, for sitting
on a bench , to use a bike for shopping, to go out in flip-flops, etc.).
It was "a disciplinary device... to monitor and punish" relying on all
the available arsenal (from drones to boat or helicopter patrols). This
repression particularly affected the poorest and most immigrant areas,
with excessive verbalization in working-class neighborhoods ("financial
bludgeoning of young men from the "neighborhood"").
The second part discusses the different attitudes during confinement.
The authors look at the logic of obedience and we only take up a few of
their very interesting analyses. They recall that the repressive
situation prohibited organizing collective protest in the public space.
Apart from extremely rare public protests (all the media and political
organizations have generally relayed the need for this confinement in an
uncritical manner), people have had to "tinker" with individual
strategies. The absence of public protests should therefore not be
understood as a marker of consent because there have been discreet forms
of protest (such as chants in windows denouncing the government). A
fraction of people frequently circumvented the rules (falsifying
certificates, going out beyond 1 km, etc.). Another fraction of the
population scrupulously respected the rules imposed in the continuity of
respect for the social order. Furthermore, part of the population seems
to have remained cloistered at home... and the sociological profile does
not refer to elderly people. What explains this compartmentalization
refers to cultural and political capital. The unclear nature of the
exceptions allowing exits, their frequent modifications, seem to have
prevented these people from calmly understanding the possibilities
available to them and therefore did not resort to what the law
authorized them. There is therefore clearly a social divide in the
different strategies adopted, particularly between men and women. Women
will be caught between work (a result of the gendered segmentation of
the labor market) and domestic activities. In addition, the policing of
the home imposed by men means that "confinement has become an additional
instrument to regain control over their partner". Finally, the authors
return to the numerous accusations and try to understand the levers.
Confinement and the permanent imposed promiscuity will generate a
nuisance, particularly noise, "instead of saying 'my neighbor is making
noise', we could now say 'my neighbor is not respecting the
confinement'[...]These denunciations are not emanations of spontaneous
popular participation in the restrictions, but are part of the efforts
made to protect against their consequences.
This book is rich both in accounts of what really happened during
confinement and in detailed analyzes that go beyond the false evidence.
However, although the authors discuss methodological constraints at
length and in an educational manner, they seem to perhaps overinterpret
some statistical results. Despite this minor drawback, the approach
taken makes it possible to provide indications on the differentiated
strategies during confinement and in the end it is much more their
analyzes than the figures presented which are interesting.
VR
http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4173
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten