You are on page 1of 19

ISSN 2175-9596

ARCHIPELAGOS OF SECURITAZATION: a new logic of security and surveillance in latin american cities
Arquipélagos da Segurança : a nova lógica de segurança e vigilância nas cidades latinoamericanas Roberto Fuentes-Riondaa, Nelson Arteaga-Botelloa
(a)

Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Estado de

México - México. e-mail: fuentesrionda@gmail.com.

Abstract:
Currently, cities have profoundly gone through difficulties due to increases inequity, poverty, population growth and unemployment, in a certain way, which appears to generate the patterns of crime and violence. In democratic states, with high levels of development, above all the United States and Europe, crime and violence have been confronted through the use of surveillance devices and through their construction, conserving a highly bureaucratic capacity. However, in countries which are of medium or low economic, political, and social development, such as certain Latin American counties, the extension of surveillance technologies appears to take root in a different sense: given past dictatorial and one party governments, in Latin America political decisions refer more to patronage. In Latin American cities with social inequalities growing, it appears to draw a geography of fear where spaces are distributed between life and death, well-being and misery, security and suspicion, the rich and the poor. In this way, all along Latin America, there have been “fortress cities” constructed which resort to surveillance technologies and a certain “politics of verticality” to form archipelagoes of security. Without a doubt, this ordering of the region is related to a new “hemispherical logic of securitization”, as a consequence of a series of United States initiatives and plans for Latin America. With the objective of analyzing the emersion of these archipelagos of securitization, the economic, political and social situation of certain large metropolises of the region. Keywords: surveillance, securitization, Latin American cities

Vigilância, Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina, Curitiba, p. 32-50. ISSN
2175‐9596 Organizadores: Rodrigo Firmino, Fernanda Bruno e Marta Kanashiro.

After 9/11. policies to confront insecurity were defined by international organisations based on the concept of human security. ARRAIGADA. poverty. According to the Declaration on Security in the Americas. and in spite of this allegation. national security policies in Latin America started to assemble with the international policies regarding this matter (BIGO. the constitution of a national data base which includes economic. However. the regulation of non-governmental security organisations. social. BOTELLO. illegal drug trade. (BOTELLO. police force. organization and equipping. have focused on the improvement of sorting strategies and risk administration in Latin America. 2009
 . 2006a. and along with it. economical. the concept of security in the American region would lie in a multidimensional in-scope. youth gang violence and natural disasters) (ORGANIZATION OF Vigilância. WACQUANT. Curitiba.. the governmental security policies have been made active through strategies such as militarized police training. 2008. and as late as one decade after. R. 2009). the territorial and demographic growth in Latin American cities has exponentially increased. criminal organizations (e. the inequality and social fragmentation rates. health and environmental aspects –democracy. army intervention in the main cities.RIONDA. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. as well as the expanded use of surveillance-assembled technologies with the created data base. BOTELLO N. 2007. 2005). to terrorism. GODOY. In this sense. 33 INTRODUCTION Since the 1990’s. 2006b. Bearing this in mind. reformation to the judicial. concerns and other challenges to the security of the countries (which comprise political. and so. F. money laundering. A. 2006) to start regional and hemispheric securitization strategies within a transnational and cooperative system (LYON. since the 1990’s. policies aiming at facing the insecurity located within certain groups with purposes of crime and delinquency. demographic and political reports. People in charge of designing the governmental policies have alleged that this is the main cause of the unusual criminal growth in this region. the use of “zero tolerance” policies. being the most common those crimes related to mugging gangs. that includes traditional and new threats. 1999. police duty. so as to cartographically establish the delinquency and crime “red spots”. the current policies against crime have led to establish immediate responses more than generate structural policies to improve its causes. or kidnapping) and ever since 9/11. social. SMULOVITZ. legislative and prison system as well as the formation of intelligence organisations.g.

and terrorism. The current securitization paradigm in Latin America is expressed in the spatial planning. and it is worth mentioning that in those cities is where there exists a fragmentation process of the social area. After the terrorist attack to the World Trade Center in New York. 34 AMERICAN STATES. nevertheless. exceptional nature. all of which have been claimed to have an impact on the democratic organisations in the different countries in this region. F. and surveillance policies. the governmental reactions towards insecurity have been based on border reinforcements. which intend to maintain security.. biometric devices or the foundation of an immigration data base). BOTELLO N. illegal immigration. security policies in Latin America began to emerge in a hemispheric system which goes beyond the national context. the security strategies applied in recent years respond to a governmental logic of micro-management of the population’s fears (DELEUZE. political and social statistics. Likewise. 2003). the state decisions obey a mutual aid scheme. leading to a threat-based system of rules among countries: illegal drug dealing. whose mechanisms lie in population control. up to a point. by means of extensive surveillance implementation and the use of classification technologies (the new ID. in other words. 2007.Cards. the use of national securitization strategies create a demographic data base comprising economic. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. security strategies in the Latin American area started to react to a certain logic urged by the United States government. BOTELLO. threat removal. in terms of region or hemisphere (like the Plan Colombia or the Merida Initiative) along with the surveillance and sorting in places likeable to be risky (socially-excluded areas. such as poor neighbourhoods. which holds the “normal” development of things responsible for the rise of risk (BOTELLO. This is why the current observed status in several Latin American cities gives this paper its central argument. this paradigm shows the use of various kinds of surveillance routines. The new security logic in Latin American cities and countries would be closely attached to a global logic of risk administration and forecast. This process is caused. human trafficking. by the Vigilância. R. located in specific areas inhabited by social groups defined as dangerous. 2009). money laundering. alienation and social fragmentation. Curitiba. GUATTARI.RIONDA. reflecting certain exclusion practices.just like those excluded from the economic and politic development process. A. assembling with some others alike. And so. This way. 1989). In 2001. in the past decade. or wide regions of global economy -such as big financial or commercial spots) (LYON. 2009). 2009
 .

according to which the main insecurity factor is found in social groups which would normally pursue the weakening of the democratic organizations. In the second part. Finally. followed by the characterization of the modern urban spaces where the architectonic and territorial fragmentation show somehow the integration of certain governmental practices and demographic and social space management. EXCEPTIONALITY. Curitiba. 35 mutation of the securitization discourse.RIONDA. the resulting conclusions of this investigation are exposed. the aim is to prove that these local strategies for urban security are the voice of the hemispheric and regional policies applied after 9/11. and ever since 9/11. The third part deals with analyzing how the new security logic is produced in the urban sites of Latin America. 2009
 . excluded or unemployed. R. civilian monitoring. SURVEILLANCE AND SOCIAL SORTING AS A NEW SECURITY PARADIGM The basis of all discourses on security in most countries and all over the major cities in Latin America. To demonstrate this. no matter if it means the sheer expression of daily social relations. A. classified according to very special characteristics: being poor. risk and the threat of breaking the balance of the social tissue. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. has favoured the construction of management spaces for fear (such as neighbourhoods. in the fourth part. shopping malls. As a consequence. leading to what we will call “archipelagos of securitization”. the new logic of security in Latin American cities resorts to exceptional strategies or to surveillance and social sorting strategies. surveillance and social sorting are fundamental. is attached to the idea of maintaining delinquency and criminal violence under control. the governmental policies have no choice but to resort to the restriction of any event to fight against democracy weakening. and so. The new securitization paradigm in the cities in Latin America indicates the origin of insecurity. These groups are located in specific urban areas. adopting a new logic of securitization. as well as the prevention and administration of any risk.. where exceptionality. in which any individual represents a potential threat. through the cessation of civil rights. The first one consists of an explanation of important terminology. F. private and Vigilância. BOTELLO N. The implementation of strategies directed to deal with this. the present paper is divided into four parts. the main concern is to fight terrorism threats. immigrant.

This Wacquant conception is. Thereby. The Vigilância. streets or avenues). security and sorting which tends to establish a fixed kind of government for a certain population. And usually. Taking this into consideration. In this way. and regulate the possibility of an existing risk. discipline. 2009
 . F. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. This is why crime must be halted and immediately and quickly punished. setting borderlines in zones referred to as “dangerous” (commonly favelas. certainly. social and urban exclusion. Curitiba. in which the State intervenes in all cases where daily life is threatened by a unusual and singular event. according to the complications of economic deregulation. poverty. we can say that power is distributed in the space. discourse and administration techniques. So. and social exclusion are largely considered to be the main causes of crime and violence. 36 public buildings. control. it is now possible to notice securitization processes carried out in neighbourhoods and communities. the governmental policies consider these problems to be of great importance so as to be solved as soon as possible. where he places security as a governmentality strategy: a security and surveillance device would be inserted in a control or referent of a series of probable events. applied to social insecurity. governmentality could be explained –in a liberal society context– as a set of dispositions and political. Social power relationships would then regulate the territory. expressed in the territory. a precarious working situation.. Economic inequality. moral. judicial and bureaucratic technologies which allow the distribution of power. Just as Foucault places discipline as a main political source.RIONDA. R. as well as border reinforcement among countries. security strategies appear to be a new form of government. In his last lectures. BOTELLO N. closely related to that conceived by Foucault (2004) in his last lectures. economic. in his latest studies he examines what he calls a security dispositif and its relation with the concept of governmentality: security grants the ability to make use of certain devices which only surveillance. parks. architectonic. where the application of local security policies plays a joint part along with international and regional referents. it seems that the different countries are working to consolidate policies and reformations to the judicial and police force systems. founding a set of procedures directed to reduce the odds of imminent danger. guettos or socially excluded districts). as Wacquant (2004) stated. and it regulates the relationships of certain social groups or the population itself. Likewise. which tend to establish and to perfect the security mechanisms. Foucault (2004) defines governmentality as a set of organizations. A. business districts.

controlled by surveillance and sorting technologies. this could be considered as an agreement between the governmentality and surveillance technologies. ruled by the panopticon. the completeness of the territory instead of confinement. where people are monitored and watched at all times and also regulated by public and private security organisms. 2006). 2006). what is safe and what is not (AGAMBEN. It is worth mentioning that as far as Agamben (2003) goes. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. This is mainly because the growth of the feeling of insecurity in modern societies has caused an expanded use of surveillance and monitoring Vigilância. 2005). power relationships would not imply the existence of panopticism. 2009
 .RIONDA. where the latter determine the former to a certain extent. determined by national or urban borders. the camps that were run by nazis or the prisions built by anti-terrorists wouldn’t be the only exceptionality spaces these days. BAGGE. Besides. surveillance and security. This reconstitution of governmentality dispositifs would result in a banoptic system (BIGO. exception is the mechanism that makes modern politics work. R. and at the same time reaffirms it. Bearing that in mind. 2006): the strategies facing insecurity and risk would constitute the suspension of rights (at an international level as in specific spaces. citizens and foreigners. paradoxically set a new order and establish certain laws (AGAMBEN. the temporary border and airport detention areas as well as the excluded zones (DIKEN. BOTELLO N. as in Agamben (2006) and Bigo (2006). This kind of governmentality would describe spatial limits. the surveillance mechanisms would set rights cessation areas. such as cities) monitoring and controlling the territory through global surveillance mechanisms. but an integration of exceptionality. A. they would include the locked-up communities and fortresses. If the analysis of governmentality could be somehow expanded. the ultimate current political paradigm is the concentration camps: where every law is suspended. It also draws a horizon which defines the outer and inner sides of law. urban areas with private security agents and surveillance systems. to. It stands out because it temporarily suspends law. enabling the location of power in a place –in the case of exceptionalitysovereignty. 37 spatial concept of prison. highly monitored shopping malls. as well as the differentiation between friends and enemies. F. For him. According to this. liberalism instead of discipline. classification and demographic administration devices. turns out to be substituted by that of the city.. Curitiba. Exceptionality includes the arrangement of space through a moderated use of sorting. This way.

the global growth of crime. F. From this point of view. As for this. urban areas will be divided into welfare and security districts (“archipelagos of securitization”) and exclusion and violence districts (referred to as “wild power areas” by Buck-Morss (2003). such as cities. A. means planning proximity and social reclusion as well. It is true that both districts would function by means of locating exception. not only do surveillance technologies monitor social groups. Curitiba. would function as nonpolitical spaces (where politics. BOTELLO N. fingerprinting or iris identification). Currently.. the obligation to show identity cards or generate a population’s data base. administrate. biometric tools (such as collecting genetic information from every inhabitant. the current policies applied to cope with insecurity and crime are in need of growth in the surveillance aspect. Nowadays. 2009
 . This would have as an objective to prevent unforeseen events from happening or to provide information to face risk. where its entrance turns out to be closed but the exit is free. According to Lyon (2007). due to the expanded usage of surveillance technologies. reinforced by a social and economic categorization. 2005. territorial borders will arise between them. setting them apart from public life and danger (DIKEN. conflicts and social risk are nowhere to be found). but exceptionality and surveillance ones. and along with it. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. as in most Latin American countries. SENNETT. the same as terrorism fear (enhanced after 9/11) has speeded up the integration process of surveillance technologies. but it would produce two kinds of fielding: voluntary. the surveillance technologies will endorse the creation of borderlines in the national territories and social areas. a terrorist attack is not likely to happen. to set an example. isolated islandlike localities. as a politic response more than a law response. building strategies which would no longer be disciplinarian. R. 38 technologies in most countries –the use of CCTV. making use of law cessation (as it happens in Latin American cities with the closure of streets or the monitoring of private spaces). And so. but also they control.RIONDA. even in those where. BAGGE. based on the formation of exception spaces. and that (which Vigilância. or “neutral cities”: untouched spaces or mono-functional closed areas. the modern social areas. which tend to preserve security in very specific regions. designing a city using a standard architecture. supervise and match individuals. This way. the foundation of a specific kind of governmentality. Contemporary urbanism would privilege the creation of welfare ghettos. where any exterior contact is reduced through fences. 1990). As a consequence.

Thereby. Regarding this matter. 2009
 . power has been located through the cessation of civil and social rights. how securitization policies have inserted these kinds of governmental mechanisms in Latin America within the last decade. but also territorial borders and those involving private space limits. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. easily recognisable due to certain sedimentation in mobility. sort and administrate the population and also to certain governmentality which does not mix with social space. no matter how simple this might be. Parallel to this. welfare and wealth are common to find. In the former. considered to be Vigilância. In the latter. It is certainly the determination of the national and urban territory. made to reduce crime. the current spots where people move to. It can be noted. which constitutes both spatial poles: that in which security. BOTELLO N. which function as dikes aiming at maintaining certain social groups. which surveil. In both cases. one can notice the expansion in usage of different security technologies in different areas and in diverse social contexts. social relationships live up to the speed of those globalized cities (with a precise urban planning. fear and dread. control. it would not come as a surprise to witness a fusion between securitization strategies. and that invaded by violence. Consequently. surveillance and sorting of each event would grant the “normal” development not to be altered and here appears the micro-management of the population’s fears. perfect means of communication. somehow. where territorial fragmentation and demarcation have played a major role. mainly composed by socially excluded groups. R. trough an exception system. F. Due to the implementation of monitoring technologies. residential areas. the territory consolidates disparity and an inevitable breakdown of social relations. not only have state borders emerged from this. business or working districts). control and sorting policies. 39 could be referred to as involuntary) in which the exit is closed and the entrance is free (DIKEN. giving rise to mobility and interaction with other similar areas (meaning shopping malls.. shaping a sort of “archipelagos of securitization”. constant economic fluctuation).RIONDA. security policies locate the conflict’s starting point and risk. This thought is greatly enhanced after the multiplication of different types of discourse in search of the prevention of any kind of event embedding danger. start to be thought of as spaces where there are more surveillance. and a securitization logic urged by the United States (where the Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative are set as examples) where both exceptionality strategies pursue surveillance and risk sorting. A. 2005). In these power areas. Curitiba. BAGGE.

Moreover. Curitiba. BOTELLO N. the securitization archipelagos are exception pinpoints. 40 dangerous. emphasising the violent criminal phase this region has gone through in the past two decades. the exception system enables the supervision of the entrance. In some way. or having access to public services) allows the determination of territorial borders.RIONDA. the wild power areas. Vigilância.g. To provide the position of recent security strategies in Latin America with a context. F. it is easier to define –in the context of demographic classification and monitoring– who is given permission to enter and who is not. A. where the cessation of civil or social rights (e. 2009
 . it helps control who exits. but above all. R. freely walking on the streets. As for the other pole. under control –also overtly identified to be part of socially excluded sectors.. an account of the social. economic and demographic conditions in the area will be presented below. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. with the foundation of these archipelagos.

are theft. in 1998. in the case of Peru.91 recorded crimes per 100. 99. To bring up some examples. respectively.36.78. 000 inhabitants. These crimes have been typically related to gangs located in urban sites.000 gang members in Central America. for instance. 556. it will be said that in Argentina in 1998 the rate of recorded crimes per 100. In the case of México. including formal and informal actors: soldiers. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. 2. due to the fact that the grand total of prosecuted persons was only recorded along year 2000. Curitiba. social crisis or malaise. of 549. An example for this would be the socalled maras (groups constituted by exiled immigrant youngsters. And so. and who are convicts in their countries) (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT. in 1998. in terms of frequency. the rate of recorded crimes per 100. enhanced by macroeconomic distortions and political disorder. 3.39. regularly constituted of immigrants. 538. that there are around of 70.RIONDA. We found. of 506. 2008). in 1999. 000 inhabitants went up to 198. 41 VIOLENCE. In Chile. 275.83.41. during 1998. and in 2000.439. F. kidnapping and firearm murder. former police. in Colombia. El Salvador and Guatemala. 053.. of about 200.63 per 100. the rate was.000 and 200. A. socially-excluded citizens or those living informally. 173. and in 2000. particularly that there are two countries in Central America which show a very meaningful crime rate after going through a civilian armed crisis: in Guatemala. presents a unique case.64. in 1999. and in 2000. having shown an increase in 1999 and 2000. 2009
 . 766. gangs in Latin America appear in a context of patronage and political affiliation.81 per 100. In addition. among which the vast majority are from Mexico. 10.48 to 249. criminality has either increased or considerably been modified in most countries in Latin America –showing variations related to each individual national context. raising its rate to 1. 2000). 10. 000 inhabitants.61. 9.50 per 100. it has been estimated. BOTELLO N.63. 902. 1998. banned from the US to their origin countries. 433. paramilitaries.30. whilst in 1999 it was of 1. 000 inhabitants. El Salvador. Vigilância.54. and in 2000. The most common crimes. the rate in 1998 went up to 1. in 1999. 2008). 171. AND URBAN EXPLOSION: THE CONTEXT OF INSECURITY IN LATIN AMERICAN CITIES In the last 20 years. R. rebel groups and ex-combatants (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT. 000 inhabitants went up to 2. of 1. On the other hand. CRIME. 000 inhabitants (UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME. 391. the rate of recorded crimes was.

after the reformation of policies against continental insecurity. and México) the rate fluctuates to up to 283 homicides.7% (INSTITUTO CIUDADANO DE ESTUDIOS SOBRE INSEGURIDAD. 2008). BRUNEAU. during 2004. the US and Mexico) goes from 5 and 10 per 100. 42 Generally. around 95. Colombia. F. kidnapping plummeted to 1. kidnapping represented 7% in a global scale. which represent 74% worldwide. the second aspect to be taken into account is homicide rates. while express kidnapping represented 6%. During 2004. R. the number increased to 4. and referred to as the greatest problem for democracy and national security in México and Central America (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT. This rate indicates 19% in a global scale. 2005). mugging. (NAÇÕES UNIDAS: ESCRITORIO SOBRE DROGAS E CRIME.000 inhabitants (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT. It is worth mentioning that the most common crime in Brazil is homicide. these groups have been defined as “new urban insurgency”.with crimes such as delinquency. 2008). Curitiba. we could address three major Latin American countries. until 2003. BOTELLO N. the homicide rate in South America and Central America goes from 20 and 30 per 100. whereas between 1998 and 2002. within the same years. 854 kidnappings between 1996 and 2008. 2006). rocketing to 684 incidences. assault. 2008). A. They are linked to insurrections and global terrorism. RODGERS. we include. 997 kidnappings (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT.RIONDA. Additionally. In 2007. 2008). the direct mortality rate provoked by social conflicts in America rises to 82 homicides. in North America (including Canada. between 2004 and 2007. 999 homicides. During 2002. According to recent data. and drug dealing.. Lastly. Brazil had the lowest kidnapping levels: 1 per 100. in non-violent contexts in South America. According to this data. 2007. 2003). Firstly. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. in Mexico. 000 inhabitants. Sao Paulo proved to have the highest rate: . 832 homicides (GENEVA DECLARATION SECRETARIAT. US. Colombia turns out to have the highest direct mortality rate: 11. harassment to rape. Latin America reached its highest kidnapping level. while in North America (Canada. (FUNDACIÓN PAÍS LIBRE. As an example. while in South America the rate goes up to 11. these groups are charged -but rarely prosecuted.8 kidnappings per 100. Vigilância. 2002. 000 inhabitants. which recorded a total of 23. in 2006. 000 homicides. Kidnapping is second nature in Latin America and its rates keep increasing and also varying its procedures. theft. which is highly illustrative. 000 inhabitants. Parallel to this. 2008. Regarding this matter. 2009
 .

in the Latin America cities. 43 Taking the past numbers into consideration. in Perú. information and economic flux. SECURITY. A. where exceptionality. Thereby.8%. in 2005. Curitiba. 2007). 2006). and in the access to monitored places. and building fortress borders sorting out the exterior (by means of private security and surveillance devices. 52. R. in Nicaragua. like the regulation of the population movements. Nicaragua and Guatemala resulted to have the lowest percentage: 59. as well as the exclusion of individuals classified as dangerous) (CALDEIRA. exclusion. 57. turning them into controlled areas. 2000). the urban demographic level in Argentina was 90. 58. 72.2%. in Colombia. the reconstruction of the social and political space in the cities.4. have as central point. 2009
 . 43. in Brazil. in Colombia.1. 54. a logic of fragmentation has been completed. Since the 1990’s.7%. These archipelagos give evidence of a logic of segmentation of the political and social space. but. creating spaces with a specific internal order. In Vigilância. pursuing to secure the law. while in Guatemala it rates 55. whilst El Salvador. AND SOCIAL CONTROL.6. establishing a sort of governmental strategies that tend to suspend certain civil rights –more technically that judicially–. respectively (UNITED NATIONS. we will examine the response mechanisms towards crime.2%..9. constituting what we call ‘archipelagos of securitization”: territories with particular array of governmentality. Aiming at that objective. ARCHIPELAGOS OF SECURITIZATION: A NEW LOGIC OF SURVEILLANCE. 52. it also shows other kinds of order. 1996. 46. classification and surveillance act as resources towards risk. in Chile.6%. in Chile.1%. to expose the conditions under which security strategies in Latin America have been founded. bearing in mind that each country has a different background. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. in Brazil. securitization and social control strategies. Governmental response towards crime has focused mainly on prevention. the Gini index in Argentina rates 51. 72. in El Salvador.1 (WORLD BANK.6%. in México. in México. somehow. The following part elaborates on the conformation of what we have called archipelagos of securitization. BOTELLO N.3.1. which are those governmentality areas implemented in modern Latin American cities. F. security strategies run by the governmental sphere in Latin America in the past two decades.RIONDA. respond to insecurity in the same way: be means of surveillance. 59% and 47. in Perú. 76%. 87. violence and insecurity in Latin American metropolis. 84. In addition.

and between economically-depressed zone citizens with delinquents. labor or amusement activities are performed–. the determination of security involves the verification of a concept link between poverty. Vigilância. in this way. e. a logic of social practices and perceptions. economical. where. KRUIJT. 1999). the definition of human security implies a concern in those risk factors. the urban partition was identified with the ‘unrule of law’. Consequently. for example. consolidated in some kind of human vulnerability. additionally to the edification of gated spaces separated from risk (represented by inhabitants of marginal barrios or favelas). the Latin American cities began to make use of an urbanity arrangement based on marginality. According to this. the fragmentation of the Latin American urban space was characterized in terms of a distinction between rich areas versus ‘forgotten’ slum dwellers.. RADCLIFFE. state failure and violence. A. Citizenship insecurity. the relationship between urban poverty. In this sense. PINHEIRO. places where the ultimate objective is to keep activities regular. insecurity and violence start in the characterization of the lack of economical. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. R. particularly to face insecurity and crime problems: the liaison between violence and poverty.towards citizens (KOONINGS. is reflected between those living in the different archipelagos of security. proper communication routes are constructed to interconnect the security islands –those spaces would be. ROLNIK. F. the lack of security and the absence of law-enforcing authorities in the neglected –abandoned– parts of the urban territory (MÉNDEZ. suggesting a referent for territorial and social division of the metropolis in ‘go’ and ‘no-go’ zones (CALDEIRA. Additionally.. 2007). like poverty. or inequality. dichotomy which expresses the constitution of urban poverty and social exclusion. O’DONNELL. 2009
 . implicate discrimination and stigmatization. BOTELLO N. marginality. exclusion. In this period. in Latin American cities. i. educational. expressed in admission restrictions and restrictions to move and to act. 2005.RIONDA. political. Meanwhile. 2004. At this point. the formation of archipelagos of security can be perceived in the design of Latin American cities. Furthermore. 1999). 2007). this logic promotes victimization and provokes the lack of law application –public or private. and social development. Curitiba. political. 44 this sense. activating security strategies founded on frontiers directed to well-being and urban social exclusion (PERLMAN. since the 1990’s. where financial. Since the 1970’s and 1980’s. commercial. this geographical. PÉCAUT. and social arrangement enables the organization of a particular treatment to violence. 2000.

In the mid nineties. and not only to the legal model based on crime determination and punishment fulfillment. governmental. but the implementation of risk-prevention mechanisms. residential and learning spaces. along the highly populated urban areas of the region. BOTELLO N. social control. based in very specifics outlines. This unveils the formulation of risk control and sorting policies. using as main strategy. whose main resource was not only public security. 2006b). based on surveillance and population management. and crime. For instance. This way. this organization.RIONDA. crime frequency in the metropolitan areas of Latin America raised to a significant extent. GPS. ARTEAGA. private security companies supply staff. risk sorting and exceptionality. Yet. insecurity and delinquency in Latin American cities would be based upon surveillance devices which enable the retrieval of vital information for risk management. criminal records and general expenditure. theft and homicide increased. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. through punitive measures. private institutions have designed surveillance and security mechanisms. 2009
 . Other strategies are police posts in main streets and avenues (to detect possible criminals). These resources are directed to risk prevention. To give an example of the transition in the setting of the security paradigm after a territorial and demographic growth in the 90’s. age. and training for the surveillance of commercial. electronic cards. R. health service access. local institutions started to apply new resources against violence and crime. as well as the creation of data base containing information related to salaries. politically and socially-developed areas. guided by surveillance devices and social classification (ARTEAGA. after national economic and political turbulence. Curitiba. determine new strategies for social control. 45 insecurity. These devices would be attached to civil rights suspension. aerial surveillance in specific shifts and sectors (with helicopters flown by military-trained police agents) or ground undercover surveillance. governmental policies against crime start to make use of surveillance mechanisms. established through the recognition of what is dangerous: vulnerable or socially excluded groups. for instance. giving birth to banoptic systems. Kidnapping. biometrics.. A. which led to the use of new policies against these crimes. In those economically. private security companies Vigilância. 2006a. logistics. this governmental management against crime. though the extended use of technologies such as CCTV. but above all. equipment. F. the instauration of law-exceptionality-based policies. In an overall view.

A. GUAQUETA. Mechanisms like sharing national data-base. Plan Colombia. assemble with the policies already established in the countries. or the foundation of national security strategies based on surveillance and social classification (as the Plataforma México case). as they could be holding potential terrorist groups. terrorism. 2005). apart from security new governmentality logic. where the possibility of hemispheric risks has been attached to insecurity.. generating. In Latin America. all of them defined. in Latin America. F. migration. as a threat for regional democracy. México and several other countries in Central America). security policies in this region went further.RIONDA. All this is reflected in the regional urban spaces. and illegal migration. allows the harmonization of control and social sorting. This way. has led to the use of surveillance and social sorting mechanisms. illegal entrance through south US borders. it has been made easier to resort to private security. 2009
 . 2005. After 9/11. such as terrorists –after an increased violence wave in countries like México or Colombia (RIVERA. leading to the successful management of risk within the region. 2002. However. CONCLUSIONS Vigilância. leading to the recognition to those devoted to illegal drug dealing. mainly because of a change in the State public security policies. notwithstanding the fact that they have also been applied to all cities population. war against drug trafficking or the management of illegal migration have lined up with the possibility of risk towards regional democracy. money laundering. so as to improve those implemented nationwide. WILKEY. R. surveillance and social sorting mechanisms have been naturally observed in Latin American cities. 46 provide civilians with risk monitoring. BOTELLO N. all of which end up affecting countries. So. 2009). Along with this. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. the Latin American governments begin to adopt interlinked policies to face insecurity. crime. National security policies have changed their course and now they can be located in the cities. already adopted by international organisms –like the Organization of American States (OAS)– several countries in Latin America have established security strategies. and. Moving on to a political definition of risk. By means of the embracement of Iniciativa Merida (hemispheric device for surveillance and social control between the US. which try to endorse nationally-important institutions (SMULOVITZ. the control and surveillance of national frontiers to stop people and drug traffic. Curitiba. ARTEAGA. recently.

caused. adopting surveillance and social control mechanisms. under control. territory and everyday life. eroding. considered to be dangerous. exclusion and marginality. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Homo Sacer. risk and the threat in the decomposition of the social tissue. F. REFERENCES AGAMBEN. suspicion. Valencia. the new logic of security in Latin American cities adopts exceptionality strategies. A. creating spaces for protection and. Another implication would be that this new logic of securitization denotes a transformation in everyday life. the historical conditions in the region. As a result. This context reveals a great danger for the democratic institutions. Pre-textos. R. In this sense. BOTELLO N. 47 As we try to analyze. assembling with surveillance and social sorting dispositifs. in the Latin American cities a fragmentation process of the social tissue is currently taking place. 2003. G. not by the weakest of institutions. by the metamorphosis of the securitization discourse. perhaps. El poder soberano y la nuda vida. État d’exception. the social tissue. and law mistrust as well as in the institutions. 2006. With the incursion of a new paradigm of securitization. are signaled by institutions based on patronage relations. Therefore. 1. and exclusion. The new securitization policies in Latin America suggest the origin of insecurity. or immigrants). the main insecurity factor is found in some social groups (poor. the place for politics. police corruption. Curitiba.RIONDA. we try to define these strategies as “archipelagos of securitization”. in some sense. Thereby. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. We try to prove as well. ______ . based in surveillance and social sorting. at the same time.. as the information obtained from the population is not protected. unemployed. fracturing. primarily. This way. The importance of this context in the Latin American cities and countries is major. in which any individual represents a potential threat. that some local strategies for urban security have been influenced by the hemispheric and regional policies spread after 9/11. conceived as dikes aiming at maintaining certain social groups. a characterization based on fear. the new paradigm of security shows a different way to characterize social relations. 2009
 . in some sense. where the social actors are more driven by fear and suspicion among each other. we analyze how the new security logic in urban sites of Latin America has adopted a new logic of securitization. Vigilância. Homo Sacer II.

1989. DELEUZE. 2000. p.166. Estudio de sociología y genealogía. BOTELLO N. F. México: Miguel Ángel Porrúa Editores. exception.R. Bagge Laustsen. “The Merida Initiative Security-Surveillance Harmonization in Latin America”. Bogotá. “Estadísticas Secuestro Generales Enero de 1996 – Mayo 2008”. 303-328.org/pdfs/Global-Burden-ofArmed-Violence. 2006b. New York: Routledge. 2. Nelson. ______. 2008. Didier. City of Walls: Crime. Amsterdam [Forthcoming. Seguridad ciudadana y violencia en América Latina: diagnostico y políticas en los años noventa. Public Culture. Available at: <http://www. Available at <http://www. En busca de legitimidad: violencia y populismo punitivo en México 1990-2000. Portland: William publishing. ARRAIGADA. v.genevadeclaration. Thomas. María Cecilia.pdf >. “Global Burden of Armed Violence”. population. Felix. BIGO. 2006. CARSTEN. Nueva Sociedad: Caracas. London: Verso. Strategic Insights. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México. Theorizing Surveillance: The panopticon and beyond. Cours au Collège de France. “The Maras and National Security in Central America”. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Fundación País Libre. Susan . Segregation. Cullompton. and Citizenship in São Paulo. Bülent. 2006a. n. Swaziland. “Las murallas y barrios cerrados. 26-37. Paris: Gallimard. 2008.RIONDA. n. Pobres y delincuentes. Chile: CEPAL-ECLAC. BRUNEAU. 2003. Gilles. Sociology facing the camp. BUCK-MORSS.pdf >.1977-1978. ARTEAGA Botello. Geneva. ______. FOUCAULT. “Security. 2009]. Mil mesetas: Capitalismo y esquizofrenia Valencia: Pre-Textos. Irma.org. GUATTARI. Consulted in August 15. DIKEN. 5.co/IMG/pdf/Estadisticas_Generales_del_secuestro_en_Colom bia. 46-68. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. LORENA. territoire. Sécurité.redepaz. 2009
 . 2000. ban and surveillance”. Curitiba. A. Vigilância. 2005. The Culture of Exception. Michel. p. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2005. ______ . CALDEIRA. v. 48 ARIZAGA. Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México. Consulted in December 10. ed. 2004. 1996.n. Teresa P. R.8. Thinking past terror: Islamism and critical theory on the left. 1999. La morfología espacial del ajuste en Buenos Aires”. “Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation”. Godoy. 4. p. Geneva Declaration Secretariat..

Notre Dame: Oxford University Press. Curitiba. 2003. MÉNDEZ. “Latin American indigenous geographies of fear: living in the shadow of racism. urban violence & contested spaces in Latin America. “Declaration on Security in the Americas”. 2003. Sarah A. PERLMAN. KRUIJT. US: Zed Books.oas.html>. Ensayos sobre el conflicto colombiano. 2007. (Eds. PINHEIRO.) Fractured cities: Social exclusion. 7-22. BOTELLO N. Available at: <http://www. RIVERA.unodc. 35. P. D. 2009. WILKEY. A. n.. Organization of American States. Available at <http://www. second-class citizenship and urban violence”. J. 2006. Consulted in: December 15. “Fractures cities. p. F. n.worldbank. v. 2005. “Plan Colombia: A Successful Long-Term Effort”. lack of development. A. Managua.1. R.org/brazil/pt/country_profile. The (Un)rule of Law and the Under privileged in Latin America. The Case of Favelas in Rio de Janeiro. in KOONINGS. p. 2002. PÉCAUT. New York. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. “When Vigilantes Turn Bad: Gangs. D.. 2008 RADCLIFFE.S-Colombian relations and the war against drugs”. (Ed. SEN.). Vigilância. D.pdf> Consulted in: December 15. Surveillance Studies. 49 GUAQUETA.RIONDA. n. Guillermo. LYON. Journal of drug issues. O’DONNELL. An Overview. 2007. Consulted in: January 5. D. “Change and continuity in U. 2002. London. Violencia y política. v. Dennis. 142. 2002. “Cuarta encuesta nacional sobre inseguridad urbana”.) Global Vigilantes: Anthropological Perspectives on Justice and Violence. 2008. 2003. 385-397. México. 1999. J. México.org/urban/symposium2005/papers/perlman. 64. 2005. 2007. INSTITUTO CIUDADANO DE ESTUDIOS SOBRE INSEGURIDAD.asp>. Annals of the association of American geographers. USA: Polity. David. 97. <http://www. Alexandra. K.. “Compendio Estadístico 2000 . Availaible at. and anti-terror measures”. UK. (Ed. and Social Change in Urban Nicaragua”. Corrections Today. London: Hurst. ______.2002”. The Myth of Marginality Revisited. 2. p.Diagnóstico da criminalidades no Brasil – lesôes corposais e seqüestros –. 2009
 . K. p.. In: PRATTEN. S. 2007. “Primera Encuesta Nacional sobre Inseguridad en las Entidades Federativas”. 27-56. G. v. Medellín: Editora Hombre Nuevo. Dec. Escritorio sobre Drogas e Crime . 7.org/documents/eng/DeclaracionSecurity_102803. Nações Unidas. 1969-2003. RODGERS. KOONINGS. William. Violence. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICAS Y CENSOS. KRUIJT...

RIONDA. 56-74. 2008. São Paulo: Perspectiva. Database. Segurança e Controle Social na América Latina. The conscience of the eye. “Exclusão territorial e violência”. Colombia: Fondo de Cultura Económica.unodc.C. 100 111. 2006. CD-ROM. International Political Sociology Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Loïc. WACQUANT. 2004. 50 ROLNIK. p. R. p. Le nouveau gouvernement de I´insegurité sociale. Richard. 2008. v. 1999. Curitiba. London: Faber and Faber. D. 1990. A. F.. BOTELLO N. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. Washington. R. França: Agone. “La inseguridad y el miedo de la ciudadanía: Respuestas públicas y privadas en la Argentina”. SMULOVITZ. ______. Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems. “Punir les pauvres”. 2009
 . Catalina. <Available at http://www. UNITED NATIONS.pdf> Consulted in: December 15. UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME.. Vigilância. Population Division. “The militarization of urban marginality: Lessons from the Brazilian metropolis”. SENNETT.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc. World Development Indicators 2007. covering the period 1998 – 2000. Crimen y violencia en América Latina. New York. WORLD BANK .2. 2005. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007.