What’s in a Uniform?
Posted by Darian Worden on Jun 7, 2010 in Commentary • 10 commentsThe Red and Black Cafe, an anarchist business in Portland, Oregon, became the subject of controversy after a cafe worker told a uniformed police officer to leave the building. The often overtly threatening responses from police supporters have revealed the self-serving absurdity of how government uniforms are viewed.
Characteristic of the less-murderous pro-police sentiment is that expressed by Jim Crooker, the police officer who was asked to leave Red and Black. In a video on cnn.com, he says that kicking someone out of a cafe “based on the color of the uniform” he wears “sort of harkens to the days of Segregation.”
This is a completely two-faced comment. Cops do want to be treated differently because of the uniform they wear and the badge they carry. They want to be treated with deference. When police officers give commands to people, enforce the will of local bureaucrats, stop and frisk non-threatening individuals walking through their neighborhood, or haul someone away in chains to a cage and felon status for an action that harmed nobody, they expect a certain treatment based on the uniform they wear. And they expect to be honored for the uniform they wear, even when other individuals who wear the same uniform murder, rape, assault, or continuously violate peoples’ rights with little or no consequences.
But its two-faced nature isn’t the only thing that makes Crooker’s statement ridiculous. People wearing police uniforms enforced racial segregation in the United States. They used force to uphold the rules made by the powerful until social consciousness and direct action raised the political costs of enforcing certain rules.
When someone wears a uniform, that individual has chosen to identify himself with the group his uniform represents. The police uniform represents the authority of the state. It is a visible sign that they protect and serve state power. As contrasted to race, which signifies little besides ancestry and the way in which others — including state enforcers — will treat the individual.
Protecting and serving state power often involves surveilling those who oppose state power and pushing out people who get in the way. Crooker says that he was in the cafe to “familiarize” himself with the district “to provide them better service.” I’m not sure what kind of services the police are “providing” the workers and patrons of an anarchist co-operative, but it’s obvious their services are not wanted. Unfortunately, the state and its supporters are against the idea that some people would choose to take care of things without coercive power structures. Opting out is generally prohibited by force.
And a lot comes down to the power of individuals to make choices outside of how well they will follow the “duty” that has been defined by those in charge. Jim Crooker chose to be a police officer, and the Red and Black workers chose to be anarchists. As Henry Thoreau said in Civil Disobedience, if the officer wishes to do good, he should resign his office.
Uniforms are frequently used as a substitute for personal responsibility. We are supposed to automatically respect military personnel for the uniforms they wear, but we are not supposed to hold them as individuals responsible for what they do while wearing the uniform.
When authority is challenged, its supporters are quick to throw down the velvet glove and wave the iron fist. They try to cover for their choice to use violence and threats by passing the responsibility onto others. The anarchists of Red and Black, by contrast, are willing show that yes, individuals do have a choice to support authority or support liberation, and they have a responsibility to make the right choice. Maybe that touched a nerve in those who threaten them with violence.
Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS.org) News Analyst Darian Worden is a left-libertarian writer and activist. He hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com.
Excellent piece once again Darian!
Whenever I refer to the Po Lice I like to call their 'uniforms' what they really are, costumes! I think that kind of helps take the whole 'dignity' and 'reverence' thing right out of the equation.
This is true. There's nothing more revolting than the statist 'do-gooder' who imposes his will onto you 'for your own good' and then expects you to respond with a grateful 'Thank you, officer!'. At least burglars don't pretend they're looting your home 'for your own good' – they take your stuff and leave you alone. They don't continue to repeatedly invade your home under the pretense of 'being neighborly' and expect community support in their looting.
But the cop (unlike other criminals) claims to have your 'best interests' in mind – by golly, he's going to "protect" you, whether you want it or not; and you'd better be grateful, right?
As Camus said: "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants."
I agree. There's an excellent article here that carefully picks apart the 'It's ok when the state does it!' argument and takes aim at the silliness of using symbols (e.g. cop costumes) as moral justifications.
Why is "cops want…" considered a viable, acceptable and even accurate statement when the very people applauding this statement would be protesting in droves if anyone attempted to attribute a single common thought/attitude/desire to every single member of any other class. As a former criminal defense attorney I've seen a lot of ugliness in law enforcement and am generally not a big fan of police, but it's hard to imagine anything more ridiculous than attempting to characterize the attitude and desires of roughly one million people in the United States in a single sentence and then using it as a basis for treating them differently.
Tiffany,
Because "When police officers give commands to people, enforce the will of local bureaucrats, stop and frisk non-threatening individuals walking through their neighborhood, or haul someone away in chains to a cage and felon status for an action that harmed nobody, they expect a certain treatment based on the uniform they wear. And they expect to be honored for the uniform they wear, even when other individuals who wear the same uniform murder, rape, assault, or continuously violate peoples’ rights with little or no consequences."
That is how monopoly police forces function. If the officers in question did not want that they would probably take another job. Being a police officer is not a class, it is a choice.
Law enforcement is a job that people voluntarily choose to pursue; and performing that job involves having certain privileges that the general populace doesn't enjoy – if any cop truly applied the same standard of behavior to himself that he applied to the general populace, he'd have to resign. That's the essence of statism – the belief that one class of individuals (i.e. the government and its cohorts) may enjoy privileges that no one else can.
Perhaps I should have clarified that more.
Every single police officer wants to be a police officer more than he wants any other available option. And being a police officer almost always involves enforcing laws against consensual behavior, upholding the rules of the most politically powerful group in the area.
Haha, awesome! Throwing police out of your cafe. When I start a business, I'll hang a "No State Employees Allowed" sign up. Or maybe they'll have to pay 100% extra.
I don't think it's an issue of what "cops want." The point here is that we mere civilians are expected to give deference to the wearer of the uniform, as a representative of the state, regardless of what any individual cop wants. I'm sure there are plenty of cops who get off on exploiting this situation to feed their own little ego trips (actually, I've met a few), and I'm sure there are some who would rather be treated as a "regular person." But it doesn't really matter because ultimately we're talking about state power and the state doesn't care what individuals want.
@Jay: Reading your first comment, I was thinking "right on!"… and then you linked to, well, me
>>Why is “cops want…” considered a viable, acceptable and even accurate statement when the very people applauding this statement would be protesting in droves if anyone attempted to attribute a single common thought/attitude/desire to every single member of any other class.
We're not talking about somebody born black, born into a Jewish family, or even someone born into royalty. The officer willingly chose what he does, which is a manifestation of his character, which is sort of the goal of anti-discrimination. The police officer wants to have it both ways, deference to authority based on his association but not to be associated with people who "abuse" that deference.
Fun fact: by the time that video was shot, the R&B were already receiving death threats on a daily basis. Seigneur's response? Up the ante by trying to start a boycott.
What nice, kind people.