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.
Zero Tolerance and the Dangers of Oversimplification
Grabosky (1999) finds the concept of "zero tolerance" policing troubling, as it is reminiscent of the urge to seek a quick fix to the nation's crime problems. It is, therefore, a simplistic statement and a potentially dangerous step in the direction of a totalitarian society. The police are made to seem like an occupying army, when in reality there is no single panacea, since crime is a complex affair stemming from many causes and many different origins.
Governments do not intend it to be so. In an obfuscating loop of good intentions, disillusionment, and renewed hope (Cohen, 1985), the criminal justice system — including jails and the police force — is nonetheless not working (Home Office Research Study 292, 2005). It is in danger of becoming more authoritarian, as the HMIC (2010) observes: "The CJS has grown in the absence of any systematic control. In the last 15 years there have been at least 14 pieces of legislation that have added to the process" (p. 4).
Postmodern Society and the Case for Pluralist Policing
To that end, individuals such as Waters (2007) urge police leaders and policymakers to adopt postmodern sensitivities in relation to social change and policing. Today's society is increasingly fragmented, diverse, and eclectic. Waters (2007) recommends that policing adopt a mirror-image approach — one constructed within a postmodernist framework that reflects external social conditions. This means investigating all the different lifestyle groupings and the endless variety of practices and "lifeworlds" that fall within them.
Today's complex society cannot be reduced to the homogeneity assumed by a modernist perspective. There are multiple influences on the social environment, including economic, societal, political, and technological changes that bombard it in an unceasing barrage. Not only is today's environment far more complex than it has ever been (Shattock, Hedges, Brain, Grieve, & Lake, 1996), but individuals themselves are comprised of multiple narratives and perspectives, with often-conflicting facets and needs.
Gibbins (1998), therefore, recommends that police policy abandon essentialism and adopt a new perspective of pluralism and pragmatism. Recognition that society is complex and ambiguous would lead to greater empathy toward criminals and their actions, and would result in greater success in achieving actualization on both an individual and social level. Rather than society being repressed under a totalitarian-like vision of a homogenized nation-state, the recognition of multiplicity and plurality could lead to a more open, accepting society that more effectively addresses crime in the long run (Gibbins, 1998; Gibbins & Reimer, 1999).
More specifically, this approach could lead to innovation in areas such as drug policy and more effective strategies for rendering drug abuse unattractive; advances in fair employment that would in turn reduce crime; changes in the handling of public order demonstrations; and progress in dealing with computer crime (Smith, Williamson, & Cramphorn, 1998). Other policy changes could include an open-house model where police, instead of focusing almost exclusively on criminality and crime reduction, demonstrate to the public that they are present for them as a comforting and reassuring presence — thereby drawing closer to the community as a whole (HMIC, 2001).
Conclusion: Re-engaging with the Public
As Adlam (2003) most adroitly notes: "The police cannot ultimately be effective in tackling crime unless they re-engage with the public" (p. 13). In order to re-engage with the public, one must understand them — not as an undifferentiated whole upon which power is imposed, but rather in all their complexity and fractured diversity.
Postmodernism, then, does not simply undermine crime control. Rather, it offers a framework within which policing can become more genuinely responsive, more effective, and more legitimate in the eyes of the communities it serves.
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.