The idea of measurement (of bodies and identities) is a guiding principle of globalized surveillance in the War on Terror. Nevertheless, this inherently scientific notion is so naturalized in public and academic discourse that its meaning and implications are left undiscussed. This paper builds on quantum theory to present an immanent critique of measurement in surveillance. Foregrounding surveillance's transdisciplinary conceptual foundations, it argues that a notion of identity measurement centered on ambiguity and embodiment, rather than fixity and abstraction, reshapes the scope for political action and opens new avenues for critique. I suggest that a lack of critical engagement with the concept of measurement accounts for Surveillance Studies’ and International Political Sociology's difficulty in exploring the relation between the material–affective dimension of surveillance and its identity-fixing function. Challenging unquestioned notions of measurement in social science, quantum theory highlights the interconnected importance of ambiguity and embodiment in processes of identity measurement. Through the case of airport security, I illustrate how quantum measurement departs from recent critical accounts of surveillance—concerned with the fixity of unambiguous identities and the digital abstraction of bodies—and foregrounds the ambiguity of affect to postulate new forms of agency and resistance to the politics of surveillance.
{"title":"Subjects of Quantum Measurement: Surveillance and Affect in the War on Terror","authors":"Italo Brandimarte","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The idea of measurement (of bodies and identities) is a guiding principle of globalized surveillance in the War on Terror. Nevertheless, this inherently scientific notion is so naturalized in public and academic discourse that its meaning and implications are left undiscussed. This paper builds on quantum theory to present an immanent critique of measurement in surveillance. Foregrounding surveillance's transdisciplinary conceptual foundations, it argues that a notion of identity measurement centered on ambiguity and embodiment, rather than fixity and abstraction, reshapes the scope for political action and opens new avenues for critique. I suggest that a lack of critical engagement with the concept of measurement accounts for Surveillance Studies’ and International Political Sociology's difficulty in exploring the relation between the material–affective dimension of surveillance and its identity-fixing function. Challenging unquestioned notions of measurement in social science, quantum theory highlights the interconnected importance of ambiguity and embodiment in processes of identity measurement. Through the case of airport security, I illustrate how quantum measurement departs from recent critical accounts of surveillance—concerned with the fixity of unambiguous identities and the digital abstraction of bodies—and foregrounds the ambiguity of affect to postulate new forms of agency and resistance to the politics of surveillance.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41667942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A long-standing critique of liberalism is that it is both amoral and anti-communitarian. Bound to the totemic figures of the Law and the Market, the “liberal art of governing” is unable to conceive of social regulations outside this twin rational framework. However, the 1990s saw the international dissemination of State managerial reform—embodied by the slogan “doing better with less”—where entrepreneurial practices coexist with participatory and decentralizing policies. In the context of State redeployment, an emerging strategy is evolving as economic neoliberalism merges with cooperative liberalism inspired by the American myth of self-government. By establishing a genealogy for this other side of liberal governmentality, this paper demonstrates how contemporary neo-progressivism emphasizes “holoptic” technologies. By encouraging a “proactive citizenship” through moral and community coercion, holoptic technologies can provide new resources to resurgent authoritarianism. Thus, the study of governmentality within the field of international political sociology should take into account a power architecture that is based on the local scale and implemented by States in a context of convergence of global political orders.
{"title":"From the Myth of Self-Government to the Rise of Holoptism: Another Genealogy of Liberal Governmentality","authors":"Théo Jacob","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A long-standing critique of liberalism is that it is both amoral and anti-communitarian. Bound to the totemic figures of the Law and the Market, the “liberal art of governing” is unable to conceive of social regulations outside this twin rational framework. However, the 1990s saw the international dissemination of State managerial reform—embodied by the slogan “doing better with less”—where entrepreneurial practices coexist with participatory and decentralizing policies. In the context of State redeployment, an emerging strategy is evolving as economic neoliberalism merges with cooperative liberalism inspired by the American myth of self-government. By establishing a genealogy for this other side of liberal governmentality, this paper demonstrates how contemporary neo-progressivism emphasizes “holoptic” technologies. By encouraging a “proactive citizenship” through moral and community coercion, holoptic technologies can provide new resources to resurgent authoritarianism. Thus, the study of governmentality within the field of international political sociology should take into account a power architecture that is based on the local scale and implemented by States in a context of convergence of global political orders.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47822876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Dwyer, Clare Stevens, L. P. Muller, Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Pip Thornton
Cybersecurity has attracted significant political, social, and technological attention as contemporary societies have become increasingly reliant on computation. Today, at least within the Global North, there is an ever-pressing and omnipresent threat of the next “cyber-attack” or the emergence of a new vulnerability in highly interconnected supply chains. However, such discursive positioning of threat and its resolution has typically reinforced, and perpetuated, dominant power structures and forms of violence as well as universalist protocols of protection. In this collective discussion, in contrast, six scholars from different disciplines discuss what it means to “do” “critical” research into what many of us uncomfortably refer to as “cybersecurity.” In a series of provocations and reflections, we argue that, as much as cybersecurity may be a dominant discursive mode with associated funding and institutional “benefits,” it is crucial to look outward, in conversation with other moves to consider our technological moment. That is, we question who and what cybersecurity is for, how to engage as academics, and what it could mean to undo cybersecurity in ways that can reassess and challenge power structures in the twenty-first century.
{"title":"What Can a Critical Cybersecurity Do?","authors":"A. Dwyer, Clare Stevens, L. P. Muller, Myriam Dunn Cavelty, Lizzie Coles-Kemp, Pip Thornton","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Cybersecurity has attracted significant political, social, and technological attention as contemporary societies have become increasingly reliant on computation. Today, at least within the Global North, there is an ever-pressing and omnipresent threat of the next “cyber-attack” or the emergence of a new vulnerability in highly interconnected supply chains. However, such discursive positioning of threat and its resolution has typically reinforced, and perpetuated, dominant power structures and forms of violence as well as universalist protocols of protection. In this collective discussion, in contrast, six scholars from different disciplines discuss what it means to “do” “critical” research into what many of us uncomfortably refer to as “cybersecurity.” In a series of provocations and reflections, we argue that, as much as cybersecurity may be a dominant discursive mode with associated funding and institutional “benefits,” it is crucial to look outward, in conversation with other moves to consider our technological moment. That is, we question who and what cybersecurity is for, how to engage as academics, and what it could mean to undo cybersecurity in ways that can reassess and challenge power structures in the twenty-first century.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49173936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Military tattoos have recently become the latest genre of war art deployed by museums to make war tangible to their visitors. These new war objects give rise to important temporal inconsistencies: as individual soldiers relate different understandings of wartime, exhibitions mediate them monolithically, reproducing a notion of wartime as exceptional, finite, and temporary. To grasp this inconsistency, this article introduces a conceptual distinction between chronic and chronological embodied temporalities of war experience. In the four exhibitions of military tattoos under analysis, different veterans locate war's end at different junctures or moments. In these experiences, the issue of war's ending is a matter of chronology. In contrast, other veterans find war to be never-ending. In this case, war is akin to a chronic condition, whose very essence is a sense of temporal lingering that puts the idea of war's ending into question. I show that sticking to univocal understanding of wartime, exhibitions of military tattoos efface chronic and chronologically discrepant war experiences, contributing to the (re)production of a war/peace(time) binary that has been repeatedly deemed to be problematic and violent.
{"title":"Inking Wartime: Military Tattoos and the Temporalities of the War Experience","authors":"Mirko Palestrino","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac015","url":null,"abstract":"Military tattoos have recently become the latest genre of war art deployed by museums to make war tangible to their visitors. These new war objects give rise to important temporal inconsistencies: as individual soldiers relate different understandings of wartime, exhibitions mediate them monolithically, reproducing a notion of wartime as exceptional, finite, and temporary. To grasp this inconsistency, this article introduces a conceptual distinction between chronic and chronological embodied temporalities of war experience. In the four exhibitions of military tattoos under analysis, different veterans locate war's end at different junctures or moments. In these experiences, the issue of war's ending is a matter of chronology. In contrast, other veterans find war to be never-ending. In this case, war is akin to a chronic condition, whose very essence is a sense of temporal lingering that puts the idea of war's ending into question. I show that sticking to univocal understanding of wartime, exhibitions of military tattoos efface chronic and chronologically discrepant war experiences, contributing to the (re)production of a war/peace(time) binary that has been repeatedly deemed to be problematic and violent.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42077505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Public and scholarly debates surrounding free speech often assume free speech is a public good and/or should be approached as a problem of “drawing the line” between free and regulated or benign and harmful speech. In contrast, this article provides a genealogy of free speech in which liberal freedom of expression has, since its inception, been integral to white supremacist settler colonialism in the United Kingdom and its former settler colonies, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The article argues that, far from a noble struggle against regulation, liberal politics around free speech establish oppositions between white “civilized” speech and its Indigenized racially darkened “others” as well as controlling or silencing Indigenous, Black and/or otherwise racially othered speech across the Anglosphere. The article first traces free speech through two significant moments in its emergence: early European Enlightenment colonial expansion (embodied in John Locke's “toleration”) and 1800s British colonial industrialization (embodied in John Stuart Mill's “marketplace of ideas”). The article then examines how this genealogy informs the contemporary case study of contestation over free speech in universities, showing that engagements with free speech across the political spectrum extend its settler colonial rationality.
{"title":"The Settler Coloniality of Free Speech","authors":"Darcy Leigh","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Public and scholarly debates surrounding free speech often assume free speech is a public good and/or should be approached as a problem of “drawing the line” between free and regulated or benign and harmful speech. In contrast, this article provides a genealogy of free speech in which liberal freedom of expression has, since its inception, been integral to white supremacist settler colonialism in the United Kingdom and its former settler colonies, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The article argues that, far from a noble struggle against regulation, liberal politics around free speech establish oppositions between white “civilized” speech and its Indigenized racially darkened “others” as well as controlling or silencing Indigenous, Black and/or otherwise racially othered speech across the Anglosphere. The article first traces free speech through two significant moments in its emergence: early European Enlightenment colonial expansion (embodied in John Locke's “toleration”) and 1800s British colonial industrialization (embodied in John Stuart Mill's “marketplace of ideas”). The article then examines how this genealogy informs the contemporary case study of contestation over free speech in universities, showing that engagements with free speech across the political spectrum extend its settler colonial rationality.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49076365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article contributes empirically and conceptually to the literature on finance and security in the light of anti-money laundering and to discussions on international crime control and social order. It draws on unique data in Switzerland to question the chain of security through which the main global policy against crime is produced in concreto. What and who is denounced by financial institutions for suspicious activities? What and who is ultimately punished by criminal justice institutions? Is the fight against illicit finance nothing more than a “broken enforcement system,” or a universal punitive instrument, regardless targeted actors? What does it mean for the general social order at the time of financial capitalism? The article revisits Foucault's lost in translation concept of illegalism to shift the questioning of international crime control to the issue of power relationships’ recomposition and social, class differentiation. As a global policy against criminality at large, anti-money laundering represents a critical entry point to question the general economy of illegalisms from an international perspective. The article makes explicit that economic and financial illegalisms are less punished than others, and they are even less so when practiced by ruling elites, even if they are the most denounced at first.
{"title":"The Most Denounced, the Least Punished: Ruling Elites, Illegalisms, and Anti-Money Laundering","authors":"A. Amicelle, Killian Chaudieu","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article contributes empirically and conceptually to the literature on finance and security in the light of anti-money laundering and to discussions on international crime control and social order. It draws on unique data in Switzerland to question the chain of security through which the main global policy against crime is produced in concreto. What and who is denounced by financial institutions for suspicious activities? What and who is ultimately punished by criminal justice institutions? Is the fight against illicit finance nothing more than a “broken enforcement system,” or a universal punitive instrument, regardless targeted actors? What does it mean for the general social order at the time of financial capitalism? The article revisits Foucault's lost in translation concept of illegalism to shift the questioning of international crime control to the issue of power relationships’ recomposition and social, class differentiation. As a global policy against criminality at large, anti-money laundering represents a critical entry point to question the general economy of illegalisms from an international perspective. The article makes explicit that economic and financial illegalisms are less punished than others, and they are even less so when practiced by ruling elites, even if they are the most denounced at first.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44616255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article speaks to debates in international political sociology that critically interrogate the ongoing digitization of border controls through the deployment of surveillance technologies that render mobility intelligible and governable. Our contribution to these debates is both empirical and conceptual. Empirically, we explore not only how surveillance is enacted but also how it is contested and fails to meet its stated objectives. We do so by focusing on two technologies that support the visibilization of maritime borderzones and mobilities: satellites and drones. Conceptually, our contribution revolves around the kinopolitical character of maritime surveillance and the productive power of technologically mediated vision. We synthesize Nail's work on kinopolitics with ideas inspired by Foucauldian studies on governmentality to develop the following argument: satellites and drones are technologies of power embedded within a kinopolitical regime of maritime surveillance, which strategizes vision in attempts to govern subjects and objects on the move—attempts that challenge any clear-cut distinction between security controls and humanitarian interventions in the field of border management.
{"title":"Perceiving and Controlling Maritime Flows. Technology, Kinopolitics, and the Governmentalization of Vision","authors":"Georgios Glouftsios, Panagiotis Loukinas","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article speaks to debates in international political sociology that critically interrogate the ongoing digitization of border controls through the deployment of surveillance technologies that render mobility intelligible and governable. Our contribution to these debates is both empirical and conceptual. Empirically, we explore not only how surveillance is enacted but also how it is contested and fails to meet its stated objectives. We do so by focusing on two technologies that support the visibilization of maritime borderzones and mobilities: satellites and drones. Conceptually, our contribution revolves around the kinopolitical character of maritime surveillance and the productive power of technologically mediated vision. We synthesize Nail's work on kinopolitics with ideas inspired by Foucauldian studies on governmentality to develop the following argument: satellites and drones are technologies of power embedded within a kinopolitical regime of maritime surveillance, which strategizes vision in attempts to govern subjects and objects on the move—attempts that challenge any clear-cut distinction between security controls and humanitarian interventions in the field of border management.","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48061179","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: Curating Vraca Memorial Park: Activism, Counter-Memory, and Counter-Politics","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49133603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reflections on IPS in Translation","authors":"Kyle Grayson, N. Grove","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43307281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial: Acknowledging Peer Review Excellence for 2021","authors":"D. Lisle, V. Squire, R. Doty, Alex Hall","doi":"10.1093/ips/olac002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac002","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47361,"journal":{"name":"International Political Sociology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42364103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：