Taking the material turn can contribute to renewing the discipline and sustaining the development of a slow criminology. Treating objects as mediators and acknowledging their ontological multiplicities protect us from our reflex to condemn rather than analyze them. Using the example of the ‘youth repellent’, we document three of its instantiations: a spatial fluidity device; a pain delivery mechanism; and an environmental pollution agent. This exploration forces us to expand the borders of the discipline to embrace others such as audiology and epidemiology. While these detours slow our analysis, they are the price we must pay for doing justice to the messiness of the human and non-human associations that constitute the fabric of our world.
AasKF (2006) ‘The body does not lie’: Identity, risk and trust in technoculture. Crime, Media, Culture2: 143–158.
2.
AkiyamaM (2010) Silent alarm: The Mosquito youth deterrent and the politics of frequency. Canadian Journal of Communication35: 455–471.
3.
AlderK (2007) Introduction. Isis98: 80–83.
4.
BaradK (1998) Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies10: 87–126.
5.
BeckerHS (1998) Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You’re Doing It. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BunkerR (2009) Should police departments develop specific training and policies governing use of multiple TASER shocks against individuals who might be in vulnerable physiological states?Criminology & Public Policy8: 893–901.
7.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: LawJ (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 196–223.
8.
CallonMLatourB (1992) Don’t throw the baby out with the bath school! In: Pickering A (ed.)Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 343–368.
9.
CollinsHYearleyS (1992) Epistemological chicken. In: PickeringA (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 301–326.
10.
CooleDFrostS (2010) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
11.
DufresneMRobertD (2015) The multiplicities of dust: Showing the skills of DNA at assembling humans and non-humans. TSANTSA: Journal of the Swiss Anthropological Society, Anthropology and the Ontological Turn20: 74–83.
12.
DugdaleA (1999) Materiality: Juggling sameness and difference. The Sociological Review47: 113–135.
13.
FusseyPCoaffeeJArmstrongGet al. (2012) The regeneration games: Purity and security in the Olympic city. British Journal of Sociology63(2): 260–284.
14.
GadCBruun JensenC (2010) On the consequences of post-ANT. Science, Technology & Human Values35: 55–80.
15.
GomartE (2002) Methadone: Six effects in search of a substance. Social Studies of Science32: 93–135.
16.
GomartEHennionA (1999) A sociology of attachment: Music amateurs, drug users. The Sociological Review47(S1): 220–247.
17.
HarawayD (2000) A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and social-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: BellDKenedyBM (eds) The Cybercultures Reader. London: Routledge, 291–324.
18.
HarrisJ (2005) The ordering of things: Organization in Bruno Latour. The Sociological Review53: 163–177.
19.
JenningsCRJonesNS (2001) Presbyacusis. Journal of Laryngology & Otology115: 171–178.
20.
LatourB (1996) On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity3: 228–245.
21.
LatourB (1999) On recalling ANT. In: LawJHassardJ (eds) Actor Network and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 15–25.
22.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
LatourB (2007) Can we get our materialism back, please?Isis98: 138–142.
24.
LawJ (1992) Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice5: 379–393.
25.
LawJHassardJ (eds) (1999) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
LeeNMotzkauJ (2011) Navigating the bio-politics of childhood. Childhood18: 7–19.
28.
LeeNMotzkauJ (2012) The biosocial event: Responding to innovation in the life sciences. Sociology46: 426–441.
29.
Leman-LangloisS (2006) Questions au sujet de la cybercriminalité, le crime comme moyen de contrôle du cyberespace commercial. Criminologie39: 63–81.
30.
LittleC (2015) The ‘Mosquito’ and the transformation of British public space. Journal of Youth Studies18: 167–182.
31.
LyonD (2003) Surveillance as social sorting: Computer codes and mobile bodies. In: LyonD (ed.) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination. London: Routledge, 13–30.
32.
McMullanJPerrierD (2003) Technologies of crime: The cyber-attacks on electronic gambling. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice45: 159–186.
33.
MagnetSA (2011) When Biometrics Fail: Gender, Race, and the Technology of Identity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
MolA (1999) Ontological politics: A word and some questions. The Sociological Review47(S1): 74–89.
35.
MolA (2003) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
MoreaudeBellaingC (2011) Le Taser dans la vie démocratique: L’éléctricité adoucit-elle les moeurs? In: HoudartSThieryO (eds) Humains, non-humains: Comment repeupler les sciences sociales. Paris: La Découverte, 81–90.
37.
PelsDHetheringtonKVandenbergheF (2002) The status of the object. Theory, Culture & Society19: 1–21.
38.
Regional Public Health Agency. ASSS National Capital (2009) Memorandum pertaining to the use of the Mosquito device (anti-youth whistle). Report 100-2009-04. Québec: Health and Social Service Agency. [Direction régionale de la santé publique. ASSS-Capitale nationale (2009) Avis concernant les risques potentiels reliés à l’utilisation du dispositif « Mosquito » (sifflet anti-ado). Rapport 100-2009-04. Québec: Agence de la santé et des services sociaux.]
39.
RobertDDufresneM (2008) The social uses of DNA in the political realm or how politics construct DNA technology in the fight against crime. New Genetics and Society27: 69–82.
40.
SmithGJDO’MalleyP (2017) Driving politics: Data-driven governance and resistance. British Journal of Criminology57: 275–298.
41.
StakeRE (1994) Case studies. In: DenzinNLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 236–247.
42.
StarSL (1990) Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. The Sociological Review38(S1): 26–56.
43.
StengersI (2011) ‘Another science is possible!’: A plea for slow science. Inaugural lecture, Chair Willy Calewaert 2011–2012, Belgium, 13December.
44.
valentinek (2007) Methadone maintenance treatment and making up people. Sociology41(3): 497–514.
45.
WalshC (2008) The Mosquito: A repellent response. Youth Justice8: 122–133.
46.
WhiteMReadyJ (2009) Examining fatal and nonfatal incidents involving the TASER. Criminology & Public Policy8: 865–891.
