Postmodern Policing: Rethinking Crime Control in Society
This essay examines the tension between modernist and postmodernist approaches to policing and crime control. Drawing on Foucault's critique of the prison system, Gibbins's call for pluralism, and Waters's recommendations for postmodern sensitivities in policing, the paper argues that contemporary society's fragmentation, diversity, and complexity demand a fundamental rethinking of law enforcement policy. The essay critiques zero-tolerance policing and authoritarian criminal justice expansion, and instead advocates for community-engaged, pluralist approaches that acknowledge multiple social narratives, reduce essentialism, and ultimately prove more effective at addressing the root causes of crime.
- The Modernist Vision of Policing and Its Limits: Modernity frames policing as universal, objective law enforcement
- Foucault and the Failure of Punitive Institutions: Prison systems impose identity rather than correct behaviour
- Zero Tolerance and the Dangers of Oversimplification: Zero tolerance policing risks authoritarianism and oversimplification
- Postmodern Society and the Case for Pluralist Policing: Fragmented society demands pluralist, community-oriented policing
- Identity, Complexity, and Criminal Justice: Modern identity is multiple; criminals cannot be simply labelled
- Conclusion: Re-engaging with the Public: Effective policing requires understanding the public's complexity
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in a clear theoretical tension — modernism versus postmodernism — and traces that tension consistently across policing, punishment, and social policy.
- Uses high-profile theoretical voices (Foucault, Giddens, Gibbins) alongside empirical policy sources (HMIC, Home Office) to balance philosophical argument with practical evidence.
- Moves logically from critique (what is wrong with current models) to prescription (what postmodern policing should look like), giving the essay a purposeful arc.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of extended quotation followed by analytical commentary. The Foucault block quotation, for instance, is not left to speak for itself — the author integrates it into a broader argument about institutional failure and then connects it to contemporary policy evidence, showing how a canonical theoretical text applies directly to current practice.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by defining the modernist conception of policing and immediately problematizes it. It then moves through Foucauldian critique, the specific problem of zero-tolerance policing, and the legislative growth of the criminal justice system. The central section makes an affirmative case for postmodern policing principles — pluralism, community engagement, and recognition of social complexity. The paper closes by tying individual identity complexity to the need for a fundamentally different relationship between police and public.
The Modernist Vision of Policing and Its Limits
The modernist vision of the police force is that it functions as a replica of the nation-state, enforcing a unitary body of law on a specific population. In this view, policing is an objective institution expressing a universal truth and binding social deviants to follow that truth. Postmodernism, through consumerism, the fragmentation of values, globalization, and the fracturing of the nation-state, is popularly seen as destructive to modernity's grasp on crime control and community safety (Gibbins, 1998; O'Malley, 2005). That, however, as this essay shows, is not so clear.
Foucault and the Failure of Punitive Institutions
Foucault summed it up nicely when he referred to the prison system as an institution that foists an identity on a specific population (Hill & Tait, 2004), and by so doing fails in its stated objective of "correcting" these individuals:
"The prison, and no doubt, punishment in general, is not intended to eliminate offences, but rather to distinguish them, to distribute them, to use them; that it is not so much that they render docile those who are liable to transgress the law, but that they tend to discriminate the transgression of the laws in a general tactic of subjection. The failure of prison may be understood on this basis" (Foucault, 1977, p. 272).
In a similar manner, Michel Foucault's broader influence on criminology is evident in how subsequent scholars have questioned whether punitive institutions can ever achieve their stated rehabilitative aims, given that their primary function appears to be one of social sorting rather than genuine correction.
References
Adlam, R. (2003). A postmodern reading of the contemporary British police. Bramshill: National Police Leadership Centre.
Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control. UK: Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Gibbins, J. (1998). Postmodernism, poststructuralism and social policy. In J. Carter (Ed.), Postmodernity and the fragmentation of welfare. UK: Blackwell.
Gibbins, J., & Reimer, B. (1999). The politics of postmodernity: An introduction to contemporary politics and culture. London: Sage.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. London: Sage.
Grabosky, P. N. (1999). Zero tolerance policing. AIC Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 102, 1–17.
Hill, R., & Tait, G. (2004). Hard lessons: Reflections on governance and crime control in late modernity. Gateshead: Athaneum Press.
HMIC. (2001). Open all hours. London: Home Office.
HMIC. (2010). Stop the drift: A focus on 21st century criminal justice. London: Home Office.
Home Office Research Study 292. (2005). Assessing the impact of CCTV. London: Home Office Research.
O'Malley, P. (2005). Policing, politics and postmodernity. In T. Newburn (Ed.), Policing: Key readings. USA: Willan Publishing.
Shattock, L., Hedges, M., Brain, G., Grieve, E., & Lake, S. (1996). Through the millennium: The policing agenda. Avon and Somerset Constabulary.
South, S. (2000). Late modern tensions, not post-modern transformations. CJM, 38.
Waters, I. (2007). Policing, modernity and postmodernity. In I. Waters (Ed.), Policing and society. USA: Routledge.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.