Enforcing domestic tranquility : state building and the origin of the (Federal) Bureau of Investigation, 1908-1920 / John A. Noakes.

Format:

Book

Manuscript

Microformat

Thesis/Dissertation

Author/Creator:

Noakes, John A., 1962-

Contributor:

Block, Fred, advisor.

University of Pennsylvania.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Penn dissertations--Sociology.

Sociology--Penn dissertations.

Local Subjects:

Penn dissertations--Sociology.

Sociology--Penn dissertations.

Physical Description:

xi, 301 leaves ; 29 cm

Production:

1993.

Summary:

The Bureau of Investigation, direct precursor to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was created by executive order in 1908. Over the course of the twentieth century the FBI has been one of the most influential federal agencies in the United States. Moreover, the rise of the Bureau was part of two major transformations in the nature of domestic repression in the United States--the increased centralization of the means of surveillance in the federal government and the transition from direct coercion by armed forces to internal pacification. Any theory of how the twentieth century American state was built should be able to explain the origin of the FBI. Yet the Bureau has been subject to very little critical examination either by historians or political sociologists.

Using archival records and other government documents, the FBI's history from 1908-1920 is reconstructed in order to highlight the internal processes of state building. The period includes three domestic crises that directly affected the expansion of the Bureau: the white slavery scare; the fear of German subversion during World War I; and the post-war Red Scare. The accumulation of resources during each crisis period is traced, with particular attention given to changes in the appropriation for the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States, the federal criminal jurisdiction, and the Bureau's capacity for surveillance.

The evidence accumulated suggests several arguments. First, states are not monolithic and, moreover, the internal battles between state managers for scarce resources directly affect the state building process. Second, state managers do not merely respond to crisis but, when in possession of sufficient resources and able to claim a realm of expertise, they contribute to the creation and definition of crises that they are then responsible for resolving. Third, the state's claim to the legitimate means of domestic repression is not absolute, as Weber implies, but must be constantly reasserted and justified.

Notes:

Supervisor: Fred Block.

Thesis (Ph.D. in Sociology) -- Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, 1993.

Includes bibliography.

Local Notes:

University Microfilms order no.: 93-31823.

OCLC:

83164586