Americans were concerned about the threat to personal freedom posed by the conformism and homogeneity inherent in mass-consumption society. They longed for connection in their pursuit of suburban affluence. --New York Times, May 2002 In the Western world, the half-century between 1930 and 1980 was a period of public-sector expansion. From the crisis measures in the 1930s and the wartime economy of the 1940s to the egalitarian 1960s and the finishing touches of the affluent 1970s, the welfare state expanded in different national forms. From the 1980s on, the movement has been clearly in the opposite direction: wave after wave of attempts at reducing the public sector, through the transfer of ownership as well as the introduction of private-sector elements--market mechanisms, governance and management methods--in the public sector. This is a two-pronged movement of privatization: privately owned organizations taking over public functions and private-sector methods entering public organizations. The greatest wave of privatization has been in the delivery of collective services, transportation, power, and communication, especially. The arguments for such service privatization have been mostly pragmatic: an expectation of increased efficiency through the use of market mechanisms. Yet privatization has gone further than service provision: the core public function of maintaining peace and providing security is also being partially privatized. This would come as a great surprise to the classical theorists of the state. In the words of Adam Smith, it is the wisdom of the state only, which can render the trade of the soldier a particular trade separate and distinct from all others. (1) Security privatization takes several forms. They vary between societies and groups: security services can be purchased by states that employ private armies and by citizens who rent security guards; security goods, from alarms to Alsatians, likewise, constitute a growing market. (2) This article looks at one specific form of private security, a combination of goods and services, perhaps a security lifestyle: communities. In large parts of the United States, a considerable amount of new residential construction takes such a form. Gated communities can be defined as multi-unit, master-planned developments where resident owners must be members of a homeowner association and share ownership of common facilities, including a surrounding fence with a gate. (4) Gated communities exist not only in the United States: they are also found in a number of Third World countries, where pockets of wealthy citizens are fencing themselves off from the general squalor. (5) In the wealthy countries, however, only the United States has any significant number, and there is no doubt that they are not only a sign of social inequality and cultural distance but also a cause of growing inequality. Apart from a few prototypes, they began to develop in Florida, where a growing population of wealthy pensioners felt threatened by the increasing group of poor, restless people coming in from Latin America, particularly Cuba. Pensioners have been the driving force in much of later development, but they are far from the only customers for private residential protection. Although the most spectacular developments are still for pensioners (e.g., the Leisure World and Sun City developments; like most U.S. consumer goods, some of these built communities are mass-marketed and sold as brand names), the movement is broader. In California, around one-half of all new residential building involves gated communities, and upwards of 40 percent of the more recent construction may already be behind fences. (6) Gating is a broad and powerful trend. In this article, which takes the San Diego region as an example of a strong tendency toward gating and fencing, I discuss the consequences of building gated communities in terms of the governance of public safety. …