Doing ‘dirty work’: Stigma and esteem in the private security industry
| Author | Ian Loader,Bethan Loftus,Cecilia Hansen Löfstrand |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370815615624 |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
2016, Vol. 13(3) 297 –314
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370815615624
euc.sagepub.com
Doing ‘dirty work’: Stigma
and esteem in the private
security industry
Cecilia Hansen Löfstrand
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Bethan Loftus
University of Manchester, UK
Ian Loader
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
This article draws upon two different ethnographic studies – one based in Sweden, the other in
the United Kingdom – to explore how private security officers working in a stigmatized industry
construct and repair their self-esteem. Whereas the concept of ‘dirty work’ (Hughes, 1951) has
been applied to public police officers, an examination of private security officers as dirty workers
remains undeveloped. Along with describing instances of taint designation and management, we
find that the occupational culture of security officers enhances self-esteem by infusing security
work with a sense of purpose. As members of a tainted occupation, security officers employ a
range of strategies to deflect scorn and reframe their work as important and necessary.
Keywords
Dirty work, esteem, legitimacy, private security, stigma
Introduction
In this article we draw upon two different ethnographic studies in Sweden and the United
Kingdom to explore how private security officers working in a low-prestige and stigmatized
Corresponding author:
Cecilia Hansen Löfstrand, Department of Sociology and Work Science, University of Gothenburg,
Sprängkullsgatan 25, PO Box 720, Göteborg, SE-405 30, Sweden.
Email: Cecilia.Lofstrand@gu.se
615624EUC0010.1177/1477370815615624European Journal of CriminologyHansen Löfstrand et al.
research-article2015
Article
298 European Journal of Criminology 13(3)
industry construct and repair their self-esteem. Whereas the concept of ‘dirty work’ (Hughes,
1951) has been applied to public police officers (Dick, 2005; Waddington, 1999), an exami-
nation of private security officers as dirty workers remains undeveloped. Moreover, Ashforth
and Kreiner (1999) have subsequently extended the concept and shown how certain occupa-
tional environments are littered with physical, social and moral taint. For us, private security
work can be understood as ‘dirty’ in three senses. It is physically dirty because officers have
occasionally to deal with the ‘hands-on’ touching of people, objects, bodily fluids, and the
like. It is socially dirty because security officers are required to manage stigmatized people,
and need to behave in a servile manner to both employers and customers. Finally, security
work can be considered morally dirty to the extent that the broader industry is viewed by
external audiences as tainted and disreputable (Thumala et al., 2011; White, 2010). Our aim
is to understand how the stigma attached to the role is reconciled within the occupational
culture of security officers.
The article proceeds as follows. We begin by outlining the broader social field of
private security, with particular reference to the reputational problems currently afflict-
ing the industry. We then present a more detailed explanation of our theoretical frame-
work, which conceives private security as dirty work. Following a description of the two
ethnographic studies – one based in the UK, the other in Sweden – we outline and discuss
the key themes cutting across our respective research projects. Along with describing
instances of taint designation and management, we find that the occupational culture is
constituted by a shared set of norms and values that enhance occupational self-esteem by
infusing security work with a sense of meaningfulness, thereby justifying the work and
its purposes. As members of a tainted occupation, security officers employed a range of
strategies to deflect scorn and reframe their work as important and necessary.
Private security as dirty work
It is now a cliché to say that policing and security provision have undergone significant
transformation. In nearly all advanced democratic countries across the globe, state-
centred systems of security provision are increasingly giving way to more de-centred,
pluralistic systems in which public police forces work within an enforcement apparatus
comprising numerous state and private agencies (Brodeur, 2010: ch. 7; Johnston and
Shearing, 2003). The economy of private providers of policing has also expanded dra-
matically. Private security now operates across diverse areas and can even be the domi-
nant form of visible frontline policing (Crawford et al., 2005). Yet, although the private
security industry is often presented as an increasingly dominant fixture of societies,
recent work by Thumala et al. (2011) reveals it to be an industry also beset with insecuri-
ties about its status and legitimacy (see also Loader et al., 2014). For, while the industry
is expanding in its scope and enjoying a measure of acceptance, it continues to be dogged
by reputational problems (see also White, 2010). Elements of this tainted image relate to
the high turnover of low-skilled and low-paid personnel and depictions of criminal and
violent security personnel (Brookes, 2007; Hobbs et al., 2003). Although Sweden has
been regarded as a forerunner in terms of both the quality and regulation of the security
industry (Button 2007a; De Waard 1999; Van Steden and Sarre 2007), Swedish compa-
nies have also had to account for their reputation (Berndtsson, 2011; Hansen Löfstrand,
To continue reading
Request your trial