Although accepting that this "subordination to modernity" thesis has considerable explanatory power, this article argues that it is nevertheless limited in terms of providing an adequate explanation of the punitive shift. It is true that Christie's thesis can help explain how punitive solutions may evolve out of rationalizing tendencies integral to the modern state, but this thesis cannot account for what Garland (1996) terms the "criminology of the other" and the contribution of this to the current punitive turn. Not only is this "criminology" irreducible to the rationalizing forces specific to modernity, it is also a form of "criminology" whose appearance marks a decisive attack upon other attributes of modernity around which modern penal systems were also constructed; in particular, the "restricted economy of limits" that historically established the normative parameters within which modern penal systems emerged. To interpret the punitive shift, this article argues that it is necessary to trace its genesis not only to a purification of modernity, but also and in a different respect to its dissolution and replacement by what, in agreement with Bataille, will be termed an "economy of excess." The rhetoric of violence mediated by political elites helps to ensure a continuous supply of raw material for the crime control industry to manage. It also provides and helps maintain a market that is receptive to the repressive service it provides. 10 notes and 31 references