Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expansion of commercial private security in the contemporary era is not a return to the buccaneering capitalism of Cecil Rhodes, and even less the renaissance of the military mercantilism of the seventeenth century’s chartered companies. Nor does it, in the majority of cases, mirror the most spectacular activities of late twentieth-century PMCs or ‘neo-mercenaries’, however much this image tends to capture the imagination. To the extent that these historical periods serve useful purposes, it is as metaphors and reminders of the historically and politically constructed nature of the public–private distinction and its connection to shifting structures of political power, not as templates for thinking about the emerging place of commercial security in the world order. This chapter seeks to develop the theoretical foundations for understanding contemporary global private security. To do so, we make two moves: first, we turn for inspiration to theories of globalization that emphasize the relationship between the restructuring of national state structures and global transformations. Drawing on recent analyses of globalization, we argue that security privatization is part of a wider process of partial state ‘disassembly’ and a concomitant emergence of ‘global assemblages’ that link national and global structures. In security, a result of these shifts is the emergence of what we call global security assemblages – transnational structures and networks in which a range of different actors and normativities interact, cooperate and compete to produce new institutions, practices and forms of deterritorialized security governance. These assemblages are reflections and components of important transformations in social and political power. To better reveal their dynamics, we turn in the second part of the chapter to the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. In particular, we suggest that Bourdieu’s understanding of fields of practice provides analytic categories that help clarify the resources available to public and private, as well as global and local security actors, allowing us to examine the shifting forms of power and contestation at work within global security assemblages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".