Feminist Legal Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 3–25 | Cite as

Reading the State as a Multi-Identity Formation: The Touch and Feel of Equality Governance

Article

Abstract

How does a sense of touch, figuratively and practically, get deployed within equality governance, and to what questions and ways of thinking about the state does this direct us? Taking 2009–2010 as a snap-shot moment in the development of British equality reform—the year leading up to passage of the Equality Act 2010—this article explores the relationship between touch (the haptic) and equality governance from three angles. First, how have governmental bodies used touch language and imagery, including in geometrical representations of disadvantage? Second, what other, more challenging encounters and actions are imaginable; specifically, can touch mobilise the feeling state as a critical form of active citizenship? Third, what re-conceptualisations of the state does the touching, feeling state invoke, and with what effects? Specifically, does conceiving of the state as a multi-identity formation reframe the risks associated with a haptic state, thereby opening up new strategies for political action?

Keywords

Touch Governance Equality State Inequality Feeling 

References

  1. Ahmed, Sara. 2004. Collective feelings or, the impressions left by others. Theory, Culture & Society 21: 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Chandler, David. 2000. Active citizens and the therapeutic state: The role of democratic participation in local government reform. Policy and Politics 29: 3–14.Google Scholar
  4. Choudhury, T.A. 2006. The commission for equality and human rights: Designing the big tent. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 13: 311–322.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, John, and Janet Newman. 1997. The managerial state. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Classen, Constance. 2005. The book of touch. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, Davina. 1994. Sexing the city: Lesbian and gay politics within the activist state. London: Rivers Oram.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, Davina. 1996. Institutional illegality and disobedience: Local government narratives. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 16: 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, Davina. 2004. Challenging diversity: Rethinking equality and the value of difference. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, Davina. 2006. Active citizenship and the governmentality of local lesbian and gay politics. Political Geography 25: 921–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooper, Davina. 2011. Theorising nudist equality: An encounter between political fantasy and public appearance. Antipode 43: 326–357.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, Davina, and Surya Monro. 2003. Governing from the margins: Queering the state of local government. Contemporary Politics 9: 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooper, R., and J. Law. 1995. Organisation: distal and proximal views. In Research in the sociology of organisations, ed. Samuel Bacharach, Pasquale Gadliardi, and Bryan Mundell, 237–274. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  14. Corbin, Alain. 1986. The foul and the fragrant: Odor and the French social imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  15. Cruikshank, Barbara. 1994. The will to empower: Technologies of citizenship and the war on poverty. Socialist Review 23: 29–55.Google Scholar
  16. Curtis, Bruce. 2008. “I can tell by the way you smell”: Dietics, smell, social theory. Senses & Society 3: 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cvetkovich, Ann. 2003. An archive of feelings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Derrida, Jacques. 2005. On touching—Jean Luc Nancy (trans: Christine Irizarry), ed. W. Hamacher. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dickens, Linda. 2007. The road is long: Thirty years of equality legislation in Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations 45: 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feldman, Allen. 1997. Violence and vision: The prosthetics and aesthetics of terror. Public Culture 10: 24–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grabham, Emily. 2009a. “Flagging” the skin: Corporeal nationalism and the properties of belonging. Body & Society 15: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grabham, Emily. 2009b. Shaking Mr Jones: Law and touch. International Journal of Law in Context 5: 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen, Thomas Blom, and Finn Stepputat. 2001. Introduction: States of imagination. In Ethnographic explorations of the postcolonial state, ed. Thomas Hansen and Finn Stepputat, 1–41. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Herman, Didi. 2011. An unfortunate coincidence: Jews, Jewishness and English law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hetherington, Kevin. 2003. Spatial textures: Place, touch, and praesentia. Environment and Planning A 35: 1933–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hunter, Shona, and Elaine Swan. 2007. Interview: Angela Mason on trips to Skegness, Maoists and briefings with the minister: A life in equalities work. Equal Opportunities International 26: 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This sex which is not one. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jay, Martin. 1993. Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Josipovici, Gabriel. 1996. Touch. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kearns, Ade. 1995. Active citizenship and local governance: Political and geographical dimensions. Political Geography 14: 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lansley, Stewart, Sue Goss, and Christian Wolmar. 1989. Councils in conflict: The rise and fall of the municipal left. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Mann, Michael. 1993. The sources of social power, vol. II. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marinetto, Michael. 2003. Who wants to be an active citizen? The politics and practice of community involvement. Sociology 37: 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Massumi, Brian. 2002. Parables for the virtual. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mbembe, Achille. 2003. Necropolitics. Public Culture 15: 11–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell, Timothy. 1991. The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. American Political Science Review 85: 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman, Janet. 2001. Modernising governance: New Labour, policy and society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Newman, Janet. 2007. The “double dynamics” of activation: Institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 27: 364–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nolan, James. 1998. The therapeutic state: Justifying government at century’s end. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  40. O’Cinneide, Colm. 2007. The commission for equality and human rights: A new institution for new and uncertain times. Industrial Law Journal 36: 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Obrador Pons, Pau. 2009. Building castles in the sand: Repositioning touch on the beach. Senses & Society 4: 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Painter, Joe. 2006. Prosaic geographies of stateness. Political Geography 25: 752–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paterson, Mark. 2004. Caresses, excesses, intimacies and estrangements. Angelaki 9: 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paterson, Mark. 2007. The senses of touch: Haptics, affects and technologies. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  45. Rasmussen, Claire and Michael Brown. 2005. The body politic as spatial metaphor. Citizenship Studies 9: 469–484.Google Scholar
  46. Rhodes, R.A.W. 1994. The hollowing out of the state: The changing nature of the public service in Britain. Political Quarterly 65: 138–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, Nikolas. 1996. Governing advanced liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason, ed. Andrew Barry, Thomas Osborne, and Nikolas Rose, 37–64. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roy, Srirupa. 2006. Seeing a state: National commemorations and the public sphere in India and Turkey. Comparative Studies in Society and History 48: 200–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, James. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sparks, Holloway. 1997. Dissident citizenship: Democratic theory, political courage and activist women. Hypatia 12: 74–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spencer, Sarah. 2008. Equality and human rights commission: A decade in the making. The Political Quarterly 79: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Squires, Judith. 2009. Intersecting inequalities; Britain’s equality review. International Feminist Journal of Politics 11: 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Squires, Judith, and Mark Wickham-Jones. 2002. Mainstreaming in Westminster and Whitehall: From Labour’s ministry for women to the women and equality unit. Parliamentary Affairs 55: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. 1986. The politics and poetics of transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Steinberg, Philip. 1994. Territorial formation on the margin: Urban anti-planning in Brooklyn. Political Geography 13: 461–476.Google Scholar
  56. Thomas, Keith. 2005. Magical healing: The king’s touch. In The book of touch, ed. Constance Classen, 354–362. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  57. Tully, James. 1999. The agonic freedom of citizens. Economy and Society 28: 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Valverde, Mariana. 2003. Law’s dream of a common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Weber, Max. 2005. In From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kent Law School, Eliot CollegeUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations