Bürokraatia vägivallaks muutumisest on hulgaliselt näiteid alates holokaustist kuni igapäevapraktikateni organisatsioonis. Sestap oleks valgustuslikust aspektist vajalik bürokraatiaküsimusi ikka päevakorral hoida. Nii siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst oma koha leidiski.


“The state’s capacity for violence has been a long-standing interest of sociologists. Weber (2009b) argued that the state has monopoly on legitimate violence and Bourdieu (1998) highlighted that the state uses force to maintain domination. (Norberg, 2022, p. 655) […] Subtler forms of control were explored by Arendt (1969) and Bauman (1989) who looked at how bureaucracy can enact state violence.” (Norberg, 2022, p. 656)

Sotsioloogiline tähelepanu:

“Sociological attention to bureaucratic violence is important as the technocratic veneer of bureaucracy obscures the structural and material violence that is enacted (Milne and Mahanty, 2019: 141) and contributes to its mundane appearance (Cooper and Whyte, 2017).” (Norberg, 2022, p. 656)

So-what, küsimus

“This article contributes to the concept of bureaucratic violence by demonstrating how disablism impacts the experience of bureaucratic violence and how bureaucratic structures can shape subjectivities and augment structural oppressions.” (Norberg, 2022, p. 656)

Miks oleks vaja bürokraatia traditsioonilist perspektiivi avardada:

“Traditional bureaucratic literature focused on bureaucracy as an ideal type, but there is an urgent need to re-engage with bureaucracy with a focus towards its impact. Abdelhady et al. (2020: 5) note that ‘Northern European welfare state bureaucracies maintain a level of discipline and control over the daily lives of their welfare clients that reproduces axes of exclusion and inclusion through mundane everyday interactions.’” (Norberg, 2022, p. 656)

Muutused Rootsi kui heaoluriigi tähendusruumis – lühidalt ja löövalt:

“Despite the fact that Sweden has long been regarded as the epitome of a social democratic welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1996), Sweden has followed a neoliberal trajectory (Baccaro and Howell, 2011) with rising levels of inequality (Copeland et al., 2015: 8; OECD, 2015) and the welfare state following the wider European re-commodification trend (Svalfors, 2007: 6). There have also been considerable marketisation and privatisation, which has received little academic attention (Hartmann, 2011: 265).” (Norberg, 2022, p. 658)

Ebavõrdsete ebavõrdsus suureneb:

“While bureaucracy has often been a feature of the welfare experience (Sarat, 1990), the permeance of bureaucracy in disabled people’s lives is significantly different to nondisabled people. Significant parts of the welfare system are dedicated to catching potential fraudsters by using seemingly objective measures, despite these failing to measure subjective experiences such as pain (Stone, 1984). (Norberg, 2022, p. 661) […] Powerlessness in the face of welfare bureaucracy was something shared by virtually all disabled participants.” (Norberg, 2022, p. 662)

Mis siis, kui pliiatsist saab mõõk?

“While the article has predominantly focused on how the welfare state exerts violence against disabled people, it is important to note that the dehumanising discourse present in the Swedish welfare state and society was not unchallenged. (Norberg, 2022, p. 665) […] The invisibility of disabled people within the Swedish welfare state, coupled with the Swedish state barely recognising disablism as a form of social oppression and the consequences of austerity, obscures the political project of disability-focused austerity.” (Norberg, 2022, p. 667)

Norberg, I. (2022). Austerity as Bureaucratic Violence: Understanding the Impact of (Neoliberal) Austerity on Disabled People in Sweden. Sociology, 56(4), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380385211051210