Pub Date : 2022-09-02DOI: 10.1177/09670106221098485
C. McIntosh
Writing on the US war on terrorism, Judith Butler identified how discursive frames are produced and reproduced in ways that make certain forms of violence discernable as war. These frames that make war an intelligible form of political violence are not only spatial, but irreducibly temporal in nature. Their circulation–e.g., the framing of US counter-terror efforts as ‘war’ – enables some lives to be understood as grievable, while others lack political and normative value. These frames not only determine what is and is not a war, but whose deaths represent an unremarkable facet of peacetime. This article explores one instance where the circulation of these frames had the potential for rupture – the 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. First, it use the event’s liminal status as a ‘terrorist attack’ to make visible the frame(s) operating in the contemporary US political present to render certain acts of violence intelligible as political violence, terrorism, or war. Second, it explores the temporal dimension of these frames, showing how they function together within national security narratives to authorize certain forms of violence as exceptional. This article concludes by exploring the potential for ‘timing’ this violence differently as a means of political resistance.
{"title":"Framing collective violence as war time: Temporality, circulation, resistance","authors":"C. McIntosh","doi":"10.1177/09670106221098485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221098485","url":null,"abstract":"Writing on the US war on terrorism, Judith Butler identified how discursive frames are produced and reproduced in ways that make certain forms of violence discernable as war. These frames that make war an intelligible form of political violence are not only spatial, but irreducibly temporal in nature. Their circulation–e.g., the framing of US counter-terror efforts as ‘war’ – enables some lives to be understood as grievable, while others lack political and normative value. These frames not only determine what is and is not a war, but whose deaths represent an unremarkable facet of peacetime. This article explores one instance where the circulation of these frames had the potential for rupture – the 2016 shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. First, it use the event’s liminal status as a ‘terrorist attack’ to make visible the frame(s) operating in the contemporary US political present to render certain acts of violence intelligible as political violence, terrorism, or war. Second, it explores the temporal dimension of these frames, showing how they function together within national security narratives to authorize certain forms of violence as exceptional. This article concludes by exploring the potential for ‘timing’ this violence differently as a means of political resistance.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"515 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46753528","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-25DOI: 10.1177/09670106221113183
Andrew S. Rosenberg
Deportability is the omnipresent possibility of deportation, which gives rise to constant fear among migrants. In this article, I argue that a focus on deportability’s structural causes – such as global capitalism – obscures how the agency of state leaders and citizens produces policies that entrench this vulnerability and fear. Many in the West believe that the precarity of deportability is what migrants deserve because they are unsuitable for membership in the political community. These people are not scared of migrants. They just believe that the latter do not deserve to reap the benefits of living in their state, even if they contribute their fair share. Therefore, leaders will constantly have an incentive to securitize migrants and enact deportability-enhancing policies because the public will acquiesce. To mitigate deportability, states must cultivate a broader sense of cosmopolitan empathy about those from outside the political community. For if citizens cannot see migrants as worthy of aid or participation in their political community, they will remain susceptible to policies that reinforce deportability.
{"title":"Agents, structures, and the moral basis of deportability","authors":"Andrew S. Rosenberg","doi":"10.1177/09670106221113183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221113183","url":null,"abstract":"Deportability is the omnipresent possibility of deportation, which gives rise to constant fear among migrants. In this article, I argue that a focus on deportability’s structural causes – such as global capitalism – obscures how the agency of state leaders and citizens produces policies that entrench this vulnerability and fear. Many in the West believe that the precarity of deportability is what migrants deserve because they are unsuitable for membership in the political community. These people are not scared of migrants. They just believe that the latter do not deserve to reap the benefits of living in their state, even if they contribute their fair share. Therefore, leaders will constantly have an incentive to securitize migrants and enact deportability-enhancing policies because the public will acquiesce. To mitigate deportability, states must cultivate a broader sense of cosmopolitan empathy about those from outside the political community. For if citizens cannot see migrants as worthy of aid or participation in their political community, they will remain susceptible to policies that reinforce deportability.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46649146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-19DOI: 10.1177/09670106221091382
Elliot Dolan-Evans
The World Bank has asserted a dominant role in post-conflict peacebuilding and during war itself. This article critiques the World Bank’s evolving approach to war and peace through both a qualitative analysis of recent strategic documents and a case study of the Bank’s engagement in Ukraine during the war in Donbas. I identify three prominent themes that inform the World Bank’s evolving strategy for engaging in conflict-affected conditions, which may impact the possibilities for peace, whether conceptualized as negative, positive or a feminist peace. First, the rhetorical importance of governance is concretized to emphasize business solutions to economic and political problems; second, the conflict-affected population is reimagined in terms of human capital, emphasizing entrepreneurship and resilience; and third, private capital is presented as a saviour. I argue that, in practice, these imperatives lead to a further withdrawal of the state when social assistance and protection are most needed, the instrumentalization of the conflict-affected populace as receptacles of resilience and vassals of economic growth, and an emphasis on private capital as the principal social group to the exclusion of real people. I conclude by questioning whether World Bank reforms during conflict can positively contribute to peace.
{"title":"Making war safe for capitalism: The World Bank and its evolving interventions in conflict","authors":"Elliot Dolan-Evans","doi":"10.1177/09670106221091382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221091382","url":null,"abstract":"The World Bank has asserted a dominant role in post-conflict peacebuilding and during war itself. This article critiques the World Bank’s evolving approach to war and peace through both a qualitative analysis of recent strategic documents and a case study of the Bank’s engagement in Ukraine during the war in Donbas. I identify three prominent themes that inform the World Bank’s evolving strategy for engaging in conflict-affected conditions, which may impact the possibilities for peace, whether conceptualized as negative, positive or a feminist peace. First, the rhetorical importance of governance is concretized to emphasize business solutions to economic and political problems; second, the conflict-affected population is reimagined in terms of human capital, emphasizing entrepreneurship and resilience; and third, private capital is presented as a saviour. I argue that, in practice, these imperatives lead to a further withdrawal of the state when social assistance and protection are most needed, the instrumentalization of the conflict-affected populace as receptacles of resilience and vassals of economic growth, and an emphasis on private capital as the principal social group to the exclusion of real people. I conclude by questioning whether World Bank reforms during conflict can positively contribute to peace.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"531 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41360439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-04DOI: 10.1177/09670106211067965
A. Purdeková
Rectification as the return of sites of violence to prior use is little studied even as governments often defiantly reconstruct such sites and urge citizens to visit them as a way to combat ‘terror’. Using the case study of the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attack in Kenya and the subsequent return of the site to prior use, the article reflects on the broader practices of erasure of violence from public space as a unique form of a memory–security nexus. The article reads amnesia and its effects through material and social practices of rectification – renovation, fortification, closure and reopening, and the experiences of survivors and non-survivors in reinhabiting these spaces. The ways in which violence is vacated from space and speech, and the ways in which its absence is encountered by diverse people, produce a rich transcript on memory and its entanglements with security agendas. They also reveal the deleterious effects of politicized ‘triumphalist amnesia’ enlisted as a counter-terror tool, including the emotional tax and public distrust arising from non-recognition when memory is equated with vulnerability and forgetting with defiance. Triumphalist amnesia might produce the opposite effect – a failure to root out violence and insecurity among those asked to confront it.
{"title":"Memory as vulnerability: Reinhabiting sites of violence and the politics of triumphalist amnesia in Kenya’s war on terror","authors":"A. Purdeková","doi":"10.1177/09670106211067965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211067965","url":null,"abstract":"Rectification as the return of sites of violence to prior use is little studied even as governments often defiantly reconstruct such sites and urge citizens to visit them as a way to combat ‘terror’. Using the case study of the 2013 Westgate shopping mall attack in Kenya and the subsequent return of the site to prior use, the article reflects on the broader practices of erasure of violence from public space as a unique form of a memory–security nexus. The article reads amnesia and its effects through material and social practices of rectification – renovation, fortification, closure and reopening, and the experiences of survivors and non-survivors in reinhabiting these spaces. The ways in which violence is vacated from space and speech, and the ways in which its absence is encountered by diverse people, produce a rich transcript on memory and its entanglements with security agendas. They also reveal the deleterious effects of politicized ‘triumphalist amnesia’ enlisted as a counter-terror tool, including the emotional tax and public distrust arising from non-recognition when memory is equated with vulnerability and forgetting with defiance. Triumphalist amnesia might produce the opposite effect – a failure to root out violence and insecurity among those asked to confront it.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"385 - 401"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47882692","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/09670106221105710
K. Howe
Researchers who wish to engage with survivors of conflict and violence face a range of complex ethical issues – including psychological dimensions of research – often with few resources or little support. This article draws on the author’s reflections as both a trauma therapist and field researcher and bridges the fields of mental health and conflict studies to explore two questions: 1) How can a researcher reduce the possibility of retraumatizing or causing psychological harm to study participants? 2) How can she diminish the possibility of being psychologically harmed herself? The author argues that a researcher must have a foundational understanding of psychological trauma, cultivate an awareness of the differences between research and healing, sharpen her interviewing skills, and identify means of co-producing knowledge to reduce the possibility for retraumatization. Researchers can prepare themselves for the psychological impacts of research by increasing self-awareness, engaging a variety of social and professional supports, and limiting exposure to traumatic material. The author argues for institutions to increase their responsibility for the well-being of researchers. This article begins to sketch the contours of ‘trauma-informed methodologies’ and contributes to the broader discussion of research ethics of fieldwork and conflict.
{"title":"Trauma to self and other: Reflections on field research and conflict","authors":"K. Howe","doi":"10.1177/09670106221105710","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221105710","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers who wish to engage with survivors of conflict and violence face a range of complex ethical issues – including psychological dimensions of research – often with few resources or little support. This article draws on the author’s reflections as both a trauma therapist and field researcher and bridges the fields of mental health and conflict studies to explore two questions: 1) How can a researcher reduce the possibility of retraumatizing or causing psychological harm to study participants? 2) How can she diminish the possibility of being psychologically harmed herself? The author argues that a researcher must have a foundational understanding of psychological trauma, cultivate an awareness of the differences between research and healing, sharpen her interviewing skills, and identify means of co-producing knowledge to reduce the possibility for retraumatization. Researchers can prepare themselves for the psychological impacts of research by increasing self-awareness, engaging a variety of social and professional supports, and limiting exposure to traumatic material. The author argues for institutions to increase their responsibility for the well-being of researchers. This article begins to sketch the contours of ‘trauma-informed methodologies’ and contributes to the broader discussion of research ethics of fieldwork and conflict.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"363 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47637476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01Epub Date: 2022-07-18DOI: 10.1177/09670106221090830
Béatrice Châteauvert-Gagnon
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.
{"title":"'How dare she?!': Parrhesiastic resistance and the logics of protection of/in international security.","authors":"Béatrice Châteauvert-Gagnon","doi":"10.1177/09670106221090830","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09670106221090830","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":2.8,"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":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40629601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-01DOI: 10.1177/09670106221101725
Jeffrey Whyte
This article explores the racial politics underwriting cybersecurity’s recent human turn toward the issues of online disinformation and ‘foreign influence’ in US politics. Through a case study of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, this article’s first half considers how contemporary cybersecurity has produced ‘racial division’ as an object of security by framing the BLM movement as a geopolitical vulnerability open to foreign manipulation through social media. In its emphasis on the political protest as a site of insecurity, I argue that contemporary cybersecurity has widened its traditional spatiality ‘beyond the computer’. In the article’s second half, I argue that the racialization of cybersecurity has underwritten a politics of truth ultimately concerned less with parsing true from false, and more with defining the boundaries of secure political knowledge and communication. I argue that contemporary cybersecurity has produced an idealized subject for whom an obligation to possess contingent forms of knowledge becomes a condition of secure political subjectivity. I conclude with a critique of contemporary cybersecurity’s tendency to portray dissident political movements like BLM as ignorant or disinformed.
{"title":"Cybersecurity, race, and the politics of truth","authors":"Jeffrey Whyte","doi":"10.1177/09670106221101725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221101725","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the racial politics underwriting cybersecurity’s recent human turn toward the issues of online disinformation and ‘foreign influence’ in US politics. Through a case study of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, this article’s first half considers how contemporary cybersecurity has produced ‘racial division’ as an object of security by framing the BLM movement as a geopolitical vulnerability open to foreign manipulation through social media. In its emphasis on the political protest as a site of insecurity, I argue that contemporary cybersecurity has widened its traditional spatiality ‘beyond the computer’. In the article’s second half, I argue that the racialization of cybersecurity has underwritten a politics of truth ultimately concerned less with parsing true from false, and more with defining the boundaries of secure political knowledge and communication. I argue that contemporary cybersecurity has produced an idealized subject for whom an obligation to possess contingent forms of knowledge becomes a condition of secure political subjectivity. I conclude with a critique of contemporary cybersecurity’s tendency to portray dissident political movements like BLM as ignorant or disinformed.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"342 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42492280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-24DOI: 10.1177/09670106221084444
R. Georgi
This article explores how disruptive political conflicts evolve in peace processes by studying Colombian human rights defenders’ discourses about the peace process with the FARC-EP. While post-conflict scholarship has predominantly discussed violence and societal frictions as caused by legacies of war or flawed peace governance, I focus on the confrontations over political imaginaries that are endemic to peace processes. Through the lens of post-foundational discourse theory, I read the peace process as hegemonic crisis. This allows me to unpack the entanglement of political change and conflict, to which my discussions with human rights defenders allude: On the one hand, the peace agreement opened a political moment, in which it seemed possible to leave behind the hitherto hegemonic imaginary of the conflict as terrorism that had protracted the ‘state of war’; the advocacy for peace with social justice, on the other hand, it restaged historical confrontations with elites of the political right as antagonistic conflict over the meaning of peace. My analysis not only challenges the paradigm of war-to-peace transition, but also defines discursive conditions under which disruptive conflicts turn a peace process into an enduring interregnum, where the dawn of the post-conflict epoch is perpetually deferred and activist lives are threatened.
{"title":"Peace that antagonizes: Reading Colombia’s peace process as hegemonic crisis","authors":"R. Georgi","doi":"10.1177/09670106221084444","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106221084444","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how disruptive political conflicts evolve in peace processes by studying Colombian human rights defenders’ discourses about the peace process with the FARC-EP. While post-conflict scholarship has predominantly discussed violence and societal frictions as caused by legacies of war or flawed peace governance, I focus on the confrontations over political imaginaries that are endemic to peace processes. Through the lens of post-foundational discourse theory, I read the peace process as hegemonic crisis. This allows me to unpack the entanglement of political change and conflict, to which my discussions with human rights defenders allude: On the one hand, the peace agreement opened a political moment, in which it seemed possible to leave behind the hitherto hegemonic imaginary of the conflict as terrorism that had protracted the ‘state of war’; the advocacy for peace with social justice, on the other hand, it restaged historical confrontations with elites of the political right as antagonistic conflict over the meaning of peace. My analysis not only challenges the paradigm of war-to-peace transition, but also defines discursive conditions under which disruptive conflicts turn a peace process into an enduring interregnum, where the dawn of the post-conflict epoch is perpetually deferred and activist lives are threatened.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"54 1","pages":"173 - 191"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45973229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-10DOI: 10.1177/09670106211055308
Dean Cooper-Cunningham
Focusing on the case of ‘Gay Clown Putin’, this article theorizes memes as visual interventions in international politics. While not all memes are political interventions, Gay Clown Putin is an iconic meme that is part of the international response to Russian state-directed political homophobia that emerged after the gay propaganda law was passed in 2013. How it has circulated and the attention it has received make it apt for exploring memes as visual political interventions that challenge national security discourses. Here, I provide three readings of Gay Clown Putin that suggest different possibilities for how the meme might work politically. In so doing, I deepen international relations’ engagement with queer theory by bringing in the politics of play that works through a queer epistemology that embraces deviance. Bringing memes to the study of international security, I show how the collection of images making up the Gay Clown Putin meme provides space for understanding the visual politics of security.
{"title":"Security, sexuality, and the Gay Clown Putin meme: Queer theory and international responses to Russian political homophobia","authors":"Dean Cooper-Cunningham","doi":"10.1177/09670106211055308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211055308","url":null,"abstract":"Focusing on the case of ‘Gay Clown Putin’, this article theorizes memes as visual interventions in international politics. While not all memes are political interventions, Gay Clown Putin is an iconic meme that is part of the international response to Russian state-directed political homophobia that emerged after the gay propaganda law was passed in 2013. How it has circulated and the attention it has received make it apt for exploring memes as visual political interventions that challenge national security discourses. Here, I provide three readings of Gay Clown Putin that suggest different possibilities for how the meme might work politically. In so doing, I deepen international relations’ engagement with queer theory by bringing in the politics of play that works through a queer epistemology that embraces deviance. Bringing memes to the study of international security, I show how the collection of images making up the Gay Clown Putin meme provides space for understanding the visual politics of security.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"302 - 323"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42543092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-03DOI: 10.1177/09670106211066750
Adam Ferhani
Approaching health security from a practice-theoretical perspective, this article advances our understanding of the everyday and locality in health security decisionmaking, and is guided by the following two questions: How is it determined when a health security threat is likely to be present at a point of entry? What knowledge informs everyday health security decisions at borders? Markedly little is known about health security decisionmaking, though conventional wisdom tells us that health security decisions are based on stringent processes and – importantly – anchored in epidemiological knowledge. The assumed primacy of epidemiological knowledge in health security decisionmaking is well illustrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: evidence-based responses emerged globally following sophisticated epidemiologic investigation. Are health security decisions always rooted in epidemiology? A 12-month period of non-participant observation of Port Health Officers – who, under the auspices of the 2005 International Health Regulations, are responsible for numerous prophylactic measures at the UK border – gives a unique, privileged entry point for understanding the health security decisionmaking process and tells a story that both questions the centrality of epidemiology and foregrounds the role of tacit knowledge and intuition in health security decisionmaking. This article, which draws on insights from the science and technology studies literature on tacit knowledge, shows how observed health risk taxonomies and corollary decisions in prophylactic border security are predicated almost exclusively on hunches and ‘just knowing’ that something ‘doesn’t feel right’.
{"title":"‘Yeah, this one will be a good one’, or Tacit knowledge, prophylaxis and the border: Exploring everyday health security decisionmaking","authors":"Adam Ferhani","doi":"10.1177/09670106211066750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211066750","url":null,"abstract":"Approaching health security from a practice-theoretical perspective, this article advances our understanding of the everyday and locality in health security decisionmaking, and is guided by the following two questions: How is it determined when a health security threat is likely to be present at a point of entry? What knowledge informs everyday health security decisions at borders? Markedly little is known about health security decisionmaking, though conventional wisdom tells us that health security decisions are based on stringent processes and – importantly – anchored in epidemiological knowledge. The assumed primacy of epidemiological knowledge in health security decisionmaking is well illustrated by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: evidence-based responses emerged globally following sophisticated epidemiologic investigation. Are health security decisions always rooted in epidemiology? A 12-month period of non-participant observation of Port Health Officers – who, under the auspices of the 2005 International Health Regulations, are responsible for numerous prophylactic measures at the UK border – gives a unique, privileged entry point for understanding the health security decisionmaking process and tells a story that both questions the centrality of epidemiology and foregrounds the role of tacit knowledge and intuition in health security decisionmaking. This article, which draws on insights from the science and technology studies literature on tacit knowledge, shows how observed health risk taxonomies and corollary decisions in prophylactic border security are predicated almost exclusively on hunches and ‘just knowing’ that something ‘doesn’t feel right’.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"497 - 514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41462914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：