Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing
Conflicts over employee drug testing programs involve competing claims about the appropriate organization of social control policy. These disputes are related to the coexistence of competing discourses of social control: (1) a juridical discourse of crime and punishment, which emphasizes citizen rig...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Polity 1992-07, Vol.24 (4), p.591-613 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 613 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 591 |
| container_title | Polity |
| container_volume | 24 |
| creator | Gilliom, John |
| description | Conflicts over employee drug testing programs involve competing claims about the appropriate organization of social control policy. These disputes are related to the coexistence of competing discourses of social control: (1) a juridical discourse of crime and punishment, which emphasizes citizen rights that limit state surveillance, and (2) a disciplinary orientation that strives to prevent and eliminate crime through sustained surveillance and control. The author reviews recent Supreme Court drug testing decisions and argues that the Court adopts the second perspective and supports social control techniques that are antithetical to key elements of liberal legal ideology. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/3235051 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_10_2307_3235051</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3235051</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3235051</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-cf3b2dbbbf74751956ccff68b0f84cf9d2fb8100e19fd14a3bb94e9e3686e93c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0U1r3DAQBmARWsh2G_IXBG1TcnCib1u9hU02CaQU8nGNseXRrhav5Up2IP--WhwIBEJz0kHPzDDzInRIyQnjJD_ljEsi6R6a0VyIjKpCfEIzQjjLuND5PvoS44YQIpUWM_R461brIeIjfO6icX3rOviFF37bw-C6Ff7tG4jYW3znjava9NMNwbfYdXhYA17uqrF_goAvtn3rnwHweRhX-B7irv4r-myrNsLByztHD8uL-8VVdvPn8npxdpMZrvSQGctr1tR1bXORS6qlMsZaVdTEFsJY3TBbF5QQoNo2VFS8rrUADVwVCjQ3fI6Opr598H_HNLvcpnWgbasO_BhLRSlj6TAfgbSQBf0vlFoxSXOS4Lc3cOPH0KVtS5ry0ExIXST1c1Im-BgD2LIPbluF55KScpdb-ZJbkj8mOZq1M9XK9wFifG366o4_4sq-scl-n-wmDj68O_of5SevMA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1307924598</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Gilliom, John</creator><creatorcontrib>Gilliom, John</creatorcontrib><description>Conflicts over employee drug testing programs involve competing claims about the appropriate organization of social control policy. These disputes are related to the coexistence of competing discourses of social control: (1) a juridical discourse of crime and punishment, which emphasizes citizen rights that limit state surveillance, and (2) a disciplinary orientation that strives to prevent and eliminate crime through sustained surveillance and control. The author reviews recent Supreme Court drug testing decisions and argues that the Court adopts the second perspective and supports social control techniques that are antithetical to key elements of liberal legal ideology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0032-3497</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-1684</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3235051</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amherst, Mass: Northeastern Political Science Association</publisher><subject>CONFLICT ; Decisions ; Drug abuse ; Drug problem ; Drug testing ; Drugs ; Employees ; Employment ; Fourth Amendment ; HUMAN RIGHTS, DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS (OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONS) ; IDEOLOGY ; Legal aspects ; Legal status, laws, etc ; Personnel management ; POLITICAL SCIENCE ; Privacy ; Privacy rights ; Productivity ; Social control ; Supreme court ; SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS) ; Surveillance ; Test ; Testing ; United States ; Urinalysis ; Workplaces</subject><ispartof>Polity, 1992-07, Vol.24 (4), p.591-613</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1992 Northeastern Political Science Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-cf3b2dbbbf74751956ccff68b0f84cf9d2fb8100e19fd14a3bb94e9e3686e93c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3235051$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3235051$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27842,27846,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gilliom, John</creatorcontrib><title>Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing</title><title>Polity</title><description>Conflicts over employee drug testing programs involve competing claims about the appropriate organization of social control policy. These disputes are related to the coexistence of competing discourses of social control: (1) a juridical discourse of crime and punishment, which emphasizes citizen rights that limit state surveillance, and (2) a disciplinary orientation that strives to prevent and eliminate crime through sustained surveillance and control. The author reviews recent Supreme Court drug testing decisions and argues that the Court adopts the second perspective and supports social control techniques that are antithetical to key elements of liberal legal ideology.</description><subject>CONFLICT</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Drug abuse</subject><subject>Drug problem</subject><subject>Drug testing</subject><subject>Drugs</subject><subject>Employees</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Fourth Amendment</subject><subject>HUMAN RIGHTS, DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS (OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONS)</subject><subject>IDEOLOGY</subject><subject>Legal aspects</subject><subject>Legal status, laws, etc</subject><subject>Personnel management</subject><subject>POLITICAL SCIENCE</subject><subject>Privacy</subject><subject>Privacy rights</subject><subject>Productivity</subject><subject>Social control</subject><subject>Supreme court</subject><subject>SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS)</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Test</subject><subject>Testing</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Urinalysis</subject><subject>Workplaces</subject><issn>0032-3497</issn><issn>1744-1684</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0U1r3DAQBmARWsh2G_IXBG1TcnCib1u9hU02CaQU8nGNseXRrhav5Up2IP--WhwIBEJz0kHPzDDzInRIyQnjJD_ljEsi6R6a0VyIjKpCfEIzQjjLuND5PvoS44YQIpUWM_R461brIeIjfO6icX3rOviFF37bw-C6Ff7tG4jYW3znjava9NMNwbfYdXhYA17uqrF_goAvtn3rnwHweRhX-B7irv4r-myrNsLByztHD8uL-8VVdvPn8npxdpMZrvSQGctr1tR1bXORS6qlMsZaVdTEFsJY3TBbF5QQoNo2VFS8rrUADVwVCjQ3fI6Opr598H_HNLvcpnWgbasO_BhLRSlj6TAfgbSQBf0vlFoxSXOS4Lc3cOPH0KVtS5ry0ExIXST1c1Im-BgD2LIPbluF55KScpdb-ZJbkj8mOZq1M9XK9wFifG366o4_4sq-scl-n-wmDj68O_of5SevMA</recordid><startdate>19920701</startdate><enddate>19920701</enddate><creator>Gilliom, John</creator><general>Northeastern Political Science Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HZAIM</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19920701</creationdate><title>Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing</title><author>Gilliom, John</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c369t-cf3b2dbbbf74751956ccff68b0f84cf9d2fb8100e19fd14a3bb94e9e3686e93c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>CONFLICT</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Drug abuse</topic><topic>Drug problem</topic><topic>Drug testing</topic><topic>Drugs</topic><topic>Employees</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Fourth Amendment</topic><topic>HUMAN RIGHTS, DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS (OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONS)</topic><topic>IDEOLOGY</topic><topic>Legal aspects</topic><topic>Legal status, laws, etc</topic><topic>Personnel management</topic><topic>POLITICAL SCIENCE</topic><topic>Privacy</topic><topic>Privacy rights</topic><topic>Productivity</topic><topic>Social control</topic><topic>Supreme court</topic><topic>SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS)</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Test</topic><topic>Testing</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Urinalysis</topic><topic>Workplaces</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gilliom, John</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 26</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Polity</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gilliom, John</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing</atitle><jtitle>Polity</jtitle><date>1992-07-01</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>591</spage><epage>613</epage><pages>591-613</pages><issn>0032-3497</issn><eissn>1744-1684</eissn><abstract>Conflicts over employee drug testing programs involve competing claims about the appropriate organization of social control policy. These disputes are related to the coexistence of competing discourses of social control: (1) a juridical discourse of crime and punishment, which emphasizes citizen rights that limit state surveillance, and (2) a disciplinary orientation that strives to prevent and eliminate crime through sustained surveillance and control. The author reviews recent Supreme Court drug testing decisions and argues that the Court adopts the second perspective and supports social control techniques that are antithetical to key elements of liberal legal ideology.</abstract><cop>Amherst, Mass</cop><pub>Northeastern Political Science Association</pub><doi>10.2307/3235051</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0032-3497 |
| ispartof | Polity, 1992-07, Vol.24 (4), p.591-613 |
| issn | 0032-3497 1744-1684 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_jstor_primary_10_2307_3235051 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online |
| subjects | CONFLICT Decisions Drug abuse Drug problem Drug testing Drugs Employees Employment Fourth Amendment HUMAN RIGHTS, DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS (OFFICIAL ORGANIZATIONS) IDEOLOGY Legal aspects Legal status, laws, etc Personnel management POLITICAL SCIENCE Privacy Privacy rights Productivity Social control Supreme court SUPREME COURT (ALL NATIONS) Surveillance Test Testing United States Urinalysis Workplaces |
| title | Rights & Discipline: Competing Modes of Social Control in the Fight over Employee Drug Testing |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T01%3A55%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rights%20&%20Discipline:%20Competing%20Modes%20of%20Social%20Control%20in%20the%20Fight%20over%20Employee%20Drug%20Testing&rft.jtitle=Polity&rft.au=Gilliom,%20John&rft.date=1992-07-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=591&rft.epage=613&rft.pages=591-613&rft.issn=0032-3497&rft.eissn=1744-1684&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3235051&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3235051%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1307924598&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=3235051&rfr_iscdi=true |