Advertisement

Conclusion: Techniques of Affect and Adaptive Management

Chapter
  • 91 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)

Abstract

The original argument made in this book is that the courtroom in rape cases is not well understood representationally or in terms of a plane of organisation. Rather, our unique position is that the courtroom and barristers’ practices and views are best understood in terms of an affective assemblage and an intensive self-organising plane of composition. In conclusion, we contemplate what this reconceptualisation means for practitioners, legislators and policymakers. This involves revisiting and further expounding the practice of ‘techniques of affect’ and introducing the concept of ‘adaptive management’. We argue that the theoretical and speculative pragmatic approach adopted enables us to better inform legislators and policymakers of how practitioners really engage with policy initiatives and develop a common language for communicating with these three audiences in the avoidance of implementation gaps.

Keywords

Techniques of affect Practices of intensification Adaptive management Iterative processes Feedback loops Bridging organisations 

References

  1. Carline, A., & Gunby, C. (2017). Rape Politics, Policies and Practice: Exploring the Tensions and Unanticipated Consequences of Well-Intended Victim-Focused Measures. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(1), 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chandler, D. (2014). Resilience: The Governance of Complexity. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A. A., Cosens, B., Craig, R. K., & Allen, C. R. (2016). Transformative Ecological Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cook, K. (2011). Rape Investigation and Prosecution: Stuck in the Mud? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(3), 250–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deleuze, G. (1988). Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. San Francisco: City Lights.Google Scholar
  6. Deleuze, G. (1990). Logic of Sense. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deleuze, G. (1991). Bergsonism. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  8. Deleuze, G. (1992). Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  9. Deleuze, G. (1994). Difference & Repetition. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What Is Philosophy? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Drew, S. K. (2007). Doing Justice. In S. K. Drew, E. D. Reed, M. Mills, & B. M. Gassaway (Eds.), Dirty Work: The Social Construction of Taint (pp. 11–32). Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Garmestani, A. S., & Allen, C. (2014). Social-Ecological Resilience and Law. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Garmestani, A. S., & Benson, M. H. (2013). A Framework for Resilience Based Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology & Society, 18(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garmestani, A. S., Allen, C. R., & Cabezas, H. (2009). Panarchy, Adaptive Management and Governance: Policy Options for Building Resilience. Nebraska Law Review, 87(4), 1036–1054.Google Scholar
  15. Helbing, D. (2008). Managing Complexity: Insights, Concepts, Applications. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helbing, D. (2009). Managing Complexity in Socio-Economic Systems. European Review, 17, 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jordan, J. (2011). Here We Go Round the Review-Go-Round: Rape Investigation and Prosecution – Are Things Getting Worse not Better? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(3), 234–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karkkainen, B. C. (2005–2006). Panarchy and Adaptive Change: Around the Loop and Back Again. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science Technology, 7, 59–78.Google Scholar
  20. Manning, E., & Massumi, B. (2014). Thought in the Act: Passages in the Ecology of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massumi, B. (2013). Semblance and Event: Activist Philosophy and the Occurrent Arts. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of Affect. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  24. Parliament. (2017). Ministry of Justice Expenditure: Written Question – 1125414. Retrieved September 6, 2019, from www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-11-13/112641/.
  25. Ruhl, J. B. (2004). Taking Adaptive Management Seriously: A Case Study of the Endangered Species Act. University Kansas Law Review, 52, 1249–1284.Google Scholar
  26. Ruhl, J. B. (2005). Regulation by Adaptive Management – Is It Possible? Minnesota Journal of Law Science and Technology, 7, 21–57.Google Scholar
  27. Ruhl, J. B. (2008). Law’s Complexity: A Primer. Georgia State Law Review, 24(4), 885–911.Google Scholar
  28. Ruhl, J. B., & Fischman, R. (2010). Adaptive Management in the Courts. Minnesota Law Review, 95(2), 424–484.Google Scholar
  29. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2008). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. London: Island Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Institute for Applied Health ResearchUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Liverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations