This article explores how the local community projects in marginalized residential areas in Denmark attempt to make ‘responsible’ residents. It has commonly been argued that contemporary governance is inflected with responsibilization, often understood as the ambition to make citizens self-responsible and independent from the welfare state. However, much less attention has been paid to how such responsibilization is accomplished in practice. The article draws on interviews with local community workers and participant observation in local community projects, to explore the process of ‘responsibilization’ in practice. The article shows how local community workers use narrative accounts to assess residents and their (failed) responsibilities, as well as their own responsibilities towards residents. Building on this, it is shown how attempts to make residents independent from the welfare state become entangled with practices of care, through which local community workers assume responsibilities for residents, rather than making them independent as such. Lastly, the article shows how responsibilization is a fragile process, and how it is entangled with ongoing makings of accounts that demonstrate responsibilities, both for local community workers and residents.
ClarkeJ. (2005). New Labour’s citizens: Activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned?Critical Social Policy, 25, 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018305057024
3.
FallovM. A. (2006). Speaking the language of capacity: Neighbourhood regeneration and social exclusion in Denmark and England (Unpublished PhD thesis). Lancaster University, UK.
4.
FallovM. A. (2010). Community capacity building as the route to inclusion in neighbourhood regeneration?International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34, 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2427.2010.00905.x
5.
FallovM. A. (2012). ‘Hvor mange bruger pladsen når solen skinner?’: Om styringen af den lokale kapacitetsudvikling i metermålssamfundet [‘How many people use the space when the sun is shining?’: On the management of local capacity development in the measurement society]. In WadskjærH. (Ed.), Metermålssamfundet [Measurement Society] (pp. 109–126). Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
6.
FisherB.TrontoJ. (1990). Towards a feminist theory of caring. In AbelE.NelsonM. (Eds.), Circles of care (pp. 36–54). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
7.
FlintJ. (2004a). Reconfiguring agency and responsibility in the governance of social housing in Scotland. Urban Studies, 41, 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098032000155722
Hoffmann BirkR. (2017). Infrastructuring the social: Local community work, urban policy and marginalized residential areas in Denmark. Environment and Planning A, 49, 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16683187
LatourB. (1986). Visualisation and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1–40.
12.
LatourB. (1999). Pandora’s Hope - Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, US/UK: Harvard University Press.
13.
LawJ. (2002). Economics as interference. In du GayP.PrykeM. (Eds.), Cultural economy: Cultural analysis and commercial life (pp. 21–38). London, UK: Sage.
14.
McKeeK. (2011). Sceptical, disorderly and paradoxical subjects: Problematizing the ‘will to empower’ in social housing governance. Housing, Theory and Society, 28, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036091003788120
15.
MillerP. (2001). Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter. Social Research, 68, 379–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/40971463
PeckJ. (1998). Workfare: A geopolitical etymology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 16, 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1068/d160133
18.
PhoenixJ.KellyL. (2013). ‘You have to do it for yourself’: Responsibilization in youth justice and young people’s situated knowledge of youth justice practice. British Journal of Criminology, 53, 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs078
RacoM.ImrieR. (2000). Governmentality and rights and responsibilities in urban policy. Environment and Planning A, 32, 2187–2204. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3365
RoseN.LentzosF. (2017). Making us resilient: Responsible citizens for uncertain times. In TrnkaS.TrundleC. (Eds.), Competing responsibilities: The ethics and politics of contemporary life (pp. 27–48). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
24.
Schultz LarsenT. (2011). Med Wacquant i det ghettopolitiske felt [With Wacquant in the ghetto-political field]. Dansk Sociologi, 22, 48–67.
25.
Schultz LarsenT. (2014). Copenhagen’s West End a ‘Paradise Lost’: The political production of territorial stigmatization in Denmark. Environment and Planning A, 46, 1386–1402. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45640
26.
ShoreC. (2017). Audit culture and the politics of responsibility: Beyond neoliberal responsibilization? In TrnkaS.TrundleC. (Eds.), Competing responsibilities: The ethics and politics of contemporary life (pp. 96–117). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
StonehouseD.ThrelkeldG.FarmerJ. (2015). ‘Housing risk’ and the neoliberal discourse of responsibilisation in Victoria. Critical Social Policy, 35, 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018315588232
TrnkaS.TrundleC. (2017a). Competing responsibilities: Reckoning personal responsibility, care for the other, and the social contract in contemporary life. In TrnkaS.TrundleC. (Eds.), Competing responsibilities: The ethics and politics of contemporary life (pp. 1–26). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
TrnkaS.TrundleC. (Eds.). (2017b). Competing responsibilities: The ethics and politics of contemporary life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
33.
van HoudtF.SchinkelW. (2014). Crime, citizenship and community: Neoliberal communitarian images of governmentality. The Sociological Review, 62, 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–954X.12115
34.
VilladsenK. (2008). Freedom as self-transgression: Transformations in the ‘governmentality’ of social work. European Journal of Social Work, 11, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450701357067
35.
WoolgarS.NeylandD. (2013). Mundane governance: Ontology and accountability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
