police surveillance to (often unwitting) non-state actors. Through asset forfeiture, drug raids effectively tax criminalized labor. Mass supervision, thus, “recast[s] police officers as prison guards” and “transform[s] entire communities into open-air prisons” (p. 91). To this larger point, McQuade offers an important final contribution—that abolitionist work, which has gained in momentum since the emergence of Black Lives Matter, requires efforts to “exorcise police power and the prose of pacification from social life” and for reinvestment that challenges “the specificity of capitalist social relations” (p. 172–173). Through comprehensive research, McQuade offers a substantial contribution to studies in policing, surveillance, historical sociology, and social justice. This relates to his placing of fusion centers (as well as race and class) within the context of social formation and pacification. This affords a grounded approach that, as he puts it, involves ongoing collection and analysis to move towards a conceptual whole (p. 180). The amount collected for this research is notable, including government documents, ethnographic field notes, and interviews with those who work in intelligence as well as community activists (totaling eighty-two people interviewed over three years). Such an approach is instructive for scholars and students alike. To this, while McQuade’s methods are documented in the Appendix, for example on issues of accessing information (in the “world of official secrets”), I would have liked to see a bit more of his approach unpacked in the main text. This may speak to how he not only strategized to gain interviews and access fusion centers for ethnographic observation but how he maneuvered once “inside.” What questions were asked, and strategies used, to elicit information? In what ways do interviewees communicate or withhold information— and what is to be taken from that which is not said (secrecy as prose of pacification)? Does the researcher at times become an object of surveillance or a conveyor of intelligence? In what ways is this experienced, navigated, or resisted? Ultimately, McQuade answers many questions and asks more, deepening the conversation on state formation, intelligence, and mass supervision. As the book makes clear, “mass supervision, an outgrowth and extension of mass incarceration, helps maintain the stark—and starkly racialized—inequalities that characterize the United States” (p. 5). Understanding intelligence fusion and mass supervision is necessary to challenge such conditions, an effort Pacifying the Homeland contributes to greatly.

中文翻译：

---

种族、暴乱和警察

警察监视（通常是不知情的）非国家行为者。通过资产没收，毒品搜查有效地对被定罪的劳工征税。因此，群众监督“将[s] 警察改造成监狱看守”并“将[s] 整个社区变成露天监狱”（第 91 页）。就这一点而言，麦克奎德提供了一个重要的最终贡献——废奴主义工作自“黑人的命也是命”(Black Lives Matter) 出现以来势头强劲，需要努力“从社会生活中消除警察权力和安抚散文”，并进行再投资。 “资本主义社会关系的特殊性”（第 172-173 页）。通过全面的研究，麦克奎德为警务、监视、历史社会学和社会正义的研究做出了重大贡献。这与他在社会形成和安定的背景下放置融合中心（以及种族和阶级）有关。这提供了一种扎根的方法，正如他所说，它涉及持续的收集和分析，以走向一个概念整体（第 180 页）。这项研究收集的数量值得注意，包括政府文件、人种学实地记录以及对情报工作人员和社区活动家的采访（在三年内总共采访了 82 人）。这种方法对学者和学生都具有启发意义。对此，虽然 McQuade 的方法记录在附录中，例如关于访问信息的问题（在“官方机密的世界”中），但我希望在正文中看到更多他的方法。这可能说明他如何制定战略以获取采访和进入融合中心进行人种学观察，而且说明他如何在“内部”进行操作。问了哪些问题，使用了哪些策略来获取信息？受访者以何种方式交流或隐瞒信息——以及从那些没有说出来的东西（保密作为安抚散文）中得到什么？研究人员有时会成为监视对象或情报传送者吗？以何种方式体验、引导或抵制这种行为？最终，麦奎德回答了许多问题并提出了更多问题，深化了关于国家形成、情报和群众监督的对话。正如该书明确指出的那样，“大规模监督，大规模监禁的产物和延伸，有助于维持美国特有的明显的——而且明显是种族化的——不平等”（第 5 页）。了解情报融合和大规模监督对于挑战这种情况是必要的，和平家园的努力有很大贡献。