Problematising Danger

in Academic Service - Archive by on February 22nd, 2011

__________________________________


Event Date: 21 – 22 February 2011
The River Room
King’s College London, Strand Campus
London WC2R 2LS

Problematising Danger

ESRC Seminar Series- Contemporary Biopolitical Security

 

Co-sponsored by the Biopolitics of Security Network,
the Emerging Securities Research Unit @ Keele University
and the Centre for International Relations, Department of War Studies, King’s College London


Download workshop package here

“There is no liberalism without a culture of danger.” (Foucault)

Threats and risks have become the preferred categories for imagining contemporary security. Practices such as defence, border control and the surveillance of populations, insurance, risk profiling to identify suspicious subjects, and risk assessments to protect objects and systems such as critical infrastructure, rely heavily on well-established paradigms of security. Discourses and practices of threats and risks, with their allied technologies of measurement and calculation, however, relate to the wider problem of danger and its allied concept of ‘uncertainty’. Thinking ‘danger’ relates to understandings of uncertainties, otherness of being, and spaces and environments of protection in excess of those accounted for in the language and metrics of discourses of threats and risks.

What happens, then, if the analysis of security resorts to understandings of ‘danger’, ‘dangerousness’, and processes of ‘endangerment’? Is it possible to think security by referring ideas of danger to understandings of life, livelihoods and lifestyles, instead of ready-made ‘objects’ of security such as sovereignty, territory, the nation-state, citizens, borders, and sociological categories such as class and gender? Is it possible to think security in relation to danger away from utilitarian economic categories such as cost-benefit analysis, risk calculus, and rational choice?

The workshop aims to explore these questions and to challenge participants to wonder if current policy security priorities such as terrorism, climate change, weapons proliferation, resilience and migration can be thought in relation to ‘danger’ outside discourses of threats and risks.

In the first three workshops of this seminar series we began to explore an agenda for contemporary biopolitical security research around problems such as mobilities and circulations, resilience, values and processes of valuations in relation to the technologies through which lifestyles and livelihoods are treated as referents of security. In this fourth workshop we intend to spark a conversation around the implications of thinking dangerousness in relation to security and life.

The workshop is based on participants’ work and invites a reflection on the following questions:

- How are ideas of danger constituted? What forms of ‘data’, ‘information’, and ‘knowledge’ are involved in constituting a dangerous subject or a dangerous environment?

- What are the preconditions for understanding endangerment in and how do they question the ‘new security challenges’ of for example, terrorism (and cyber-terrorism), proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change, and health pandemics?

- Can discourses and practices of security be different if reflections on the consequences of endangerment are advanced?

———————————————

Programme:

MONDAY 21 FEBRUARY

Luis Lobo-Guerrero and Vivienne Jabri – Introduction

PLAY

 

download

———————————————

Panel 1 – Ontologisations of Danger

  • Btihaj AjanaRe-ontologising Danger (AUDIO HERE)
  • Joscha Wullweber Strategies of Danger and Dangerous Strategies (AUDIO HERE)
  • David Chandler The Ontology of Danger:Recasting the Human Subject in Discourses of Vulnerability and Resilience (AUDIO HERE)
  • Andrew Neal The Entropy of Dangerousness (AUDIO HERE)

Chair: Martin Coward (Newcastle University)

discussion:

PLAY

 

download

———————————————

Panel 2 – Risk managing the dangerousness of terror

  • Cerelia AthanassiouChanging the Global War on Terror: Who is the ‘Ready’ Citizen Arming Against? (AUDIO HERE)
  • Lisa Stampnitzky- Constituting terrorism: three attempts at rational governance (AUDIO HERE)
  • Christopher ZebrowskiFalling-out: Examining the problematising capacities of danger (AUDIO HERE)
  • Jonas HagmannRisk registers and the measurement of everything: Security scientism and the reassertion of modernism (AUDIO HERE)

Chair: Claudia Aradau (The Open University)

discussion:

PLAY

 

download

———————————————

Panel 3 – Danger’s Otherness

  • Debbie LisleDanger’s Other: Pleasure, Leisure & Travel (AUDIO HERE)
  • Sam Okoth OpondoFearscapes / Securescapes : Urban Anxieties, Securities and the Domestic Scene (AUDIO HERE)

Chair: Vivienne Jabri

discussion:

PLAY

 

download


==============================================

Keynote Address:

Professor Marieke de Goede
Networked Danger and Speculative Security (AUDIO HERE)

==============================================


TUESDAY 22 February

Panel 4 – Sites, spaces and strategies of endangerment

  • Charlotte Heath-KellyCounter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT strategy (AUDIO HERE)
  • Casey McNeillDanger and un-governed spaces in the US (AUDIO HERE)
  • Alex Hamilton – ‘Dangerous tools’ in ‘dangerous hands’: How synthetic biology is imagined as a ‘bioterrorist threat’ (AUDIO HERE)

Chair: Peter Adey

discussion:

PLAY

 

download

———————————————

Final Roundtable and Conclusions With:

  • Mustapha Pasha (University of Aberdeen)
  • Marieke de Goede (University of Amsterdam)
  • Luis Lobo-Guerrero (Keele University)
  • Vivienne Jabri (King’s College London)
  • Martin Coward (Newcastle University)

discussion:

PLAY

 

download

———————————————

2 Comments

Charlotte Heath-Kelly – Counter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT strategy

in Academic Service by on February 22nd, 2011

__________________________________


Event Date: 22 February 2011
The River Room
King’s College London, Strand Campus
London WC2R 2LS

Problematising Danger

ESRC Seminar Series- Contemporary Biopolitical Security

 

Co-sponsored by the Biopolitics of Security Network,
and the Emerging Securities Research Unit @ Keele University


Charlotte Heath-Kelly
Aberystwyth University
cch08@aber.ac.uk

—————————–

talk:

PLAY

 

download

—————————–

This paper considers how ‘knowledge’ about ‘radicalisation’ produces a dangerous Muslim subject, but also how opacity concerning transitions to terrorism generates that will to knowledge. Looking at the underpinnings of the UK PREVENT strategy, this paper utilises conceptions of risk and governmentality to understand how the radicalisation discourse produces criteria of dangerousness and opportunities for intervention in British Muslim communities.

The major assumption which underwrites UK PREVENT strategy is that a ‘radicalisation process’ actually exists; this conception evolved from academic and policymaking discomfort with post-Cold War ‘religious’ terrorism and from the discourse of ‘New Terrorism’ – which produced knowledge about increasing connections between religiosity and violence. As well as focusing policymaking attention on religious ideas as the ‘contagion’ behind contemporary violence, and producing understandings of ‘vulnerability’ and ‘intervention’ within PREVENT, the idea that a ‘radicalisation process’ exists presents a counterfactual to terrorism – which enables governmental intervention in its supposed production. This presents an interesting overlap between disciplinary and security governance, as those presenting vulnerability indicators for radicalisation are also (viewed as) threats to the wider collective – they are both ‘at-risk’ and ‘risky’, vulnerable and dangerous.

Converse to the role of knowledge, Lacher’s (2008) conception of opacity is also used to explain governmental mapping exercises of Muslim communities. Perceived illegibility drives a ‘will to knowledge’, which reproduces understandings of disorder in Muslim communities (post-Bradford, Oldham and the Satanic Verses controversy) and upon which calculations of dangerousness and risk (qua terrorism) are made. This paper argues, then, that a combination of knowledge and opacity (the perfect conditions for risk) concerning Muslim ‘borderlands’ produced governmental mapping strategies and ‘knowledges’ which underwrite PREVENT.

 

<== back to main conference page

 



No Comments