The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State ( Cambridge Studies in Law and Society) [John Torpey] on *FREE* shipping. Daniel Nordman THE INVENTION OF THE PASSPORT Surveillance, Citizenship and the State John Torpey University of California, Irvine □H CAMBRIDGE. The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State. Front Cover · John Torpey, Professor of Sociology John Torpey. Cambridge University .

Author: Tosho Galkree
Country: Kosovo
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 2 June 2015
Pages: 19
PDF File Size: 20.47 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.34 Mb
ISBN: 966-7-93848-331-7
Downloads: 78788
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kizilkree

Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. Full text of ” The invention of the passport: This innovative book argues that docu- ments such as passports, internal passports and related mechanisms have been ;assport in making distinctions between citizens and non-citizens.

It examines how the concept of citizenship has been used to delineate rights and penalties regarding property, liberty, taxes and wel- fare. This original study combines theory and empirical data in questioning how and why states have established the exclusive right to authorize and regulate the movement of people.

His other publications include Intellectuals, Socialism and Dissent: At the same time, the iohn sciences have increasingly engaged with questions of law. In this process, the borders between legal scholarship and the social, political and cultural og have been transcended, and the result is a time of fundamental re-thinking both within and tne law. In this vital period, Cambridge Studies in Law and Society provides a significant new book series with an international focus and a concern with the global transformation of the legal arena.

The series aims to publish the best scholarly work on legal discourse and practice in social context, combining theoretical insights and empirical research. William Walters Unemployment and Government: Globalising Law through Services and Intellectual Property 0 5 hardback 0 X paperback The vagabond is by definition a suspect.

Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

The invention of or passport: ISBN 0 8 hbk. ISBN 0 8 pbk. Passports – Europe – History – 19th century. Passports – France – History – 18th century. Cambridge studies in law and society.

Includes bibliographical incention and index. Passports — United States.


Freedom of movement — United States. Passports te Europe, Western. Freedom of movement — Europe. T67 ‘. The Passport Question in the French Revolution 21 The passport problem at the end of the Old Regime 21 The flight of the King and the revolutionary renewal of passport controls 25 The Constitution of 1 and the elimination passpirt passport controls 29 The debate over passport controls of early 32 A detailed examination of the new passport law 36 Passports and freedom of movement under the Convention 44 Passport concerns of the Directory 51 3 Sweeping Out Augeas’s Stable: Passports and Chinese exclusion 96 The “nationalization” of immigration restriction in inventipn United States Sovereignty and dependence: The Italian passport law of The spread of identification documents for foreigners in France The resurrection of passport controls in late nineteenth-century Germany The First World War and the “temporary” reimposition of passport controls “Temporary” passport controls become permanent The United States and the end of the laissez faire era in migration 5 From National to Postnational?

Passports and Constraints on Movement from the Interwar to the Postwar Era The emergence of the international refugee passporrt in the early interwar period Passports, identity papers, and the Nazi persecution of the Jews Loosening up: Passport controls and regional integration in postwar Europe Conclusion: I therefore owe a great debt to several historians who helped persuade me very early on that this would indeed prove a worthwhile undertaking: While I had invwntion good fortune to enjoy od extended colloquy with Robert Wohl in the context of a National Endowment for the Humanities-sponsored seminar on intel- lectuals and politics during the summer of when the idea for this study was first formulated, the others simply responded to an unsolicited query from a young scholar unknown to them.

This generosity only increased the admiration I had for them, tue was of course teh had led me to write to them in the first place. Todd Gitlin also reacted with enthusiasm to the idea of the book. Todd’s endorsement of the project as well as his steadfast support for me and my work have been a source of great satisfaction over the last decade and more; I feel honored to have his friendship and encouragement. Without the generosity of these peo- ple, this project would never have become more than an idle curiosity.

Once I had seriously embarked on the project, two other people, Gerard Noiriel passprt Jane Caplan, lent their enthusiasm and provided shining examples of the kind of scholarship I wanted to produce. Noiriel’s writings on the history of immigration, citizenship, and identi- fication documents in France have been a major inspiration for me; the citations of his work in the pazsport point only to the visible peak of an ice- berg of scholarly debt. Jane Caplan ‘s support for this project quickly led to a collaborative undertaking on related issues concerning the prac- tices that states have developed to identify individuals in the modern period, to be published elsewhere.

Working with her has been both a real pleasure and an extended private tutorial entirely unrecom- pensed in scholarly professionalism. I feel profoundly fortunate and grateful that David Abraham put us in touch, somehow intuiting – as a result of my work on passports and Thd on tattooing – that “you’re working on the same tye of stuff. Although we had met on invenyion couple of occasions earlier and I was familiar with a number of his writings on this subject, it was as a result of my participation in the German American Academic Council-SSRC Summer Institute on Immigration, Integration, and Citizenship, organized by Ari and the impressive Austrian migration scholar Rainer Miinz during the summers of andthat I came to a fuller grasp of Ari’s approach to understanding migration processes.


His ideas pervade this book, which I can only hope will provide a useful complement pasport his work on the role of states in shaping migration processes. Although the list of others I wish to thank is long, I hope this will not be regarded as merely a surreptitious effort at self-congratulation. The fact that these people and institutions are to be found in several coun- tries on three continents is both a measure of the good fortune I have had in carrying out this project and testimony to the reality of an inter- oof community of scholars, of which I am thrilled to be a part.

Much of the research for this book was carried out while I held ajean Monnet Fellowship at the European University Institute in Florence, Italy during Upon my arrival in the world’s most beautiful city, a young legal historian, Stefano Mannoni, insisted that the place for me to conduct the research I wanted to do was the Library of the Chamber of Deputies, situated happily in the shadow of the Pantheon in Rome.

Stefano called his friend, bibliotecario straordinario Mario di Napoli, on my behalf, and the rest was smooth sailing. I am greatly indebted to Mario’s colleague Silvano Ferrari, who tracked down many an obscure source for me and, if he couldn’t find it, invited me to join him in the otherwise closed stacks for the search.

At the EUI, Raffaelle Romanelli’s enthusi- asm for the project helped sustain me through some uncertain times; my friend Christian Joppke pushed me forward, and provided plenty of good company. I am especially grateful to Susan Silbey for inviting me to contribute this volume in the Cambridge series on Law and Society.

At a time in which pub- lic support for scholarship is under sharp attack in the United States, I wish to make special mention of a fellowship from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the award of which I regarded as a particular honor. I was also delighted that the German Marshall Fund found my work worthy of its support. The University of California at Irvine has been supportive of me and of this project, for which I am grateful. I have talked about aspects of this project in venues too numerous to indicate here, but I would nonetheless like to take this opportunity to thank Charles Maier, Director of the Center for European Studies at Harvard, and Nancy Green, a distinguished historian of migration at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, for invitations to speak about this project at their respective institutions and for the helpful comments I received on those occasions.

An earlier version of Chapter 1, together with the Conclusion, appeared previously as “Coming and Going: That article has also appeared in French as “Aller et venir: A French translation of parts of Chapter 3 was published as “Le controle des passe- ports et la liberte de circulation: Sciences sociales et histoire 30 March I must also thank my research assistants, Derek Martin and Sharon McConnell, who helped me get under the trap door just before it came down.

Alas, unlike when Harrison Ford is involved, the door did not remain open until there was time for one last act of heroism.

John Torpey

I am grate- ful to Phillipa McGuinness and Sharon Mullins at Cambridge University Press for their enthusiasm about the project, and for holding the door open just a little longer than they might have liked. I hope the result justifies their patience. Finally, my deepest thanks to Caroline, who made it all worthwhile. The postponement was also deemed advisable in part because the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the agency mandated passpkrt design the system, was far from having amassed the technology “to process information estimated to be so vast that in one year it would exceed all the data in the Library of Congress.

This book examines some of the background to such efforts to iden- tify and track the movements of foreigners. The study concentrates on the historical development of passport controls as a way of illuminating the institutionalization of the idea of the “nation-state” as a prospectively homogeneous ethnocultural unit, a project that necessarily entailed efforts to regulate people’s movements.

Yet because nation-states are both territorial and membership organizations, they must erect and paassport tain boundaries between nationals and non-nationals both at their physical borders and among people within those borders.

Accordingly, a study that began by asking how the contemporary passport regime had developed and how trpey used documents to con- trol movement ineluctably widened to include other types of documents related to inclusion and exclusion in the citizen body, and to admission and refusal of entry into specific territories. This process of “monopolization” is associated with the fact that states must develop the capacity to “embrace” their own cit- izens in order to extract from them the resources they need to reproduce themselves over time.

States’ ability to “embrace” their own subjects and to make distinctions between nationals and non-nationals, and to track the movements of persons in order to sustain the boundary between these two groups whether at the border or nothas depended to a considerable extent on the creation of documents that make the relevant differences knowable and thus enforceable.

Passports, as well paasport identification cards of various kinds, have been central to these pro- cesses, although documentary controls on movement and identification have been more or less stringently developed and enforced in different countries at various times. This study focuses on the vicissitudes of documentary controls on movement in Western Europe and the United States from the time of the French Revolution until the relatively recent past.

I begin with the French Revolution because of its canonical status as the “birth of the nation-state. The shift toward broader incor- poration of the populace in political decision-making is reflected in the controversies chronicled in Chapter 2, where I recount how the French revolutionaries publicly debated the issue of passport controls on move- ment for the first time in European history.


Because I was intrigued by the question of who supported and who opposed documentary controls on movement in various contexts and why they did so, I have discussed subsequent debates over these matters in other countries wherever I have been able to find source materials. The narrative addresses the legal history of passport controls in these countries until shortly after the Second World War.

I have said relatively little about the postwar period, mainly because others have analyzed the process of European unification and its attendant relaxation of documentary restrictions on movement in greater detail than I could hope to do.

Here I am only echoing what I take to be common wisdom about the rise and dominance of the West during the modern age. This should not be taken to imply any denigration of non-Western cultures, but only the recogni- tion that those societies have not been sufficiently powerful to impose their ways upon the world.

Indeed, I would be delighted if this study were to stimulate studies of systems of documentary controls on movement and identity in other parts of the world and in other periods. Because the passport system arose out of the relatively inchoate inter- national system that existed during the nineteenth century, I have not undertaken strong, systematic comparisons of one country versus another. I argue that the emergence of passport and related controls on movement is an essential aspect of the “state-ness” of states, and it there- fore seemed to be putting the cart before the horse to presume to compare states as if they were “hard,” “really-existing” entities of a type that were more nearly approximated after the First World War.

Moreover, what is remarkable about the contemporary system of pass- port controls is that it bears witness to a cooperating “international society” as well as to an overarching set of norms and prescriptions to which individual states must respond.

John Torpey : The invention of the passport. Surveillance, Citizenship and the State

To paraphrase Marx, states make their own policy, “but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given, and trans- mitted” from the outside.

The following study seeks to demonstrate that passports and other documentary controls on movement and identification have been essential to states’ monopolization of the legitimate means of movement since the French Revolution, and that this process of monopolization has been a central feature of their development as states during that period. The project has been motivated in considerable part by the uneasy feeling that much sociological writing about states is insup- portably abstract, failing to tell us how states actually constitute and maintain themselves as ongoing concerns.

By focusing not on the grand flourishes of state-building but on what Foucault somewhere described as the “humble modalities” of power, I hope to contribute to a more adequate understanding of the capacity that states have amassed to intrude into our lives over the last two centuries. The result of this process was that workers were deprived of the capacity to produce on their own and became dependent upon wages from the owners of the means of production for their survival.

Borrowing this rhetoric, Marx’s greatest heir and critic, Max Weber, argued that a central feature of the modern experience was the successful expropriation by the state of the “means of violence” from individuals.

In the modern world, in contrast to the medieval period in Europe and much historical experience elsewhere, only states could “legitimately” use violence; all other would-be wielders of violence must be licensed by states to do so.

Those not so licensed were thus deprived of the freedom to employ violence against others. Following the rhetoric used by Marx and Weber, this book seeks to demonstrate the proposi- tion that modern states, and the international state system of which they are a part, have expropriated from individuals and private entities the legitimate “means of movement,” particularly though by no means exclusively across international boundaries.

The result of this process has been to deprive people of the freedom to move across certain spaces and to render them dependent on states and the state system for the authorization to do so – an authority widely held in private hands theretofore. A critical aspect of this process has been that people have also become dependent on states for the possession of an “identity” from which they can escape only with difficulty and which may significandy shape their access to various spaces.

There are, of course, virtues to this system – principally of a diplomatic nature – just as the expropriation of workers by capitalists allows propertyless workers to 4 COMING AND GOING survive as wage laborers and the expropriation of the means of violence by states tends to pacify everyday life.

Yet in the course of each of these trans- formations, workers, aggressors, and travelers, respectively, have each been subjected to a form of dependency they had not previously known. Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that states and the state sys- tem effectively control all movements of persons, but only that they have monopolized the authority to restrict movement vis-a-vis other potential claimants, such as private economic or religious entities.

Such entities may play a role in the control of movement, but they do so today at the behest of states.