Advanced Diploma in Security, Violence and Democracy

Pablo González-Casanova highlights four questions for Latin American Sociology: 1. What concepts contributed by the social sciences remain valid today? 2. What important contribution did these concepts make to theory? 3. How should they be redefined and delimited in light of the most recent discoveries about systems? 4. How should they be redefined and delimited in relation to the restructurings that present the situation of a world system far from equilibrium, with contradictions? (GONZALEZ-CASANOVA, Pablo. The New Sciences and the Humanities . Barcelona, ​​Anthropos / UNAM, 2004).

The reflective and investigative experience of the network of teachers participating in this Diploma program can offer some answers. This group, which began its activities at the start of the first decade of the 21st century, is comprised of thinkers from various Latin American countries. Their focus and vocation has been fundamentally the development of a new paradigm in the sociology of conflict and social control, guided by a critical perspective on the phenomena of violence, security, and crime in contemporary societies.

In this context, we will frame our field of reflection within Latin America with the intention of sociologically reconstructing processes in which we will analyze issues such as crime, statistics, the cultural configurations of violence, social and political conflict, resistance to oppression, grassroots human security practices developed in communities, and citizen security policies. Thus, this proposal aims to contribute to the development of knowledge in what we define as the intellectual field of studies related to violence and security, as well as their relationship with society in Latin America. This thematic agenda constitutes what we understand to be the matrix of the intellectual field known as “Violence, Security, and Society.”

This field comprises a set of institutions and actors that have historically shaped it: knowledge-generating institutions, research, and critical thinking, which take place in spaces such as universities, non-governmental or civil society organizations, and the state. It is thus a field of knowledge that is also a field of power and resistance. At its core, it is consolidated through an expressive symbolic capital present since its inception: initially that of the social sciences and humanities, now in close dialogue with art, music, literature, and film, as well as with mass media and social networks. The intellectual experience of this network of researchers in Latin America has allowed us to identify and affirm the existence of a paradox between inclusive social development policies and repressive security policies, even in governments with a progressive orientation.

This observation was made by deconstructing the various meanings of the notion of security from which we began. It was also achieved through a critical analysis of existing governmental conceptions of security. While still in its early stages, the search to overcome the diagnoses and technical recommendations characteristic of neoliberal policies implemented by governments in the region consolidated rationales and practices that replicated, at the legal, police, and social levels, responses and techniques typical of a single, prevailing view on security—a view usually oriented towards criminology and conservatism that accentuated the tendencies towards criminalization and the intensification of punishment for the most vulnerable before the law.

This journey allowed us to observe, understand, and investigate the presence of practices, programs, and policies that ultimately formulate a theoretical alternative and an exercise in radical democracy in the field of citizen security in Latin America. The possibility of creating alternative democratic models for social control and security will be explored and discussed. Beyond human security built from below or citizen security as a state policy, there are several spaces of power or resistance on the continent that implement counter-hegemonic and disruptive practices that distinguish themselves from and question the deeply rooted conceptions of punishment and exclusion of the vulnerable who, when they come into conflict with the law, suffer a penal policy that consolidates their exclusion. Through this, the social model deepens the effects of a crisis that is expressed in practices such as human rights violations by the state, lack of access to justice, the tragedy of the prison system, the increase in crime and violence, the breakdown and violence in interpersonal and community relationships, femicides, the systematic killing of poor young people, and necropolitics.

In the landscape we find at the beginning of the 21st century, many center-left Latin American governments implemented inclusive social policies and international policy strategies oriented toward multilateralism. But, dramatically and simultaneously, in the field of social control—and the culture of social control—these same governments saw an intensification of various actions that strengthened—and reconfigured—repressive policies such as conspicuous policing and the expansion of the criminal justice system. This led to a resurgence of social punishment, manifested, among other things, in the systematic increase of the prison population without any impact on the rising levels of social violence and crime.

With this aim, this Diploma program studies and analyzes the differences that constitute the two spheres of this relationship. On the one hand, it examines how center-left governments articulate (and are articulated by) popular expressions, social demands, and populist mobilizations regarding security as an electoral asset, especially concerning the demands of the middle class. On the other hand, it explores inclusive social policies as a mechanism for building trust to guarantee control, which, paradoxically, is made effective through repressive security policies. These are the forms that, at the beginning of the 21st century, the new modalities of legitimizing governmentality within the social fabric take. This distinction is important because it allows us to discern the forms of expression and the nature of violence, as well as its role and intention with respect to different social actors.

In response, the Diploma program aims to highlight the growing alternative conceptions of security: whether grassroots human security or citizen security, both within the framework of a radical democracy. It begins by observing numerous innovative government initiatives implemented in various cities. Its significance lies not only in the political philosophy underpinning these initiatives but also in their success in reducing crime levels, as evidenced by the most critical indicator: the decrease in the homicide rate in the areas where these approaches were implemented and sustained.

Undoubtedly, policy initiatives based on alternative conceptions of security—human security from below or citizen security—have borne fruit. The key issue when we refer to public policy is analyzing how the various levels of social control—the bureaucracy, the police, public administration, politics, and non-governmental organizations—interact in the production of an alternative security framework for all citizens. Of course, the differences between countries cannot be ignored: armed conflict with drug trafficking—as in Colombia and Mexico—and the recourse to the military as a solution; in Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, on the other hand, the solution lies in attempts to strengthen police efficiency and effectiveness, without a reduction in police violence.

There is a debate about social control and democracy, but the effects of fear, of “social fear,” have not been addressed in a new approach. On the contrary, as frequently as they are systematic, traditional methods of overt policing are reinforced to reduce fear. The mechanisms for cultural transformation that would enable a counter-hegemonic way of thinking regarding the resolution of social conflict and the response to violence and crime have not been developed. Both because they are not offered and because there is a lack of belief in them, viable alternative policies are not consolidated, even though experience shows that they can be created, sustained, and effective. In this way, punitive and repressive practices of social control are normalized, which, far from reducing high levels of social violence, actually increase them. These practices are perhaps explained much more by the growing tendency to punish than by an effective response to the problem of increased violence.

This means that the public debate on social violence and public security is only partially integrated into the political sphere of several Latin American countries, and that there is resistance to innovation within public administration when discussing security policies. Furthermore, we must consider the importance of analyzing common elements as well as specific contextual criteria, given the nature of violence and its economic, cultural, political, and social roots in each country.

There were localized efforts to develop new public security policies and promote community policing: in short, to establish “citizen security” that guarantees life and helps to build a new civic life. In Brazil, these efforts took place at the federal level and in some states such as São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Pernambuco, Ceará, and Rio Grande do Sul. In Argentina, they occurred at the federal level and in the Province of Buenos Aires. In Colombia, they took place in the cities of Medellín and Bogotá, and in Mexico in the Federal Department, among others. For its part, the experience of Bolivia suggests considering the different types of leadership that develop within society, since the various social organizations in the city (especially neighborhood associations) contribute their own perspectives.

This demonstrates that there are experiences—programs, projects, or actions—that attempt to prevent violence and reduce crime based on alternatives to traditional and conservative public policies that guarantee the right to personal security. This approach can reduce violence, as it incorporates into public policy the idea that violence and social inequality are related. However, in various countries, a crisis in the institutions responsible for implementing these security policies is also observed, leading to an increase in crime. Thus, we maintain that current forms of violence must be considered in terms of a complex causality. They exacerbate old inequalities and create new ones, which they amplify: the perception of unmet consumption patterns, especially among young people, and the transformations of traditional modern institutions are key elements in this regard. Rethinking coexistence and the issue of authority and its divisions within social institutions is part of a program of redemocratization. This involves everything from the family, the debate on gender, sexual and reproductive roles and education, to the police and the judiciary.

Taken together, the Diploma systematizes research and work that point to possibilities for adopting new forms of citizen-led social control that can serve as alternatives to traditional forms of punishment in the region. That said, it is also true that, for this group of researchers, the accounts of successive experiences in reducing violence keep alive the flame of hope and belief in changing the dominant punitive practices in the region.

GENERAL PURPOSE:

The overall objective of the Diploma program is to systematize research and work that point to possibilities for adopting new forms of citizen-led social control as alternatives to traditional punitive practices in the region. This approach can reduce violence by incorporating into public policy the idea that violence and social inequality are interconnected. However, in several countries, a crisis in the institutions responsible for implementing these security policies is also evident, leading to an increase in crime.

There are localized efforts to develop new public security policies and promote community policing: in short, to establish “citizen security” that guarantees life and helps to build a new civic life. In Brazil, these efforts are underway at the federal level and in some states such as São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, Pernambuco, Ceará, and Rio Grande do Sul. In Argentina, they are being implemented at the federal level and in the Province of Buenos Aires. In Colombia, they are taking place in the cities of Medellín and Bogotá, and in Mexico, in the Federal Department, among others. Meanwhile, the experience in Bolivia suggests considering the different types of civic engagement that develop within society, as the various social organizations in the city (especially neighborhood associations) contribute their own perspectives.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

1. The discussion of experiences – programs, projects or actions – that attempt to prevent violence and reduce crime based on alternatives to traditional and conservative public policies that guarantee the right to security of people.
2. Studying the complex causes of current violence. These exacerbate old inequalities and introduce new ones, which they amplify: the perception of unmet consumption patterns, especially among young people, and the transformations of traditional modern institutions are key elements in this regard; rethinking coexistence and the question of authority and its cleavages in social institutions is part of a program of redemocratization.
3. Reconstructing sociologically the policy initiatives based on alternative conceptions of security—human security from below or citizen security—has yielded results. The key question, when we refer to public policies, is to analyze how the articulation between different levels of social control—the bureaucracy, the police, public administration, politics, and non-governmental organizations—is processed in the production of an alternative security framework for all citizens.
4. The need to emphasize the cultural dimension of these phenomena is crucial. The mechanisms of cultural transformation necessary to sustain a counter-hegemonic approach to resolving social conflict and responding to violence and crime have not yet emerged. As a result, punitive social control practices and punishments become normalized, practices that, far from reducing high levels of social violence, actually increase them. These high levels are perhaps explained more by the growing tendency to punish than by an effective response to the problem of escalating violence.

The Higher Diploma in Security, Violence and Democracy is aimed at undergraduate and postgraduate students; teachers at all levels; activists and members of trade unions, social movements and political parties; public officials; members and managers of non-governmental organizations and professionals interested in the subject.

• Alejandra Otamendi (Argentina)
• Arturo Alvarado (Mexico)
• Carmen Chinas (Mexico)
• César Barreira (Brazil)
• Jaime Zuluaga (Colombia)
• Joaquín Zajac (Argentina)
• José Alfredo Zavaleta (Mexico)
• José Vicente Tavares Dos Santos (Brazil) 
• Juan Pegoraro (Argentina)     
• Julio Solís Moreira (Costa Rica)
• Leticia Schabbach (Brazil) –
• Lívio Silva de Oliveira (Brazil)
• Luciana N. Ginga (Argentina)
• Márcia Esteves de Calazans (Brazil)
• Maria Glaucíria Mota Brazil (Brazil).
• Nilia Viscardi (Uruguay)
• Pablo Emilio Angarita Cañas (Colombia)
• Roberto Briceño León (Venezuela/Brazil)
• Sergio Tonkonoff (Argentina)

The program consists of 6 modules of 3/4 classes per week, each taught consecutively and linked to the others.
Total workload of 128 hours.

The modules that comprise the advanced diploma are: