The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State ( Cambridge Studies in Law and Society) [John Torpey] on *FREE* shipping. Daniel Nordman THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT Surveillance, Citizenship and the State John Torpey University of California, Irvine □H CAMBRIDGE. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Front Cover · John Torpey, Professor of Sociology John Torpey. Cambridge University .
|Published (Last):||11 March 2015|
|PDF File Size:||20.21 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.18 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This generosity only increased the admiration I had for them, which was of course what had led me to write to them in the first place. How are the people who make up “societies” compelled to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”?
Working with her has been both a real pleasure and jojn extended private tutorial entirely unrecom- pensed in scholarly professionalism. Yet objections concerning the feasibility passpotr implementing this provi- sion led the Assembly to drop it. Indeed, this sort of popular usurpation of the “legitimate means of movement” is typical of situations in which states are being revolutionized or have disintegrated.
The United States and the end of the Laissez faire era in migration. On 24 February 1 the Convention had embarked upon a levy of men to be drawn from among bachelors and widowers between the ages of twenty and forty.
John Torpey – Wikipedia
In order to distinguish between those who may and may not enter or leave, states everywhere have developed extensive systems of identification, central to which is the passport. Freedom of movement — United States. Prior to the French Revolution, for example, descriptions of a person’s social standing – residence, occupation, family status, etc.
Indeed, accord- ing to Sophie Wahnich, with this ordinance the surveillance of foreigners becomes institutionalized “not simply in the order of normal- ized police practices, but in the order of writing. Lemontey insisted that he was not far from supporting the passport restrictions, but only if the controls “leave nothing to arbitrariness” and would not “defame us in the eyes of Europe”: At this point, at least, the term “foreigners” therefore applied as much to those who opposed the revolution, regardless of their “national” origins, as it did to persons not of French birth.
For the advocates of the reinstitution of passport controls on the French citizenry, however, such requirements comprised a tolerable infringement on freedom in defense of the revolution’s broader achieve- ments. As a consequence of the Tennis Court Oath, according to which the revolutionaries had pledged in late June not to leave Paris without completing work on a new constitu- tion, 8 the assembly ironically found itself on 9 October discussing the freedom of its own members to move about.
The result of this process has been to deprive people of the freedom to move across certain spaces and to render them dependent on states and the state system for the authorization to do so – an authority widely held in private hands theretofore. Michael Mann is cor- rect that the “unusual strength of modern states is infrastructural,” 15 and their capacity to embrace their own subjects and to exclude unwanted others is the essence of that infrastructural power. Such analy- ses have posited that successful states developed the ability to reach into societies to extract various kinds of resources, yet they typically fail to offer any specific discussion of the means they adopted to achieve these ends.
Torpey received his bachelor of arts degree from Amherst College in in political sciencebefore completing his Ph.
John Torpey : The invention of the passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State
The Bill nonetheless reflected a dramatic shift in mood from the ebullient September days. Ultimately, the authority to regulate movement came to be primarily a property of the international system as a whole – that is, of nation-states acting in concert to enforce their interests in controlling who comes and goes.
They were thus very valuable documents that people were prepared to lie about in order to get. The version of the law that was actually adopted required that those departing from the Kingdom- French or foreign – indicate this intention to the municipal authorities in their place of residence, and that this act be mentioned in their passports.
Frontier areas were regarded as “hot,” however, for here the administrative and municipal organs were to “keep watch meticulously. In the end, the Assembly granted its president the authority to issue passports to its members, thus making the liberal choice that free- dom of movement was to be preferred to constraint, even under conditions of substantial domestic political tension.
A revolution that commenced with the destruction of passports must insure a sufficient measure of freedom to travel, even in times of crisis. Eventually, the principal boundaries that counted were those not of municipalities, but of nation-states. Once I had seriously embarked on the project, two other people, Gerard Noiriel and Jane Caplan, lent their enthusiasm and provided shining examples of the kind of scholarship I wanted to produce.
People are also “erfassen” by the census. As we have seen, however, the likelihood is that it would have been relatively easy to circumvent these require- ments. This study focuses on the vicissitudes of documentary controls on movement in Western Europe and the United States from the time of the French Revolution until the relatively recent past.
As European states declined in num- ber, grew in size, and fostered large-scale markets for wage labor outside the reach of landowners and against the traditional constraints imposed 8 COMING AND GOING by localities, the provision of poor relief also moved from the local to the national arena.
In concluding yhe enthusiastic endorsement of the proposed passport law, Le Coz wondered aloud: Those who departed from the route indicated in their passports, or who stopped along the way for any length of time, were to be arrested by the national guards or departmental police and required to explain themselves.
During the ensuing weeks, General Dumouriez concluded an armistice with the Austrians with joun intention of marching on Paris to restore the monarchy and the Constitution of ; the death penalty was invoked against armed rebels, refractory priests, and emigres; and, by the end of the month, the latter had died “civil death” and were subject to the physical variety if they returned to the country. Such devices as identity papers, censuses, and travel certificates thus were not merely on a par with conscription and taxation as elements of state- building, but were in fact essential to their successful realization and 14 COMING AND GOING grew, over time, superordinate to them as tools of administration that made these other activities possible or at least enforceable.
The process also paralleled the rationalization and nationalization of poor relief, for communal obligations to provide such relief were an important source of the desire for controls on movement.
Ever since, politics have been driven by the dynamics deriving from that passpkrt. I am grate- ful to Phillipa McGuinness and Sharon Mullins at Cambridge University Press for their enthusiasm about the project, and for holding the door open just a little longer than they might have liked.
Surveillance, Citizenship, and the State, which examines the institution of the modern passport. Inbention order to do so, they must be able to construct an enduring relationship between the sundry agencies that constitute states and both the individuals they govern and possible interlopers.
Following the rhetoric used by Marx and Weber, this book seeks to demonstrate the proposi- tion that modern states, and the international state system of which they are a part, have expropriated from individuals and private entities the legitimate “means of movement,” particularly though by no means exclusively across international boundaries.
First, I show how tue why states have sought to monopolize the “legitimate means of movement” – that is, to gather into their own hands the exclusive right to authorize and regulate movement. This gap considerably limited the far-reaching claims of the nation state to control the movement of persons in, into, and across its territory far into the 20 th century. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Brissot declared on 31 December that “the time has come for a new crusade, a crusade for universal freedom.