Pub Date : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211024413
D. Chandler, Farai Chipato
Introduction In 2020, Security Dialogue issued a call for interventions on race and racism in critical security studies, responding to a tumultuous year of global upheaval and academic controversy surrounding racial issues in contemporary society. In the call, the editors highlighted the lack of engagement with race in the field, requesting submissions that interrogate these issues and propose reparative framings to inform future research. Our response to this call seeks to raise some notes of caution, to indicate that the depth and nature of the problem require full acknowledgement prior to the consideration of what, if any, reparative work may be undertaken. We do not think that the call is problematic in its statement that ‘the spectres of race and racism haunt the field of critical security studies, not just the broader discipline of International Relations’ (Security Dialogue, 2020). However, we question the ability of the field to provide reparative perspectives that are adequate to the task of grappling with these spectres. Since its beginnings, critical security studies has sought to move discussions of security away from traditional, state-centric perspectives, towards broader and deeper approaches, often focusing on the possibility of security as emancipation or interrogating its conceptual foundations. Studies emerged that focused on gender, securitization, new materialism, ontological security and many other issues, as well as race, as critical security scholars found new and diverse subjects to centre their research on. Recent ground-breaking work has highlighted how spectres of race within the canon of thought in international relations continue to shape disciplinary approaches and assumptions, with Meera Sabaratnam’s (2020) and Olivia Rutazibwa’s (2020) work being just two examples. Despite these interventions, issues of race and racism remain peripheral to the field, understood as an addition to the discussion rather than a foundational factor at the core of notions of security and the world they seek to secure. The question, then, is whether it is possible or desirable to disentangle critical security studies from its racial foundations, to salvage or redeem it, and, if so, how
{"title":"A call for abolition: The disavowal and displacement of race in critical security studies","authors":"D. Chandler, Farai Chipato","doi":"10.1177/09670106211024413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211024413","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction In 2020, Security Dialogue issued a call for interventions on race and racism in critical security studies, responding to a tumultuous year of global upheaval and academic controversy surrounding racial issues in contemporary society. In the call, the editors highlighted the lack of engagement with race in the field, requesting submissions that interrogate these issues and propose reparative framings to inform future research. Our response to this call seeks to raise some notes of caution, to indicate that the depth and nature of the problem require full acknowledgement prior to the consideration of what, if any, reparative work may be undertaken. We do not think that the call is problematic in its statement that ‘the spectres of race and racism haunt the field of critical security studies, not just the broader discipline of International Relations’ (Security Dialogue, 2020). However, we question the ability of the field to provide reparative perspectives that are adequate to the task of grappling with these spectres. Since its beginnings, critical security studies has sought to move discussions of security away from traditional, state-centric perspectives, towards broader and deeper approaches, often focusing on the possibility of security as emancipation or interrogating its conceptual foundations. Studies emerged that focused on gender, securitization, new materialism, ontological security and many other issues, as well as race, as critical security scholars found new and diverse subjects to centre their research on. Recent ground-breaking work has highlighted how spectres of race within the canon of thought in international relations continue to shape disciplinary approaches and assumptions, with Meera Sabaratnam’s (2020) and Olivia Rutazibwa’s (2020) work being just two examples. Despite these interventions, issues of race and racism remain peripheral to the field, understood as an addition to the discussion rather than a foundational factor at the core of notions of security and the world they seek to secure. The question, then, is whether it is possible or desirable to disentangle critical security studies from its racial foundations, to salvage or redeem it, and, if so, how","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"566 1","pages":"60 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41263071","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 : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211031044
Rhys Machold, C. Charrett
Critical security studies’ increasing engagement with race and racism offers a welcome corrective to the subfield’s longstanding tendency to ignore such concerns. Yet our intervention begins from the premise that simply adding race and racism to the list of topics and frames of critical security analysis is insufficient. This follows from the growing recognition that critical security studies’ and international relations’ disavowal and erasure of racism is not reducible to a lack of attention to race per se. It concerns the myriad ways in which international relations (Anievas et al., 2015; Henderson, 2013; Krishna, 2001; Muppidi, 2012; Rutazibwa, 2016; Tilley and Shilliam, 2017; Vitalis, 2015) and security studies (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019, 2020) are implicated in civilizational thinking at the core of white supremacy. Building on these insights, our intervention is structured around the following question: If we take seriously that international relations and security studies are implicated in civilizational thinking, how might recognition of this amend our existing critical depositions to security as well as our analytical starting points for what security is and does? Answering this question requires taking stock of how critical security studies’ orientation to security squares with wider questions concerning power and structure in global politics. In developing non-traditional approaches to security, critical security studies has cultivated an important critical distance from state security and (neo)realist accounts of war-making as security. Guided by an imperative to decentre material relationships, however, critical security studies has embraced a commitment to open-ended and ambivalent accounts of power, which unmoor security from histories and structures (Barkawi, 2011). As a result, critical security studies broadly (and its poststructuralist variants in particular) ‘fail[s] . . . to adequately situate security within complex entanglements with other technologies of power’ (Coleman and Rosenow, 2016: 203). This tendency to abstract security from wider power configurations, we suggest, has largely precluded critical approaches to security from apprehending racism as a structural form of power in global
关键安全研究越来越多地涉及种族和种族主义，这对该子领域长期忽视此类问题的倾向提供了一个可喜的纠正。然而，我们的干预始于这样一个前提，即仅仅将种族和种族主义添加到关键安全分析的主题和框架列表中是不够的。这源于人们越来越认识到，关键的安全研究和国际关系对种族主义的否认和抹杀并不能归结为对种族本身缺乏关注。它涉及国际关系（Anievas et al.，2015；亨德森，2013；克里希纳，2001年；穆皮迪，2012年；鲁塔齐布瓦，2016年；蒂利和希利亚姆，2017年；维塔利斯，2015）和安全研究（豪厄尔和里希特·蒙佩蒂特，20192020）与白人至上主义核心的文明思想有着千丝万缕的联系。基于这些见解，我们的干预围绕着以下问题展开：如果我们认真对待国际关系和安全研究与文明思维有关的问题，那么对这一点的认识如何修改我们现有的对安全的批判性陈述，以及我们对安全是什么和做什么的分析起点？回答这个问题需要评估关键安全研究对安全的定位如何与有关全球政治中权力和结构的更广泛问题相结合。在发展非传统安全方法的过程中，批判性安全研究与国家安全和（新）现实主义的战争安全观形成了重要的临界距离。然而，在必须分散物质关系的指导下，批判性安全研究已经承诺对权力进行开放和矛盾的描述，这将安全从历史和结构中剥离出来（Barkawi，2011）。因此，广泛的关键安全研究（尤其是其后结构主义变体）“失败了”。以充分将安全置于与其他权力技术的复杂纠缠中”（Coleman和Rosenow，2016:203）。我们认为，这种将安全从更广泛的权力结构中抽象出来的趋势，在很大程度上阻碍了安全的关键方法将种族主义视为全球权力的一种结构性形式
{"title":"Beyond ambivalence: Locating the whiteness of security","authors":"Rhys Machold, C. Charrett","doi":"10.1177/09670106211031044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211031044","url":null,"abstract":"Critical security studies’ increasing engagement with race and racism offers a welcome corrective to the subfield’s longstanding tendency to ignore such concerns. Yet our intervention begins from the premise that simply adding race and racism to the list of topics and frames of critical security analysis is insufficient. This follows from the growing recognition that critical security studies’ and international relations’ disavowal and erasure of racism is not reducible to a lack of attention to race per se. It concerns the myriad ways in which international relations (Anievas et al., 2015; Henderson, 2013; Krishna, 2001; Muppidi, 2012; Rutazibwa, 2016; Tilley and Shilliam, 2017; Vitalis, 2015) and security studies (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019, 2020) are implicated in civilizational thinking at the core of white supremacy. Building on these insights, our intervention is structured around the following question: If we take seriously that international relations and security studies are implicated in civilizational thinking, how might recognition of this amend our existing critical depositions to security as well as our analytical starting points for what security is and does? Answering this question requires taking stock of how critical security studies’ orientation to security squares with wider questions concerning power and structure in global politics. In developing non-traditional approaches to security, critical security studies has cultivated an important critical distance from state security and (neo)realist accounts of war-making as security. Guided by an imperative to decentre material relationships, however, critical security studies has embraced a commitment to open-ended and ambivalent accounts of power, which unmoor security from histories and structures (Barkawi, 2011). As a result, critical security studies broadly (and its poststructuralist variants in particular) ‘fail[s] . . . to adequately situate security within complex entanglements with other technologies of power’ (Coleman and Rosenow, 2016: 203). This tendency to abstract security from wider power configurations, we suggest, has largely precluded critical approaches to security from apprehending racism as a structural form of power in global","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"38 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43090329","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 : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211015029
Rens van Munster
In this contribution, I seek to highlight some of the intersections between nuclear weapons, colonialism and race, while offering some critical reflections on recent claims by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit (2019, 2020) that racism and methodological whiteness are at the heart of central perspectives in the field of critical security studies. I argue that Howell and RichterMontpetit’s diagnosis offers important openings for the study of race and (in)security, but I also point to some limits of their critique. I then go on to consider how methodological whiteness has framed nuclear weapons research in (critical) security studies and offer some suggestions for how to move beyond a white subject position in nuclear weapons scholarship. I would like to begin, however, with a few words on my motivation for writing this piece. When I first saw the call for contributions, my impulse was to pass on the invitation. I reasoned that the forum would offer an occasion for me to learn from colleagues who have been more attentive to questions of race and racism than I have been myself. Indeed, there is now a steadily growing body of work that discusses the role of race in international relations theory and international practice.1 My earlier work was attentive to the racialized realities of risk management, but I had never reflected much on the in-built whiteness of critical security studies theories, even if I was always keenly aware that dominant approaches in this field emerged out of and engaged decidedly European experiences (see, for example, Bigo, 1996; Huysmans, 1998). Nonetheless, my current research on experiences of everyday insecurity at or close to former nuclear test sites raises important questions about nuclear weapons, colonialism and race that are relevant to this forum but so far have received surprisingly little attention in critical security studies. A critical body of work on nuclear issues is finally taking root in this field of study,2 but most of these contributions have yet to fully examine the colonial foundations and racial dimensions of nuclear weapons. Shampa Biswas’s (2001, 2014) work is a notable exception to this general neglect, but given that the production, testing and (the threat of) use of nuclear weapons all crucially intersect with (post)colonial and racial realities, it is remarkable that this theme does not have a more central presence in the field of critical security studies as a whole. One of the reasons
{"title":"On whiteness in critical security studies: The case of nuclear weapons","authors":"Rens van Munster","doi":"10.1177/09670106211015029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211015029","url":null,"abstract":"In this contribution, I seek to highlight some of the intersections between nuclear weapons, colonialism and race, while offering some critical reflections on recent claims by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit (2019, 2020) that racism and methodological whiteness are at the heart of central perspectives in the field of critical security studies. I argue that Howell and RichterMontpetit’s diagnosis offers important openings for the study of race and (in)security, but I also point to some limits of their critique. I then go on to consider how methodological whiteness has framed nuclear weapons research in (critical) security studies and offer some suggestions for how to move beyond a white subject position in nuclear weapons scholarship. I would like to begin, however, with a few words on my motivation for writing this piece. When I first saw the call for contributions, my impulse was to pass on the invitation. I reasoned that the forum would offer an occasion for me to learn from colleagues who have been more attentive to questions of race and racism than I have been myself. Indeed, there is now a steadily growing body of work that discusses the role of race in international relations theory and international practice.1 My earlier work was attentive to the racialized realities of risk management, but I had never reflected much on the in-built whiteness of critical security studies theories, even if I was always keenly aware that dominant approaches in this field emerged out of and engaged decidedly European experiences (see, for example, Bigo, 1996; Huysmans, 1998). Nonetheless, my current research on experiences of everyday insecurity at or close to former nuclear test sites raises important questions about nuclear weapons, colonialism and race that are relevant to this forum but so far have received surprisingly little attention in critical security studies. A critical body of work on nuclear issues is finally taking root in this field of study,2 but most of these contributions have yet to fully examine the colonial foundations and racial dimensions of nuclear weapons. Shampa Biswas’s (2001, 2014) work is a notable exception to this general neglect, but given that the production, testing and (the threat of) use of nuclear weapons all crucially intersect with (post)colonial and racial realities, it is remarkable that this theme does not have a more central presence in the field of critical security studies as a whole. One of the reasons","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"88 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45769404","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 : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211027795
M. S. Gomes, Renata Rodrigues Marques
Introduction Recently, the article ‘Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School’, by Howell and Richter-Montpetit (2020), sparked an intense debate in security studies by highlighting what the authors viewed as the racism of the Copenhagen School. Subsequently, Wæver and Buzan (2020) pleaded their case that many securitization studies use the race variable and are aware of racism. The relevance of the debate is undeniable. Several authors have explored the possibilities (and limitations) of connecting gender, racial studies, postcolonial and decolonial thought, and securitization theory (Bertrand, 2018; Gray and Franck, 2019; Hirschauer, 2014; Ibrahim, 2005; Moffette and Vadasaria, 2016; Saeed, 2016). Our objective in this intervention is to contribute to this debate with two main arguments. First: We understand that securitization theory can be racist through negligence. Racism through negligence is unintentional and occurs through the perpetuation of whiteness (Ware and Back, 2001) and the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000). Whiteness is the maintenance of privileges of white people, in all areas, without any inquiry into the racial problem. The coloniality of knowledge corresponds to whiteness at the level of knowledge production – that is, it concerns a production of white knowledge that does not reflect on race and racism. The concepts of whiteness and coloniality of knowledge help us to understand racism through negligence, which is perpetuated through silence. Our first argument states that it is this type of racism that has marked a large part of security studies, including securitization theory. Drawing on the concepts and authors referred to above, we venture that racism through negligence can be corrected through a recognition of its existence. For this to happen, it is necessary to highlight what was being neglected – in this case, to recognize the importance of coloniality and therefore race in contexts of securitization. The consideration of the colonial dimension in securitization studies should find race relevant in
最近，《证券化理论是种族主义的吗?》Howell和Richter-Montpetit(2020)的《哥本哈根学派的文明主义、方法论上的白人化和反黑人思想》通过强调作者所认为的哥本哈根学派的种族主义，引发了安全研究领域的激烈辩论。随后，Wæver和Buzan(2020)辩称，许多证券化研究使用种族变量，并意识到种族主义。这场辩论的相关性是不可否认的。几位作者探讨了将性别、种族研究、后殖民和非殖民思想以及证券化理论联系起来的可能性(和局限性)(Bertrand, 2018;Gray and Franck, 2019;Hirschauer, 2014;易卜拉欣,2005;Moffette and Vadasaria, 2016;赛义德,2016)。我们这次发言的目的是用两个主要论点为这场辩论作出贡献。首先，我们知道证券化理论可能会因为疏忽而成为种族主义。由于疏忽造成的种族主义是无意的，并通过白人的永久化(Ware and Back, 2001)和知识的殖民化(Quijano, 2000)而发生。“白”就是在所有领域维护白人的特权，而不去探究种族问题。知识的殖民性对应于知识生产层面的白性——也就是说，它涉及的是不反映种族和种族主义的白人知识的生产。知识的白性和殖民性的概念帮助我们理解疏忽的种族主义，而疏忽是通过沉默而延续的。我们的第一个论点指出，正是这种类型的种族主义在很大程度上标志着安全研究，包括证券化理论。根据上面提到的概念和作者，我们冒昧地认为，由于疏忽造成的种族主义可以通过承认其存在而得到纠正。为了做到这一点，有必要强调被忽视的问题- -在这种情况下，认识到殖民主义的重要性，从而认识到证券化背景下种族的重要性。在证券化研究中对殖民维度的考虑应该找到与种族相关的因素
{"title":"Can securitization theory be saved from itself? A decolonial and feminist intervention","authors":"M. S. Gomes, Renata Rodrigues Marques","doi":"10.1177/09670106211027795","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211027795","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Recently, the article ‘Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School’, by Howell and Richter-Montpetit (2020), sparked an intense debate in security studies by highlighting what the authors viewed as the racism of the Copenhagen School. Subsequently, Wæver and Buzan (2020) pleaded their case that many securitization studies use the race variable and are aware of racism. The relevance of the debate is undeniable. Several authors have explored the possibilities (and limitations) of connecting gender, racial studies, postcolonial and decolonial thought, and securitization theory (Bertrand, 2018; Gray and Franck, 2019; Hirschauer, 2014; Ibrahim, 2005; Moffette and Vadasaria, 2016; Saeed, 2016). Our objective in this intervention is to contribute to this debate with two main arguments. First: We understand that securitization theory can be racist through negligence. Racism through negligence is unintentional and occurs through the perpetuation of whiteness (Ware and Back, 2001) and the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000). Whiteness is the maintenance of privileges of white people, in all areas, without any inquiry into the racial problem. The coloniality of knowledge corresponds to whiteness at the level of knowledge production – that is, it concerns a production of white knowledge that does not reflect on race and racism. The concepts of whiteness and coloniality of knowledge help us to understand racism through negligence, which is perpetuated through silence. Our first argument states that it is this type of racism that has marked a large part of security studies, including securitization theory. Drawing on the concepts and authors referred to above, we venture that racism through negligence can be corrected through a recognition of its existence. For this to happen, it is necessary to highlight what was being neglected – in this case, to recognize the importance of coloniality and therefore race in contexts of securitization. The consideration of the colonial dimension in securitization studies should find race relevant in","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"78 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47874729","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 : 2021-10-06DOI: 10.1177/09670106211027801
Coralie Pison Hindawi
Many postcolonial or critical scholars are rather sceptical of the Responsibility to Protect principle. In most of the critical literature, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is presented as a product from the West, whose liberal ideal relies on a perception of Southern states being potentially dysfunctional, which in turn justifies an interventionist discourse with neocolonial overtones. The problem with this interpretation of R2P is that it essentially ignores non-Western, particularly Southern, inputs on the concept, falling precisely into the trap that, many authors claim, vitiates Responsibility to Protect: its West-centrism. Building upon a mix of critical, decolonial, postcolonial and Third World Approaches to International Law scholarship, this article proposes a number of additional steps to decolonize R2P in an effort to avoid what Pinar Bilgin describes as ‘conflating the critiques of the particularity of universals with critiques of the idea of having universals’. What successive decolonizing layers expose is a negotiation process in which the agency of states from the global South in shaping the – still controversial – principle has proved particularly obvious. Decolonizing Responsibility to Protect, this article argues, requires critical scholars to engage in a contrapuntal analysis in order to acknowledge the concept’s mutual constitution by the West and the ‘rest’ and the deeper struggles over universals hiding underneath.
{"title":"Decolonizing the Responsibility to Protect: On pervasive Eurocentrism, Southern agency and struggles over universals","authors":"Coralie Pison Hindawi","doi":"10.1177/09670106211027801","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211027801","url":null,"abstract":"Many postcolonial or critical scholars are rather sceptical of the Responsibility to Protect principle. In most of the critical literature, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is presented as a product from the West, whose liberal ideal relies on a perception of Southern states being potentially dysfunctional, which in turn justifies an interventionist discourse with neocolonial overtones. The problem with this interpretation of R2P is that it essentially ignores non-Western, particularly Southern, inputs on the concept, falling precisely into the trap that, many authors claim, vitiates Responsibility to Protect: its West-centrism. Building upon a mix of critical, decolonial, postcolonial and Third World Approaches to International Law scholarship, this article proposes a number of additional steps to decolonize R2P in an effort to avoid what Pinar Bilgin describes as ‘conflating the critiques of the particularity of universals with critiques of the idea of having universals’. What successive decolonizing layers expose is a negotiation process in which the agency of states from the global South in shaping the – still controversial – principle has proved particularly obvious. Decolonizing Responsibility to Protect, this article argues, requires critical scholars to engage in a contrapuntal analysis in order to acknowledge the concept’s mutual constitution by the West and the ‘rest’ and the deeper struggles over universals hiding underneath.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"38 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45940763","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 : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211026080
M. Tazzioli
This article deals with the technologies and apps that asylum seekers need to navigate as forced hindered techno-users in order to get access to asylum and financial support. With a focus on the Greek refugee system, it discusses the multiple technological intermediations that asylum seekers face when dealing with the cash assistance programme and how asylum seekers are obstructed in accessing asylum and financial support. It explores the widespread disorientation that asylum seekers experience as they navigate un-legible techno-scripts that change over time. The article critically engages with the literature on the securitization and victimization of refugees, and it argues that asylum seekers are not treated exclusively as potential threats or as victims, but also as forced hindered subjects; that is, they are kept in a condition of protracted uncertainty during which they must find out the multiple technological and bureaucratic steps they are requested to comply with. In the final section, the article illustrates how forced technological mediations actually reinforce asylum seekers’ dependence on humanitarian actors and enhance socio-legal precarity.
{"title":"The technological obstructions of asylum: Asylum seekers as forced techno-users and governing through disorientation","authors":"M. Tazzioli","doi":"10.1177/09670106211026080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211026080","url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the technologies and apps that asylum seekers need to navigate as forced hindered techno-users in order to get access to asylum and financial support. With a focus on the Greek refugee system, it discusses the multiple technological intermediations that asylum seekers face when dealing with the cash assistance programme and how asylum seekers are obstructed in accessing asylum and financial support. It explores the widespread disorientation that asylum seekers experience as they navigate un-legible techno-scripts that change over time. The article critically engages with the literature on the securitization and victimization of refugees, and it argues that asylum seekers are not treated exclusively as potential threats or as victims, but also as forced hindered subjects; that is, they are kept in a condition of protracted uncertainty during which they must find out the multiple technological and bureaucratic steps they are requested to comply with. In the final section, the article illustrates how forced technological mediations actually reinforce asylum seekers’ dependence on humanitarian actors and enhance socio-legal precarity.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"202 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48803048","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 : 2021-08-26DOI: 10.1177/09670106211027464
N. R. Micinski
In 2012, 2016 and 2018–2019, Pakistan threatened to expel Afghan refugees and in 2015, 2016 and 2019, Kenya threatened to demolish the Dadaab camp and expel Somali refugees. Following the threats, ...
{"title":"Threats, deportability and aid: The politics of refugee rentier states and regional stability:","authors":"N. R. Micinski","doi":"10.1177/09670106211027464","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211027464","url":null,"abstract":"In 2012, 2016 and 2018–2019, Pakistan threatened to expel Afghan refugees and in 2015, 2016 and 2019, Kenya threatened to demolish the Dadaab camp and expel Somali refugees. Following the threats, ...","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43320397","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 : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1177/09670106211013716
Tasniem Anwar
Calculating the potential risk of future terrorist violence is at the core of counter-terrorism practices. Particularly in court cases, this potential risk serves as legitimization for the preemptive criminalization of suspicious (financial) behaviour. This article argues that the preemptive temporality seen in such court cases is a practice of ‘sorting time’ and producing distinct legal definitions around future violence. Building on postcolonial and feminist scholarship on temporality, the article examines preemptive temporality as the material, embodied and multiple engagements with time that are enacted in terrorism court cases. Through the use of empirical data obtained from court observations, court judgements and interviews with legal practitioners, accounts of empirical temporalities are traced to illuminate other forms of violence that until now have been overshadowed by the dominant (and relatively unchallenged) perception of future terrorist threats that is enacted in the courtroom. In this way, the article makes two important contributions. First, it advances the theoretical debate on preemptive security through an examination of how legal and security practices co-produce temporality by defining future terrorist violence. Second, it contributes empirically by showing how temporality is constructed in multiple ways, paying specific attention to temporalities resisting dominating perceptions of future terrorist violence.
{"title":"Time will tell: Defining violence in terrorism court cases","authors":"Tasniem Anwar","doi":"10.1177/09670106211013716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211013716","url":null,"abstract":"Calculating the potential risk of future terrorist violence is at the core of counter-terrorism practices. Particularly in court cases, this potential risk serves as legitimization for the preemptive criminalization of suspicious (financial) behaviour. This article argues that the preemptive temporality seen in such court cases is a practice of ‘sorting time’ and producing distinct legal definitions around future violence. Building on postcolonial and feminist scholarship on temporality, the article examines preemptive temporality as the material, embodied and multiple engagements with time that are enacted in terrorism court cases. Through the use of empirical data obtained from court observations, court judgements and interviews with legal practitioners, accounts of empirical temporalities are traced to illuminate other forms of violence that until now have been overshadowed by the dominant (and relatively unchallenged) perception of future terrorist threats that is enacted in the courtroom. In this way, the article makes two important contributions. First, it advances the theoretical debate on preemptive security through an examination of how legal and security practices co-produce temporality by defining future terrorist violence. Second, it contributes empirically by showing how temporality is constructed in multiple ways, paying specific attention to temporalities resisting dominating perceptions of future terrorist violence.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"130 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43079715","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 : 2021-07-09DOI: 10.1177/09670106211004824
D. Scheer, Gilles Chantraine
In the context of the fight against Islamist radicalization in France, prison intelligence rapidly developed from 2015 through the gradual creation of a dedicated service and a specific corps of professionals. This professionalization of prison intelligence work has deeply transformed the prison administration. This article aims to describe and analyse these transformations on the basis of an ethnographic study conducted in radicalization assessment units, which are specific units set up to assess prisoners who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes linked to radical Islam. We shall describe how the guards, probation officers, psychologists and educators participating in assessing the prisoners adapt to the new, encroaching presence of the intelligence mission. We shall analyse the forms of collaboration and competition between this staff and the prison intelligence officers. Lastly, we will examine criticism of the intelligence activity in the radicalization assessment units voiced by various professionals. The interpenetration of the assessment work and the intelligence mission – which are formally distinct missions – produces a specific type of knowledge relating to radicalized prisoners: a reproduction of certain representations or ‘profiles’.
{"title":"Intelligence and radicalization in French prisons: Sociological analysis bottom-up","authors":"D. Scheer, Gilles Chantraine","doi":"10.1177/09670106211004824","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211004824","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of the fight against Islamist radicalization in France, prison intelligence rapidly developed from 2015 through the gradual creation of a dedicated service and a specific corps of professionals. This professionalization of prison intelligence work has deeply transformed the prison administration. This article aims to describe and analyse these transformations on the basis of an ethnographic study conducted in radicalization assessment units, which are specific units set up to assess prisoners who have committed or are suspected of committing crimes linked to radical Islam. We shall describe how the guards, probation officers, psychologists and educators participating in assessing the prisoners adapt to the new, encroaching presence of the intelligence mission. We shall analyse the forms of collaboration and competition between this staff and the prison intelligence officers. Lastly, we will examine criticism of the intelligence activity in the radicalization assessment units voiced by various professionals. The interpenetration of the assessment work and the intelligence mission – which are formally distinct missions – produces a specific type of knowledge relating to radicalized prisoners: a reproduction of certain representations or ‘profiles’.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"112 - 129"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09670106211004824","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49272055","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 : 2021-07-05DOI: 10.1177/09670106211022884
Seungsook Moon
This article explores the neglected connection between race and militarism by focusing on a US missile defense system deployed in South Korea. In September of 2017, the two countries installed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system in a rural village. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, this missile defense system was to protect South Korea from attacks by North Korea. The system is integral to US global military strategy, but from the perspective of human security, its benefits are dubious at best. By drawing on a theory of the ‘racial state’ and critical studies of the US empire-state, the article examines two fundamental practices of the neocolonial military relation between the two states: wartime Operational Control of the South Korean military and extraterritoriality of US bases in South Korea. It argues that these neocolonial practices in which the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system deployment is embedded reflect ‘the historicist racial ruling’ that denies self-rule for Koreans and its internalization by Koreans who support the unequal military relation. It also analyzes how the South Korean racial state promotes internal homogeneity and otherizes North Korea to bolster national security through the missile defense system.
{"title":"Race, transnational militarism, and neocoloniality: The politics of the THAAD deployment in South Korea","authors":"Seungsook Moon","doi":"10.1177/09670106211022884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211022884","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the neglected connection between race and militarism by focusing on a US missile defense system deployed in South Korea. In September of 2017, the two countries installed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system in a rural village. Manufactured by Lockheed Martin, this missile defense system was to protect South Korea from attacks by North Korea. The system is integral to US global military strategy, but from the perspective of human security, its benefits are dubious at best. By drawing on a theory of the ‘racial state’ and critical studies of the US empire-state, the article examines two fundamental practices of the neocolonial military relation between the two states: wartime Operational Control of the South Korean military and extraterritoriality of US bases in South Korea. It argues that these neocolonial practices in which the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system deployment is embedded reflect ‘the historicist racial ruling’ that denies self-rule for Koreans and its internalization by Koreans who support the unequal military relation. It also analyzes how the South Korean racial state promotes internal homogeneity and otherizes North Korea to bolster national security through the missile defense system.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"512 - 528"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09670106211022884","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48816179","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：