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}
Pub Date : 2021-06-15DOI: 10.1177/0967010621997220
Nivi Manchanda, Chris Rossdale
The past ten years have witnessed a revival in scholarship on militarism, through which scholars have used the concept to make sense of the embeddedness of warlike relations in contemporary liberal societies and to account for how the social, political and economic contours of those same societies are implicated in the legitimation and organization of political violence. However, a persistent shortcoming has been the secondary role of race and coloniality in these accounts. This article demonstrates how we might position racism and colonialism as integral to the functioning of contemporary militarism. Centring the thought and praxis of the US Black Panther Party, we argue that the particular analysis developed by Black Panther Party members, alongside their often-tense participation in the anti–Vietnam War movement, offers a strong reading of the racialized and colonial politics of militarism. In particular, we show how their analysis of the ghetto as a colonial space, their understanding of the police as an illegitimate army of occupation and, most importantly, Huey Newton’s concept of intercommunalism prefigure an understanding of militarism premised on the interconnections between racial capitalism, violent practices of un/bordering and the dissolving boundaries between war and police action.
{"title":"Resisting racial militarism: War, policing and the Black Panther Party","authors":"Nivi Manchanda, Chris Rossdale","doi":"10.1177/0967010621997220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010621997220","url":null,"abstract":"The past ten years have witnessed a revival in scholarship on militarism, through which scholars have used the concept to make sense of the embeddedness of warlike relations in contemporary liberal societies and to account for how the social, political and economic contours of those same societies are implicated in the legitimation and organization of political violence. However, a persistent shortcoming has been the secondary role of race and coloniality in these accounts. This article demonstrates how we might position racism and colonialism as integral to the functioning of contemporary militarism. Centring the thought and praxis of the US Black Panther Party, we argue that the particular analysis developed by Black Panther Party members, alongside their often-tense participation in the anti–Vietnam War movement, offers a strong reading of the racialized and colonial politics of militarism. In particular, we show how their analysis of the ghetto as a colonial space, their understanding of the police as an illegitimate army of occupation and, most importantly, Huey Newton’s concept of intercommunalism prefigure an understanding of militarism premised on the interconnections between racial capitalism, violent practices of un/bordering and the dissolving boundaries between war and police action.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"52 1","pages":"473 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0967010621997220","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45891711","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 : 2021-06-15DOI: 10.1177/09670106211007066
Martin Nøkleberg
There has been considerable scholarly interest regarding the notion of exceptionality, i.e. how and under what conditions extraordinary powers and measures are justified in the name of security. Exceptional threats are now omnipresent in the security discourse of the aviation and maritime industries, and this influences the everyday working environment. Taking Norwegian airport and port security as its point of departure, this article analyzes how security and policing agencies perceive, experience, and respond to the exceptional as part of their everyday practice. Drawing on extensive interview material with security agencies, it reveals how agencies construct strategies to cope with the consequences of exceptionality that arise from heightened (in)security and vulnerability. This article demonstrates that instrumental logic in risk management is one crucial strategy, but evidence also reveals the importance of the human dimension in security practices, as the emotional aspect of security consciousness is a part of the everyday life of security agencies. Closely associated with this is the emergence of mechanisms of active resistance that provide excitement and alleviate boredom.
{"title":"Expecting the exceptional in the everyday: Policing global transportation hubs","authors":"Martin Nøkleberg","doi":"10.1177/09670106211007066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211007066","url":null,"abstract":"There has been considerable scholarly interest regarding the notion of exceptionality, i.e. how and under what conditions extraordinary powers and measures are justified in the name of security. Exceptional threats are now omnipresent in the security discourse of the aviation and maritime industries, and this influences the everyday working environment. Taking Norwegian airport and port security as its point of departure, this article analyzes how security and policing agencies perceive, experience, and respond to the exceptional as part of their everyday practice. Drawing on extensive interview material with security agencies, it reveals how agencies construct strategies to cope with the consequences of exceptionality that arise from heightened (in)security and vulnerability. This article demonstrates that instrumental logic in risk management is one crucial strategy, but evidence also reveals the importance of the human dimension in security practices, as the emotional aspect of security consciousness is a part of the everyday life of security agencies. Closely associated with this is the emergence of mechanisms of active resistance that provide excitement and alleviate boredom.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"164 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09670106211007066","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42926040","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：