FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Lockdown Society Goes Primetime

by MICHAEL SCHWALBE

“Lockdown” escaped prison long ago.  A Google Ngram chart shows the word first popping up in books in the mid-1960s but gaining little currency until around 1990, at which time its frequency soars.  The Ngram chart nearly mirrors a chart of the explosive growth in the U.S. prison population, though with a ten-year lag.  A decade after the prison population began to boom in 1980, “lockdown” began a boom of its own.

I was first affronted by this pricksome word a couple years ago when our campus facilities manager sent an e-mail informing university employees about the “holiday lockdown schedule.”  This was meant to tell us which buildings would require a key for entry during the semester break.  I e-mailed back to say that since a university is not a prison and its employees are not inmates, the word “lockdown” was inappropriate.  He did not reply.

The word is now in common use.  We know what it means when headlines tell us that a school is “on lockdown.”  (Anyone who doesn’t know can Google and find definitions, along with helpful tips about how to behave when one is locked down.)  Most recently we learned, as Boston police hunted for alleged bomber Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, that whole cities can be locked down.

I am troubled by what “lockdown” connotes and what is normalized by its wide use.  When I hear that authorities have locked down a school, a workplace, a transit system, a cell phone network, or a city, the subtext seems unmistakable: We are now in control.  Listen carefully and do as you are told.  What I hear is the warden saying that communication will flow in one direction only, and that silence and obedience are the only options.

I suspect that part of the appeal of “lockdown” to authorities who issue orders stems precisely from its semantic ties to the world of prison.  In that world, the word is meant to imply not only We are now in control, but Never forget that we are always in control, you pathetic scum.  Perhaps this is what makes the word so chilling.  It reflects and affirms a dominator mentality that holds citizens in the same contempt as inmates.

The Wikipedia entry for “lockdown” defines it as “an emergency protocol to prevent people or information from escaping.”  I was surprised to see information included in that definition.  But if a lockdown is understood to be about establishing control and inducing docility, it makes sense that information too would be locked down.  The likelihood of dissent is greatly reduced if people can be kept in the dark about what’s going on and kept from talking to others.

Every imposition of a lockdown and every casual use of the word to describe such an event further accustoms us to being locked down.  “This is normal,” we come to think.  So when a neighborhood or a city is declared to be on lockdown and movement and assembly are restricted, when cell phone networks are unplugged and communication impeded, when homes are entered and searched like prison cells, there is little protest.  The First and Fourth Amendments are effectively suspended, and this is seen as unremarkable.

Those who command police forces and armies naturally will be drawn to the theory and practice of lockdowns.  It would be naive to expect otherwise; the power to dominate begs for occasional exercise.  But one might hope for something better than complacency from a people who profess to love freedom.  Mass acceptance of being locked down is more worrisome than the predictable authoritarian impulse to use the tactic.

Part of normalizing lockdowns is repeating the message that they are for our own safety.  There might indeed be good reasons for locking the doors of a school, under certain conditions of threat.  But we should always be skeptical of claims by authorities who presume to restrict liberty for our own good.  We should likewise always be vigilant against the creeping extension of lockdowns beyond emergency situations and beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure the protection of life and health.

Although casual use of the word “lockdown” helps to normalize the practice, in the end the problem is not lexical but political, a matter of how power is distributed.  Were this a more democratic society, the headlines might read: PENTAGON LOCKED DOWN TO STOP WASTE AND DESTRUCTION; WALL STREET LOCKED DOWN TO STOP FRAUD BY FINANCE CAPITALISTS; CONGRESS LOCKED DOWN TO STOP POLITICAL CORRUPTION.  Dramatic steps, yes.  But we are under conditions of threat.  And it would be for our own self-determined good.

Michael Schwalbe is a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University.  He can be reached at MLSchwalbe@nc.rr.com.

 

Michael Schwalbe is a professor of sociology at North Carolina State University. He can be reached at MLSchwalbe@nc.rr.com

More articles by:
May 31, 2016
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
Imperial Blues: On Whitewashing Dictatorship in the 21st Century
Vijay Prashad
Stoking the Fires: Trump and His Legions
Patrick Howlett-Martin
Libya: How to Bring Down a Nation
Uri Avnery
What Happened to Netanyahu?
Corey Payne
Reentry Through Resistance: Détente with Cuba was Accomplished Through Resistance and Solidarity, Not Imperial Benevolence
Bill Quigley
From Tehran to Atlanta: Social Justice Lawyer Azadeh Shahshahani’s Fight for Human Rights
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump, Sanders and the Exhaustion of a Political Model
Bruce Lerro
“Network” 40 Years Later: Capitalism in Retrospect and Prospect and Elite Politics Today
Robert Hunziker
Chile’s Robocops
Aidan O'Brien
What’ll It be Folks: Xenophobia or Genocide?
Binoy Kampmark
Emailgate: the Clinton Spin Doctors In Action
Colin Todhunter
The Unique Risks of GM Crops: Science Trumps PR, Fraud and Smear Campaigns
Dave Welsh
Jessica Williams, 29: Another Black Woman Gunned Down By Police
Gary Leupp
Rules for TV News Anchors, on Memorial Day and Every Day
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail