'How dare she?!': Parrhesiastic resistance and the logics of protection of/in international security.

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Security Dialogue Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1177/09670106221090830
Béatrice Châteauvert-Gagnon
{"title":"'How dare she?!': Parrhesiastic resistance and the logics of protection of/in international security.","authors":"Béatrice Châteauvert-Gagnon","doi":"10.1177/09670106221090830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Malalai Joya, Greta Thunberg, Idle No More leaders - what do these figures have in common? They each decided to act/speak out against the failures, lacks, exclusions, violence and injustices in the words and deeds of different authorities claiming to act on behalf of (their) security and protection, and thus made visible, challenged and disrupted the dominant logics of protection on which such claim is based. More specifically, they each enacted this critique by performing a contemporary form of <i>parrhesia</i> - a practice in Ancient Greece that consisted in speaking truth frankly and courageously to power, taking risks in doing so out of a sense of duty to improve a situation for oneself and others. Yet none of these women stated anything radically new or shockingly unknown. So why, then, did speaking truths that were already known lead to such dire consequences and intense reactions? This article will argue that by mobilizing the frameworks of logics of protection and parrhesia together, we can have a fuller understanding of these figures' dissident truth-speaking: it is precisely their positionings within logics of protection that made their truths so daring and, in turn, it is through parrhesia that Joya, Thunberg and Idle No More activists made logics of protection visible through their disruption, opening up potentialities for 'doing' and 'being' otherwise. The dual framework offered in this article thus offers interesting avenues through which to explore resistance, truth and protection in (feminist) security studies today.</p>","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 4","pages":"281-301"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/08/10.1177_09670106221090830.PMC9381687.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221090830","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Malalai Joya, Greta Thunberg, Idle No More leaders - what do these figures have in common? They each decided to act/speak out against the failures, lacks, exclusions, violence and injustices in the words and deeds of different authorities claiming to act on behalf of (their) security and protection, and thus made visible, challenged and disrupted the dominant logics of protection on which such claim is based. More specifically, they each enacted this critique by performing a contemporary form of parrhesia - a practice in Ancient Greece that consisted in speaking truth frankly and courageously to power, taking risks in doing so out of a sense of duty to improve a situation for oneself and others. Yet none of these women stated anything radically new or shockingly unknown. So why, then, did speaking truths that were already known lead to such dire consequences and intense reactions? This article will argue that by mobilizing the frameworks of logics of protection and parrhesia together, we can have a fuller understanding of these figures' dissident truth-speaking: it is precisely their positionings within logics of protection that made their truths so daring and, in turn, it is through parrhesia that Joya, Thunberg and Idle No More activists made logics of protection visible through their disruption, opening up potentialities for 'doing' and 'being' otherwise. The dual framework offered in this article thus offers interesting avenues through which to explore resistance, truth and protection in (feminist) security studies today.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
她怎么敢?Parrhesiastic 抵抗与国际安全的保护逻辑。
马拉莱-乔亚、格丽塔-图恩伯格、"不再闲置 "组织领导人--这些人物有什么共同点?他们每个人都决定采取行动/大声疾呼,反对声称代表(他们的)安全和保护采取行动的不同当局言行中的失败、缺失、排斥、暴力和不公正,从而使作为这种主张基础的主流保护逻辑受到瞩目、挑战和破坏。更具体地说,她们每个人都通过当代形式的 "parrhesia"(古希腊的一种做法,即坦率、勇敢地对权力说真话,出于改善自己和他人处境的责任感,冒着风险这样做)来实施这种批判。然而,这些女性都没有说出任何崭新或令人震惊的新观点。那么,为什么说出众所周知的真相会导致如此严重的后果和激烈的反应呢?本文将论证,通过将保护逻辑和旁观框架结合起来,我们可以更全面地理解这些人物持不同政见的真相:正是她们在保护逻辑中的定位使她们的真相如此大胆,反过来,正是通过旁观,乔亚、图伯格和 "闲置不再 "活动家通过她们的破坏使保护逻辑变得可见,为 "做 "和 "被 "开辟了可能性。因此,本文提供的双重框架为探讨当今(女权主义)安全研究中的抵抗、真相和保护提供了有趣的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Security Dialogue
Security Dialogue INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Security Dialogue is a fully peer-reviewed and highly ranked international bi-monthly journal that seeks to combine contemporary theoretical analysis with challenges to public policy across a wide ranging field of security studies. Security Dialogue seeks to revisit and recast the concept of security through new approaches and methodologies.
期刊最新文献
Qualifying deportation: How police translation of 'dangerous foreign criminals' led to expansive deportation practices in Spain. Insecurity, deportability and authority ‘My body is my piece of land’: Indebted deportation among undocumented migrant sex workers from Thailand and Nigeria in Europe ‘Women helping women’: Deploying gender in US counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Everyday security and the newspaper obituary: Reproducing and contesting terrorism discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1