In this article Bas van Stokkom and Marc Schuilenburg discuss work and life of the Dutch sociologist Abram de Swaan. The article is based on an interview the authors conducted with de Swaan as well as themes that de Swaan developed in his published work. The article discusses in particular themes such as violence and compartimentalization, the work of Norbert Elias, and public sociology.

This article starts off with an exposé of what ‘theoretical innovation’ means in the social sciences. The development of criminology is considered to be a result of (1) historical and cultural developments, (2) political-economic developments, (3) developments in other academic disciplines and (4) reactions to or specifications of other theoretical perspectives in criminology itself. Paradigm shifts in criminology are characterised by an individualistic and positivist aetiological turn in its early days; a sociological turn towards a ‘criminology of the lawmaker’ from the late 1950s on; and a return to positivism in the neoliberal and neoconservative turn of the 1990s. The new century ushers in a new epistemological break in criminology, in which globalisation, global warming, migration, human rights and the implications of cyberspace ‘force’ criminologists to overcome their anthropocentric and colonial character biases.

In this article the author reports on an ethnographic research conducted on the Collective Shopping Ban, a measure taken in the Netherlands in an effort to make shopkeepers co-responsible for maintaining safety and security. By describing the practice of the Collective Shopping Ban in The Hague, he investigates how the involved shopkeepers are dealing with offenses like theft, nuisance, intimidation, and vandalism. The author describes the sociological background of banning orders and what the banning of people means in terms of purification of public space.

There have been little to no empirical research conducted on trust of Dutch citizens in the police. This study is a step towards filling this gap. We used semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and observations to examine to what extent citizens’ trust in the police is determined by perceptions of the effectiveness of the police to reduce crime and disorder and perceptions of procedural justice. Research was conducted in Bloemhof, a superdiverse neighbourhood in Rotterdam. The results indicate that in superdiverse neighbourhoods perceived responsiveness is the cornerstone for explaining police trustworthiness. Implications for policy reform are discussed.

In this article, I report on an ethnographic research project conducted in 2013-2015 in Rotterdam’s neighbourhood Hillesluis on ‘Community Governs’, a community-based program which goal is to solve neighbourhood crime and disorder problems. By making use of the CLEAR model, the article focuses on three factors of effective participation of citizens: ‘Enabled to’, ‘Asked to’, and ‘Responded to’. The results indicate that making residents of a deprived neighbourhood responsible for the governing of safety and security issues is extremely difficult. It also becomes clear that the participants don’t believe that their involvement is making a difference in the neighbourhood. An importantly explanation for this is that the participants are not provided enough information to make the right decisions about which safety problems need to be tackled.

The article is an ethnographical study of Rotterdam’s experience with a program called ‘Community Governs’ (Buurt Bestuurt). Community Governs, a Dutch version of the Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS), is a community-based program which goal is to solve neighbourhood crime and disorder problems. Community commitment and involvement are a main component of this program. The article emphasizes the effects that this program had on three levels of trust (performances, intentions and skills) of the residents in police officers and municipal service agencies as partners in the fight against crime and disorder. The results indicate that a ‘positive exercise’ of liberty through political participation of civilians is difficult to realise in poor, inner city, neighbourhoods.

Criminology has come under the spell of thinking negatively about safety and security. It’s focus merely lies on themes such as control, punishment and exclusion. Much interest therefore goes to public policing, private security, CCTV camera’s, anti-social behaviour orders, gated communities and prisons. Of course, this definition of security and security governance as the protection of citizens against crime and disorder must not be rejected out of hand. Without a minimum level of security, society would fall apart in chaos and despair. At the same time, however, we feel increasingly uncomfortable about the dominance of current negative – control and risk-oriented – approaches to (in)security as they overlook positive interpretations associated with trust, community and care. This introduction therefore provides an overview of academic literature that nuance, counter or resist hegemonic and negative meanings of security. In so doing, our aim is to introduce a positive turn in criminology’s interests and concerns regarding crime and disorder problems.

The article is an ethnographical study of a program called ‘Community Governs’ (Buurt Bestuurt) in Rotterdam’s neighborhood Hillesluis. ‘Community Governs’ is a community-based program which goal is to solve crime and disorder problems. The article investigates the role of the local government in this program. Three different roles are discerned: (1) performance, (2) procedural justice, and (3) participation. The results indicate that to the residents of Hillesluis the performance by the local government is the cornerstone of ‘Community Governs’.

Protected living in some sort of gated community is popular. However Dutch protected living differs from, for instance, the living in American gated communities, the development tends to social discussions whether it is undesirable or not. Safety seems in the Netherlands not the first reason for protected living. Here, domestic and aesthetic reasons are much more important.

In the introduction of the special issue of the Journal on Crime & Culture on ‘Resistance’, the editors focus on the theoretical history of the concept of resistance in the field of Criminology. Against the background of the Birmingham School and the themes and ideas of Critical Criminology, the authors argue that new issues are rebelled against, and new styles and rituals become en vogue. The street fighting man on the barricades is no longer the obvious icon, and resistance is not per se intergenerational, interclass or a confrontation between minorities and mainstream culture. Resistance may have epidemic proportions as the Arabic Spring. Movements like Occupy or WikiLeaks operate across borders, but resistance also includes subtle transgressions within organizations.

This article provides a theoretical analysis of the label ‘resistance’. It sets out from the premise that the notion of resistance, although it has been current in criminology for some time, is still vaguely defined. We argue that resistance is not just a negative term, but can also be seen as a positive and creative force in society. As such, the primary function of resistance is to serve as a solvent of doxa, to continuously question obviousness and common sense. In the process of resistance we distinguish three processes: invention, imitation and transformation. The third stage warrants deeper investigation within cultural criminology.

This article describes the long decline of crime rates in New York, as analysed by Franklin Zimring in his book The city that became safe (2012). The author discusses and analyses the processes involved in ‘lesson drawing’ and the ‘policy transfer’ from New York to the Netherlands. Issues that are further addressed include the opportunities of prevention and the enforcement of ‘hot crimes’.

In this interview with Marc Schuilenburg David Garland discusses the development of his ideas in his work, from Punishment and Welfare (1985) to Punishment and Modern Society (1990), and from The Culture of Control (2001) to Peculiar Institution (2010). Garland explains his view on the role of ideology in relation to punishment and the influence of Émile Durkheim on his work. He discusses the misreading of The Culture of Control by arguing that where most people focus on the punitive turn in the fight against criminality, the preventive turn is of much greater importance. Moreover he talks about the possibility of resistance against the process of securitization and elaborates on his new project on the welfare state.

This introduction aims to position the present-day ‘liquid’ security culture in the context of cultural and political developments. Key-words in the cultural patterns in which the new ‘liquid policy’ and ‘new toughness’ is embedded are fear, precaution, late modern anomie and a social hypochondria towards everything that deviates from one’s ‘own’ culture and identity. These cultural phenomena have been translated in political terms, that are divided into neoliberal and neoconservative tendencies. The neoliberal turn in safety politics have resulted in a depoliticisation of democratic decision making, a desolidarisation of ideas on community safety and a deregulation of safety policies. Neoconservative tendencies are reflected in a resentment towards ‘the elites’, ‘the underclass’ and foreigners and a punitive populism, in which claims for stiffer sentences are continuously swept up, regardless of the effect they may have.

In this article we address the question of whether former prisoners are excluded by insurance companies when they apply for insurance. We found that, in several cases, ex-prisoners had been denied insurance in the Netherlands. This so-called ‘actuarial justice’ is accompanied by a great deal of discretionary power in the hands of insurance companies. Moreover, the results emphasize that former prisoners are still in an extremely vulnerable position in society. The article concludes by emphasizing that this form of ‘selective exclusion’ happens to a variety of risk groups in society.