No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Vernacular imaginaries of European border security among citizens: From walls to information management
Abstract
Our primary aim in this article is to explore vernacular constructions of Europe’s so-called ‘migration crisis’ from the grounded everyday perspectives of EU citizens. We do so as a critical counterpoint to dominant elite scripts of the crisis, which are often reliant upon securitised representations of public opinion as being overwhelmingly hostile to migrants and refugees and straightforwardly in favour of tougher deterrent border security. In addition to broadening the range of issues analysed in vernacular security studies, the article seeks to make three principal contributions. Theoretically, we argue for an approach to the study of citizens’ views and experiences of migration and border security that is sensitive to the performative effects of research methods and the circular logic between securitising modes of knowledge production and policy justification. Methodologically, we outline and apply an alternative approach in response to these dynamics, drawing on the potential of critical focus groups and a desecuritising ethos. Empirically, we identify a vernacular theory of ‘the border’ as information management , and a significant information gap prevalent among participants with otherwise opposing views towards migration. These findings challenge bifurcated understandings of public opinion towards migration into Europe and point to the existence of vernacular border security imaginaries beyond either ‘closed’ or ‘open’ borders.
... Fourth, in light of the currently emerging smartification and digitization of the border (Pötzsch 2015;Löfflmann & Vaughan-Williams 2018;Mau 2022), special attention should be paid to socio-technical imaginations (Jasanoff & Kim 2009;Trauttmansdorff & Felt 2021). Examples include anticipated or announced technological changes and their position within border future imaginations. ...
Even though questions about the future have played a central role in recent times of polycrisis, border studies have long been relatively silent about the future. Our article develops a research perspective through which the sensitization of border research for the temporal dimension of the future can be achieved. To this end, social and cultural studies’ perspectives on the future are mobilized to approach the interplay of borderwork and/as futurework. We develop a foundation for an analysis of what we call “border future imaginations”. In this way, this study expands our understanding of border temporalities with reference to the future orientation of contemporary societies. Keywords: border temporalities; future; borderwork; futurework; sociology of time.
... We used several leading questions to kick-start the discussion in each part, reacting to the narratives developed by research participants by asking additional questions when needed. Following the approach of "critical focus groups" (Löfflmann & Vaughan-Williams, 2018), we aimed to stimulate open discussion among research participants that would allow us to explore their meaning-making. Rather than looking for individual predictors of civic engagement, we created a reflexive forum for investigating "how knowledge, ideas, storytelling, self-presentation, and linguistic exchanges operate within a given cultural context," shaping research participants' perception of migration as well as their motivations to become civically engaged in this issue (Kitzinger & Barbour, 1999, p. 5). ...
The lack of trust in politics and poor civic engagement challenge both new and established democracies. To tackle this challenge, it is necessary to understand what motivates new generations of citizens to become civically engaged. We contribute to discussions about this issue by offering a qualitative, in-depth exploration of adolescents’ motivations for civic engagement, focusing specifically on the issue of migration. Drawing on data from four critical focus groups conducted with adolescents (17–19 years old) in Czechia, we ask how their perspectives on migration translate into motivation for migration-related civic engagement. Utilizing the theoretical perspective and interpretative approach of cultural sociology, we look for the meanings that sustain their personal motivation to become engaged. We find that feelings of closeness to the issue of migration act as an essential driver of adolescents’ personal motivation for engagement, making migration an issue of concern to them. We further distinguish between cultural closeness and closeness of contact and identify distinct mechanisms through which these forms of closeness translate into adolescents’ concerns about the issue of migration. Based on our findings, we call for greater consideration of the role of culture and local context in the research on adolescents’ motivations for civic engagement.
... For 77% of Lithuanian respondents alarmed by the situation in Ukraine, the spread of Russia's aggression onto the territory of Lithuania is the biggest threat (LRT 2023). Even though Löfflmann and Vaughan-Williams (2018) suggest that the leading European public opinion research does not give the fullest picture of moods in society, central authorities willingly make use of their results and implement a border policy that addresses the expectations of EU citizens. ...
The project of progressive securitisation of the Polish – Russian borderland is implemented with huge support from local communities. Inhabitants of the Polish border area support all possible tools intended for the protection of the Polish – Russian border. The results also show that the war in Ukraine and potential threats of migration from the Kaliningrad Oblast change the social optics with regard to the border with Russia. The present paper seeks to investigate how the local communities of Polish border zone with Russia perceive the activities conducted in order to reinforce the defensive function of the Polish – Russian border. For this purpose, a survey was carried out among inhabitants of the Polish border area with Russia.
... Current background study on border security can me categorized into two; the first category is of the opinion that it is inevitable to impose security on peoples movement so far the likelihood of illegal, criminal, and terrorism activities is at the barest minimum, the other category is of the opinion that subjecting people at the border crossing to extensive security control not a necessity rather than tends to subjects people to unnecessary stress and human right violation [3]. This category represents mostly governmental approaches that can sometimes be based on public opinion such as the euro barometer survey [4] and a host of other reasons to secure their international border [5]. ...
Border security had been a persistent problem in international border especially when it get to the issue of preventing illegal movement of weapons, contraband, drugs, and combating issue of illegal or undocumented immigrant while at the same time ensuring that lawful trade, economic prosperity coupled with national sovereignty across the border is maintained. In this research work, we used open source computer vision (Open CV) and adaBoost algorithm to develop a model which can detect a moving object a far off, classify it, automatically snap full image and face of the individual separately, and then run a background check on them against worldwide databases while making a prediction about an individual being a potential threat, intending immigrant, potential terrorists or extremist and then raise sound alarm. Our model can be deployed on any camera device and be mounted at any international border. There are two stages involved, we first developed a model based on open CV computer vision algorithm, with the ability to detect human movement from afar, it will automatically snap both the face and the full image of the person separately, and the second stage is the automatic triggering of background check against the moving object. This ensures it check the moving object against several databases worldwide and is able to determine the admissibility of the person afar off. If the individual is inadmissible, it will automatically alert the border officials with the image of the person and other details, and if the bypass the border officials, the system is able to detect and alert the authority with his images and other details. All these operations will be done afar off by the AI powered camera before the individual reach the border.KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionCounter terrorismBorder securityNational securityFace recognition
... The externalization of migration governance points to a new "deterrence paradigm" in migration management (Gammeltoft-Hansen & Tan, 2017; Hathaway & Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2014). Dissuasion, deterrence, or deflection are well-known strategies of migration management to control and selectively limit people's access, for example, by imposing tight regulations to curb immigration of low-skilled migrants and by securitizing migration through a focus on crime and public security measures, thus defining 'undesired categories' for irregular migrants (Frelick et al., 2016;Horsti, 2012;Löfflmann & Vaughan-Williams, 2018). ...
Since the so-called ‘migration crisis’ in 2015/16, EU governments’ efforts to launch online campaigns to inform potential migrants about the risks of irregularity have increased. These migration management tools often apply dissuasive messages, declaring to support migrants to make informed decisions. This article investigates such campaigns through the lens of government communication, a so far under-explored issue in migration studies. Applying qualitative content analysis to two European campaigns, this research finds that the campaigns reiterate immigration policies and portray ambiguity. They therefore raise critical questions regarding the principles of neutrality and reliability in democratic government communication.
... -3 of 16 process" to justify migrants' (non)-deservingness to received welfare help from the state. Finally, other researchers highlight the ambivalence of attitudes toward migrants (Jiménez, 2007;Löfflmann & Vaughan-Williams, 2018). ...
Considerable research exists that examines attitudes toward migrants. Most studies are quantitative, relying on surveys or survey experiments, but a growing body of literature explores such attitudes from a qualitative perspective. At the same time, the study of symbolic boundaries and how people use cultural repertoires of meanings to draw distinctions between “us” and “them” is increasing. This review looks at research, both quantitative and qualitative, which has put these two streams of work into conversation with one another. We organize this work along three dimensions: (1) the micro‐level of individuals and their life‐worlds; (2) the meso‐level of negotiation among the moral communities of civil society; and (3) the macro‐level of institutions and policy. We also highlight those studies that cut across levels. By doing so, we help bridge the quantitative/qualitative divide. Studying attitudes toward migrants through the concept of symbolic boundaries allows us to apply a more sensitive and meaning‐centered approach toward attitude formation, contestation and change and to explore the linkages to available cultural repertoires.
Europa Universalis IV, (better known as EUIV), is a popular grand strategy PC game. Players choose a country to play as and start in the year 1444 with the option to plot new courses in history such as allowing players to form Ruthenia, the game’s version of Ukraine. In this article, I investigate how both Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian online content creators have been making content related to Ruthenia and Ukraine as a response to Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. I highlight how this content allows creators and viewers to voice their opinions on the war, build a sense of solidarity with the Ukrainian military, debate issues related to the war, and raise money for Ukrainians in need. Through close readings of this content, I offer an analysis of how this community uses the game to build a "vernacular geopolitics" in which information about and understandings of international relations and conflicts develop in non-elite settings.
Recent years have witnessed a “vernacular turn” in critical security scholarship centered on everyday constructions of (in)security. In this article, I advance this turn by arguing for greater attention to the role of numbers in non-elite discourse on (in)security. Doing so deepens understanding of the mechanisms and registers through which (in)securities are constructed in the vernacular while conceptually strengthening work on vernacular security through insight from literature on the rhetorical, sociological, and political functions of numbers. To pursue this claim, the article develops a new methodological framework through which to explore the work of numbers in vernacular security discourse before applying it to original focus group data on (counter-)radicalization. From this, I highlight the importance of numerical arguments in vernacular constructions of threat, evaluation of security policies, contestation of dominant security discourses, and performances of security literacy.
The Tower shooting at The University of Texas at Austin on August 1, 1966 is among the first and most memorable mass shootings in U.S. history because of its wide media coverage. Drawing from theorization of cultural trauma and trauma cultures after World War II, this chapter explores the mediation and narrativization of the Tower shooting as a cultural trauma. In this framing, trauma is a product of history and politics, and subject to reinterpretation. The chapter takes a closer look at the KTBC special news report aired immediately after the shooting, and two narratives: Elizabeth’s Crook’s novel Monday, Monday (2014) and Keith Maitland’s animated documentary film Tower (2016), created in response to a collective need for commemoration several decades later. The narratives reify a particular imagery that shapes the collective trauma and its affective resonance. The chapter focuses on the gendered figures of heroes, victims, and survivors in constituting the collective trauma that emerges as a result of a cultural crisis. How are these figures highlighted in the narratives? What cultural values and concerns relating to mass shootings as traumatizing experiences does the gendered imagery reveal? An analysis of gendered heroes, victims, and survivors brings perspectives on the pervasive cultural mode in which the collective trauma of mass shooting is processed within U.S. gun culture.
State and non-state actors interact in both formal and informal ways during migration governance. Yet, we know little about such interactions, especially in the field of transit migration, a largely regional phenomenon. Here the categories of migrants are fluid between refugees, regular and irregular migrants, including those from conflict regions. Governance takes place also informally. Building on relational theories in International Relations, this article introduces a novel relational approach to polycentric governance. I argue that at the centre of such governance are not simply institutions or migration regimes, but power-laden relations among governmental, non-governmental, supranational, and non-state actors, as well as sending and destination states. These form architectures of partially official, partially informal dynamics that govern transit migration in a particular world region. Such architectures are based on mechanisms of cooperation, conditionality, containment, contestation, and others, combined in regionally specific ways. The mechanisms manifest themselves differently depending on how actors are embedded in places with different political regimes and statehood capacities. The article illustrates this relational perspective to polycentric governance with comparative evidence from the Balkans and the Middle East.
The article focuses on the role of border actors – namely border area residents and local administrators – mobilising on behalf of, and actively supporting, migrants on the move. By shifting the gaze from classical categories of actors involved in border control (state security actors, on the one side, and migrants on the move, on the other) and grounding the analysis on a specific cross-border point between the Italian Susa Valley and the French region of Hautes-Alpes, it shows the relevance of the local level in shaping border policy outcomes through the creation of non-profit “migration infrastructures”, and state’s reaction through criminalization of solidarity practices.
Over the past 15 years, the European Commission has poured millions of euros into Research and Development in border security. This article looks at the devices that are funded under this scheme. To this end, it applies Multiple Correspondence Analysis to a database of 41 projects funded under 7th Framework Programme. This method of data visualisation unearths the deep patterns of opposition that run across the sociotechnical universe where European borders are designed and created. We identify three rationalities of power at play: territorial surveillance aimed at detecting rare events in remote areas, policing of dense human flows by sorting out the benign from the dangerous, and finally global dataveillance of cargo on the move. Instead of trends towards either the hardening of borders or their virtualisation, we, therefore, find multiple rationalities of power simultaneously redefining the modalities of control at EU borders. A second finding shows where precisely critical actors are located in this sociotechnical universe and indicates that the structure of European R&D in border security keeps irregularised migrants off their radars. This finding calls for more caution as to the possibility to effectively put critique to work within the context of EU R&D.
The search for security has become an almost permanent feature of the contemporary lived experience and what Brian Massumi has called an ‘operative logic’ for states across the globe. The modern study – and practice – of security has, nonetheless, been largely concerned with the protection, preservation and sustaining of the material, the tangible and the visible. For many people around the world, however, feelings of security also derive from understandings of an individual or community’s relationships with invisible and spiritual forces. Religious devotion and divine protection represent a central plank of security for many, just as fears of divine retribution, demonic possession or witchcraft feature as a central dimension of insecurity for many others. This remains, however, a significant blindspot in much of security studies – and, indeed, often eludes and challenges state authority as much as it intersects with and enhances it. Drawing on fieldwork undertaken in northwestern Uganda, this study reflects critically on the provenance and implications of this blindspot and argues for an expanded understanding of what ‘counts’ as (in)security. In doing so, the article emphasizes the global character of spiritual (in)security and the challenges an understanding of (in)security that encompasses this pose to longstanding scholarly and practitioner associations of (in)security with state authority.
At the height of the so-called 2015 refugee crisis, Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, is thought to have opened the country's borders to a million refugees. She was celebrated as an international leader and the refugees’ savior, while the country was seen as having a welcome culture. Retrospectively, however, her refugee policy is construed as a mistake. Both interpretations agree that Merkel opened the border. Deploying a detailed reading of events, this article asks what political imaginary is invoked through this representation and what its consequences are. It draws out how paying attention to temporality reveals the racialization involved in producing the problem. First, the article sets out the centrality of Merkel and the border opening to accounts of the events, drawing out the temporality of events and its implications. Second, it asks what it means to say that the border was opened, complicating this representation. Finally, it shows how the focus on the border opening invoked a political imaginary marked by a fantasy of control that obscures its own exclusions. Recognizing bordering as about control over the temporality of community alerts us to how the impossible desire to control the future racializes those seeking refuge.
Since its inception in 2000, the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda has conceptualised the conflict-affected woman as a subject worthy of international attention, protection, and inclusion. In the wake of Europe's 'refugee crisis', this article examines how the remit of WPS has broadened from women in conflict zones to refugees in Europe's borderlands. A minority of European states now attend, in their WPS policy, to these conflict-affected women on the move. This inclusion productively challenges established notions of where conflict-affectedness is located. It exposes Europe as not always peaceful and safe for women, especially refugees who flee war. Conversely, the dominant tendency to exclude refugees from European WPS policy is built on a fantasy of Europe as peaceful and secure for women, which legitimises the fortressing of Europe and obscures European states' complicity in fuelling insecurity at their borders, cultivating an ethos of coloniality around the WPS agenda. The inclusion of refugees is no panacea to these problems. If focused solely on protection, it repositions European states as protective heroes and conflict-affected women as helpless victims. The WPS framework nonetheless emphasises conflict-affected women's participation in decision-making and conflict prevention, opening space for recognising the refugee women as political actors.
This article makes a case for incorporating the concept of ‘Critical Security History’ (CSH) into security studies. While history plays a powerful role in a cornucopia of security stories, we contend that it often goes unnoticed in scholarly research and teaching. Against this backdrop, we present a detailed guide to study how history is told and enacted in non-linear ways. To do this, the article outlines how CSH can contribute to securitisation and ontological security studies. As shown, this lens casts a new light on the legacies of (de)securitisation processes and how they are commemorated. It also illustrates that ontological security studies have only begun to call into question the concept of historicity. Working through these observations, the article marshals insights from Halvard Leira's notion of ‘engaged historical amateurism’ to entice scholars interested in ‘doing’ CSH. While acknowledging that this research agenda is hard to achieve, our study of the 2012 Sarajevo Red Line project helps to illustrate the added value of trying to ‘do’ CSH in theory and in practice. We end with some reflections for future research and continued conversations.
This paper uses a framework of ‘ontological security’ to discuss the psychosocial strategies of self-securitisation employed by ethnic and religious minority young people in Scotland. We argue that broad discourses of securitisation are present in the everyday risks and threats that young people encounter. In response and as resistance young people employ pre-emptive and pro-active strategies to preserve ontological security. Yet, these strategies are fraught with ambivalence and contradiction as young people withdraw from social worlds or revert to essentialist positions when negotiating complex fears and anxieties. Drawing on feminist geographies of security the paper presents a multi-scalar empirical analysis of young people’s everyday securities, connecting debates on youth and intimacy-geopolitics with the social and cultural geographies of young people, specifically work that focuses upon young people’s negotiations of racialised, gendered and religious landscapes.
In the introduction to this special issue, we briefly introduce everyday bordering as the theoretical framing for the papers and explore its relationship to the process of racialization. We introduce our situated intersectional approach to the study of everyday bordering, illustrating the importance of capturing the differentially situated gazes of a range of social actors. We then go on to contextualize the importance of this framing and approach in a wider discussion of Roma in Europe before concluding with a summary of the particular contributions of each of the papers in this special issue to these debates.
This article examines a neglected dimension of the dominant discourse of terrorism, namely, the vernacular, ‘everyday narratives’ of lay members of the public. While there are many studies of elite- and public-level discourses of terrorism, large numbers of public opinion and attitude studies, and a growing number of focus group studies on vernacular understandings of security and citizenship, there are few studies which specifically focus on lay discourses of terrorism. Importantly, there are even fewer studies which employ discursive psychology and conversation analysis as their primary methodological approach. Consequently, we do not know much about how ordinary people speak about in daily conversation – and therefore, how they understand or ‘know’ – what terrorism is, how it manifests, what its causes are, and how it is best dealt with. This article reports on some of the key findings of an empirical study of vernacular discourse about terrorism carried out in Aberystwyth, Wales. It reflects on what these findings tell us about how important political discourses are expressed in different arenas by different actors, how they are consumed and circulate, how they are resisted, how hegemonic they are in practice, and how they reflect cultural dispositions and the politics of legitimacy.
This article develops a conceptual framework that prompts new lines of enquiry and questions for security researchers. We advance the notion of ‘everyday security’ which encompasses both the lived experiences of security processes and the related practices that people engage in to govern their own safety. Our analysis proceeds from a critical appraisal of several dominant themes within current security research, and how ‘everyday security’ addresses key limitations therein. Everyday experiences and quotidian practices of security are then explored along three key dimensions; temporality, spatial scale and affect/emotion. We conclude by arguing that the study of everyday security provides an invaluable critical vantage-point from which to reinvigorate security studies and expose the differential impacts of both insecurity and
securitisation.
Methods have increasingly been placed at the heart of theoretical and empirical research in International Relations (IR) and social sciences more generally. This article explores the role of methods in IR and argues that methods can be part of a critical project if reconceptualized away from neutral techniques of organizing empirical material and research design. It proposes a two-pronged reconceptualization of critical methods as devices which enact worlds and acts which disrupt particular worlds. Developing this conceptualization allows us to foreground questions of knowledge and politics as stakes of method and methodology rather than exclusively of ontology, epistemology or theory. It also allows us to move away from the dominance of scientificity (and its weaker versions of systematicity and rigour) to understand methods as less pure, less formal, messier and more experimental, carrying substantive political visions.
Purpose ‐ The purpose of this article is to develop a reflexive theoretical framework for thinking about focus groups and critiques dominating instrumental views of the method. It emerges out of dissatisfaction with the literature presenting "how to" guides for focus group research, which fail to engage with the epistemological issues surrounding research practice. Design/methodology/approach ‐ The paper critically evaluates the link between theories of knowledge and method through interrogation of focus groups as a method of knowledge production. Findings ‐ While the focus group method can lend itself to a variety of uses according to the epistemological stance of the researcher, this raises important questions about the design, conduct and analysis of focus groups within organization and management research. Such questions are not merely technical or practical issues and call for exploration, self-examination and epistemological awareness on the part of those who chose to use the method. Originality/value ‐ The article provides students and researchers with new ways of conceiving the focus group method by locating discussions of the method in prevailing philosophical paradigms within organization and management research.
This short piece introduces a three-paper theme section on the theme of ‘Insecure bodies/selves’, growing out of a conference session held in 2012. Using the brief example of a brain-injured soldier's ‘shattered world’, creating a thoroughly ‘unsecured’ self/body, attention is given to how contemporary human geography has gradually opened itself to engaging with the multiple spaces of insecure bodies/selves. The three papers are then formally outlined and situated within these new currents of geographical and trans-disciplinary scholarship.
This article reconsiders the concept of autonomy of migration in the context of technologically ever-more sophisticated border regimes by focusing on the case of biometric rebordering. As its name suggests, the concept of autonomy of migration’s core thesis proposes that migratory movements yield moments of autonomy in regards to any attempt to control and regulate them. Yet, the concept of autonomy of migration has been repeatedly accused of being based on and contributing to a romanticisation of migration. After outlining two advantages the concept of autonomy of migration offers for the analysis of biometric border regimes, I demonstrate that processes of biometric rebordering increase the warranty of the two allegations, which feed this major critique. Drawing on examples relating to the Visa Information System, I show that processes of biometric rebordering alter the practical terms and material conditions for moments of autonomy of migration to such an extent that it becomes necessary to rethink not only some of the concept of autonomy of migration’s central features, but the notion of autonomy itself. In the final section, I therefore point out some directions to develop the concept of autonomy of migration as an approach, which is better equipped to investigate today’s struggles of migration without being prone to the critique of implicating a romanticisation of migration.
This article starts from the following observation. Although the debate on expanding the security agenda to non-military sectors and non-state referent objects launched an interesting discussion about the security (studies) agenda, it has not really dealt with the meaning of security. It has concentrated on adding adjectives such as `societal', `environmental', `world', etc. to security but has largely neglected the meaning — or, more technically, the signifying work — of the noun `security' itself. This article wants to draw attention to the question of the meaning of security. First, it differentiates three ways of dealing with the meaning of the noun — a definition, a conceptual analysis and a thick signifier approach, which focuses on the wider order of meaning which `security' articulates. Two things are claimed — (a) an increasing degree of sophistication if one moves from the first to the third approach; and (b) a qualitative change in the security studies agenda if one uses a thick signifier approach. The second part of the article illustrates how this thick signifier approach contributes to a better and also different understanding of security. Here, the main argument is that security mediates the relation between life and death and that this articulates a double security problematic — a daily security and an ontological security problematic.
The significance of national forms of imagination and organisation has been increasingly questioned in an era of rapid globalisation. While theoretically stimulating, those who stress the importance of global mobility and sociability sometimes overlook what well-established, “thick” attachments to the nation offer to disparate individuals, notably in terms of anchoring subjectivity. This first part of this paper explores how debates around belonging in England continue to define certain “ethnic” groups as more or less national, because they embody certain traits, practices or norms. It is then suggested that those who claim, and are treated as if, they belong “without question” may be offered a key sense of material and ontological security that is underpinned through routine practices, symbolic forms and institutional arrangements. The second section looks to evidence this argument by exploring how challenges to this ontological order, which focus on the agency of “perceived” others in relation to everyday spaces, practices and material objects, are debated and resisted.
Focus groups are a frequently employed and valued method of data collection in the Social Sciences. This article specifically addresses maximizing the benefits of focus groups through the framework of culturally responsive research practice. Discussion of authors' research projects which utilized focus groups are presented in order to illuminate the advantages of using culturally responsive focus groups (CRFGs) in data collection. Three types of focus groups are discussed: traditional focus groups, CRFGs, and naturally occurring CRFGs. Focus groups are a powerful qualitative research method which, especially when designed to be culturally responsive, facilitate collection of rich and authentic data. Culturally responsive research practice will enhance work with a wide range of populations but is particularly important when facilitating groups with persons who have been traditionally marginalized. Methodological and ethical concerns of CRFGs are discussed.
This paper is concerned with the power of social science and its methods. We first argue that social inquiry and its methods are productive: they (help to) make social realities and social worlds. They do not simply describe the world as it is, but also enact it. Second, we suggest that, if social investigation makes worlds, then it can, in some measure, think about the worlds it wants to help to make. It gets involved in 'ontological politics'. We then go on to show that its methods - and its politics - are still stuck in, and tend to reproduce, nineteenth-century, nation-state-based politics. How might we move social science from the enactment of nineteenth-century realities? We argue that social-and-physical changes in the world are - and need to be - paralleled by changes in the methods of social inquiry. The social sciences need to re-imagine themselves, their methods, and their 'worlds' if they are to work productively in the twenty-first century where social relations appear increasingly complex, elusive, ephemeral, and unpredictable. There are various possibilities: perhaps, for instance, there is need for 'messy' methods. But in the present paper we explore some implications of complexity theory to see whether and how this might provide productive metaphors and theories for enacting twenty-first-century realities.
About the book: In the context of the ‘global war on terror,’ the issue of security has come to affect more and more intimate elements of people’s everyday lives. This is the starting point of this interdisciplinary collection, which focuses on how the line between security and insecurity is negotiated through changing concepts of ‘community’ and ‘citizenship.’
This article deals with the question of how migration has developed into a security issue in western Europe and how the European integration process is implicated in it. Since the 1980s, the political construction of migration increasingly referred to the destabilizing effects of migration on domestic integration and to the dangers for public order it implied. The spillover of the internal market into a European internal security question mirrors these domestic developments at the European level. The Third Pillar on Justice and Home Affairs, the Schengen Agreements, and the Dublin Convention most visibly indicate that the European integration process is implicated in the development of a restrictive migration policy and the social construction of migration into a security question. However, the political process of connecting migration to criminal and terrorist abuses of the internal market does not take place in isolation. It is related to a wider politicization in which immigrants and asylum-seekers are portrayed as a challenge to the protection of national identity and welfare provisions. Moreover, supporting the political construction of migration as a security issue impinges on and is embedded in the politics of belonging in western Europe. It is an integral part of the wider technocratic and political process in which professional agencies – such as the police and customs – and political agents – such as social movements and political parties – debate and decide the criteria for legitimate membership of west European societies.
It is very clear – as many journalists covering the unfolding migration and refugee crisis have pointed out – that geography lies at the heart of the events taking place in Europe and the Mediterranean. It is a story of borders and routes, of distance and proximity, and of location and accessibility. The role of (re-) bordering has been fundamental in states’ attempts to ‘manage’ and ‘control’ the refugee and migrant flows and, in this respect, we observe a return to the more traditional practices of bordering – physical barriers and personnel-heavy security controls – rather than the previous processes of ‘externalizing’ and ‘internalizing’ border management. In the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans the external border of the European ‘fortress’ has been prised open, whilst the free-movement ethos of the Schengen area has been compromized by EU states’ reactions to the large-scale movement of migrants and refugees and recent acts of terrorism. In this introductory paper we bring a critical geopolitical lens into play in order to understand the European, regional and global power geometries at work, and we critically examine the political and media rhetoric around the various discursive constructions of the migrant/refugee ‘crisis’, including both the negative and the Islamophobic utterances of some European leaders and the game-changing iconicity of certain media images.
What is it like to travel to Europe over land and sea in order to secure a future for yourself and your family? Why are so many people willing to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean? What are their hopes and fears? And why is Europe, one of the richest regions of the world, unable to cope? Drawing on compelling first-hand accounts from 500 people who arrived on the shores of Europe in 2015, this important new book unpacks their routes, experiences and decisions. It provides a framework for understanding the dynamics underpinning recent unprecedented levels of migration across, and loss of life in, the Mediterranean, casting new light on the ‘migration crisis’ and challenging politicians, policy makers and the media to rethink their understanding of why and how people move.
Everyday security threats explores public perceptions of security threats in contemporary Britain, using data from extensive fieldwork and drawing on perspectives from International Relations, security studies and political psychology. © Daniel Stevens and Nick Vaughan-Williams 2016. All rights reserved.
We are currently witnessing a remarkable conjuncture between the escalation, acceleration, and diversification of migrant and refugee mobilities, on the one hand, and the mutually constitutive crises of “European” borders and “European” identity, on the other, replete with reanimated reactionary populist nationalisms and racialized nativisms, the routinization of antiterrorist securitization, and pervasive and entrenched “Islamophobia” (or more precisely, anti-Muslim racism). Despite the persistence of racial denial and the widespread refusal to frankly confront questions of “race” across Europe, the current constellation of “crises” presents precisely what can only be adequately comprehended as an unresolved racial crisis that derives fundamentally from the postcolonial condition of “Europe” as a whole, and therefore commands heightened scrutiny and rigorous investigation of the material and practical as well as discursive and symbolic productions of the co-constituted figures of “Europe” and “crisis” in light of racial formations theory.
Europe is facing challenging times. The so-called ‘migration crisis’ has seen the hardening and militarisation of Europe’s borders. Nationalist politicians are framing European states as being under siege from Islamist terrorists and economic migrants, which has led to a rise in xenophobia and casual racism on the streets of European cities. Meanwhile the Euro-zone has seen a series of employment crises and economic bailouts. Alongside such political and economic turmoil, the European Union is facing unprecedented pressures, not least from the ‘Brexit’ result of the UK's referendum on EU membership in June 2016. In reflecting on these manifold challenges to the idea and space of Europe these interventions focus on three themes that have long animated political geography scholarship: borders, power and crises. Cross-cutting the interventions are two calls to action: to rethink our analytical approaches to Europe, and to reframe our role as critical scholars.
More than 1 million people have crossed the Mediterranean and Aegean Seas since January 2015,
arriving on the beaches of Southern Europe in dinghies and rickety boats, having paid a smuggler to
facilitate their journey. Most are refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea, and Somalia who are fleeing
conflict and violence. Others are migrants from West and Central Africa, seeking a livelihood and a future
for themselves and their families. This paper unpacks the evolution of the European policy response,
arguing that the migration ‘crisis’ is not a reflection of numbers – which pale into insignificance relative to the
number of refugees in other countries outside Europe or to those moving in and out of Europe on tourist,
student and work visas – but rather a crisis of political solidarity. After five emergency summits to agree a
common response, EU politicians are still struggling to come to terms with the dynamics of migration to
Europe, the complexity of motivations driving people forward, the role of different institutions, including governments, international organizations, NGOs and civil society, in facilitating the journey, and the ways in which social media is providing individuals and families with information about the options and
possibilities that are, or are not, available to them. I suggest that the unwillingness of politicians and
policymakers to engage with research evidence on the dynamics of migration and to harness their combined
resources to address the consequences of conflict and underdevelopment elsewhere, speaks more strongly to
the current state of the European Union than it does to the realities of contemporary migration.
Following widespread use in political marketing and polling, focus groups are slowly gaining recognition as a useful and legitimate method in political science. Focus groups can, however, be far more than just a secondary qualitative method to primary quantitative public opinion research: they can be used to study the micro-level process of social construction. The process in which key sub-groups collectively contest and justify the actions of elite political actors via shared values is one way to study how legitimacy is conferred. This article therefore argues that focus groups can be particularly useful for research that examines everyday narratives in world politics.
Citizens increasingly occupy a central role in the policy rhetoric of British National Security Strategies, and yet the technocratic methods by which risks and threats are assessed and prioritized do not consider the views and experiences of diverse publics. Equally, security studies in both ‘traditional’ and ‘critical’ guises has privileged analysis of elites over the political subject of threat and (in)security. Contributing to the recent ‘vernacular’ and ‘everyday’ turns, this article draws on extensive critical focus-group research carried out in 2012 across six British cities in order to investigate (1) which issues citizens find threatening and how they know, construct and narrate ‘security threats’, and (2) the extent to which citizens are aware of, engage with and/or refuse government efforts to foster vigilance and suspicion in public spaces. Instead of making generalizations about what particular ‘types’ of citizens think, however, we develop a ‘disruptive’ approach inspired by the work of Jacques Rancière. While many of the views, anecdotes and stories reproduce the police order, in Rancière’s terms, it is also possible to identify political discourses that disrupt dominant understandings of threat and (in)security, repoliticize the grounds on which national security agendas are authorized, and reveal actually existing alternatives to cultures of suspicion and unease.
Today's world, it is often remarked, is on the move like never before. Across the wide spectrum of human activities, there has been a vast expansion in the scope and a dramatic acceleration and intensification in the pace of socioeconomic and cultural relations.1 That a single term-globalization- is usually attached to these dynamic processes should not efface the unevenness of their impact and effects. Globalization may have spurred some to proclaim the onset of an unprecedented condition of "time-space compression," however the question of how different people experience and are affected by this disruption to their received spatiotemporal orientations is still one that needs to be explored.2 The enhanced mobility that is associated with globalization obviously means one thing for tourists and business class travelers and quite another for international domestic workers and "mail-order" brides. Doreen Massey comments on the "power geometry" of time-space compression, noting the unequal forms of power and privilege involved in one's relation to flows and movement: "Different social groups have distinct relationships to this anyway differentiated mobility: some people are more in charge of it than others; some initiate flows and movement, others don't; some are more on the receiving-end of it than others; some are effectively imprisoned by it."
Citizens are now central to national security strategies, yet governments readily admit that little is known about public opinion on security. This article presents a unique and timely examination of public perceptions of security threats. By focusing on the breadth of security threats that citizens identify, their psychological origins, how they vary from personal to global levels, and the relationships between perceptions of threats and other political attitudes and behaviours, the article makes several new contributions to the literature. These include extending the levels at which threats are perceived from the national versus personal dichotomy to a continuum spanning the individual, family, community, nation and globe, and showing the extent to which perceptions of threat at each level have different causes, as well as different effects on political attitudes and behaviour. These findings are also relevant to policy communities’ understanding of what it means for a public to feel secure.
The key contention of this article is that contemporary practices of border security threaten to outrun the explanatory capacity of the spatial (territorial) and subject (citizen/migrant) registers habitually employed to think through human mobility. This represents a political problem as much as an empirical one. First, it implies that migration scholarship deploying categories of analysis informed by prevailing registers offers a limited perspective on contemporary techniques of migration governance; second, it suggests that such scholarship obscures the operation of power that works to enforce profoundly unequal hierarchies of mobility and represent them as politically neutral. In this article, I propose that resisting reversion to problematic categories of analysis offers the potential to think of human mobility without the state and territory as its foremost container concepts. I contend that such an approach - 'beyond territoriality' - is a crucial step on the way to negotiating the normative dimensions of border politics. The case is developed empirically via a grounded investigation of the mundane yet symptomatic practices of border security on the Indonesian island of Bintan.
This paper reflects on the concept of insecurity defined as ‘the capacity to hurt’. It begins by considering asylum seekers and refugees as hyper-precarious groups that have experienced bodily, material and psychological ‘hurt’ in the UK. At the same time, the paper considers how these hyper-precarious groups are perceived to have the capacity to hurt (bodily, materially, psychologically and spatially) the majority population. Having drawn out two understandings of the capacity to hurt—both the ability to be or feel hurt and the act of hurting others, we argue that a shared recognition of what it means to feel hurt (co-suffering or suffering together)—albeit to very different extremes and with very different consequences—and an understanding of the processes which drive this might be mobilised politically to challenge the act of hurting others. In doing so, we argue for a group politics of compassion to respond to increasingly insecure times.
In recent years the concept of the border has been reconceptualised: borders are no longer viewed primarily as static lines at the outer edge of the state, but increasingly as mobile, bio-political and virtual apparatuses of control. While such a reconceptualisation resonates with western border security practices, however, it is vulnerable to the critique that such a totalising vision of sovereign space does not take into account the varied responses, resistances and contestations among populations targeted by those bordering practices. This article responds to such a critique by developing an interlocking account of the gendered and racialised logics that condition the possibility for contemporary border security practices. We illustrate our approach via an analysis of two visions of contemporary British society and border politics: one offered by Prime Minister David Cameron in his ‘Muscular liberalism’ speech delivered in February 2011; the other contained in Chris Morris' jihadist comedy ‘Four Lions’.
Security studies is again reflecting on its origins and debating how best to study in/security. In this article, we interrogate the contemporary evolutionary narrative about (international) security studies. We unpack the myth’s components and argue that it restricts the empirical focus of (international) security studies, limits its analytical insights, and constrains the sorts of interlocutors with whom it engages. We then argue that these limitations can at least partially be remedied by examining the performance of identities and in/securities in everyday life. In order initially to establish the important similarities between (international) security studies and the everyday, we trace elements of the evolutionary myth in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel – which both stand in for, and are, the everyday in our analysis. We then argue that the Buffyverse offers a complex understanding of (identities and) in/security as a terrain of everyday theorizing, negotiation and contestation – what we call the ‘entanglement’ of in/security discourses – that overcomes the shortcomings of (international) security studies and its myth, providing insights fruitful for the study of in/security. In conclusion, we briefly draw out the implications of our analysis for potential directions in (international) security studies scholarship and pedagogy.
This article draws on primary focus group research to explore the differing ways in which UK publics conceptualise and discuss security. The article begins by situating our research within two relevant contemporary scholarly literatures: The first concerns efforts to centre the ‘ordinary’ human as security’s referent; the second, constructivist explorations of security’s discursive (re)production. A second section then introduces six distinct understandings of security that emerged in our empirical research. These organised the term around notions of survival, belonging, hospitality, equality, freedom and insecurity. The article concludes by exploring this heterogeneity and its significance for the study of security more broadly, outlining a number of potential future research avenues in this area.
Tracing the political history of the concept of ‘security’ through a variety of global, national and regional inflections, this article argues for the analytical usefulness of the concept of ‘vernacular security’. Entailed by this concept is a proposal to treat ‘security’ as a socially situated and discursively defined practice open to comparison and politically contextualized explication, rather than merely an analytical category that needs refined definition and consistent use. While the ideas and politics of security associated with the rise of global governance are built on late-modern ideas about what it means to be safe, global governance is not seamless in its extension. The apparent universalism of the ontology and politics of global security therefore breaks down into a more complex pattern upon closer inspection. Based on material from Indonesia, the article suggests that the ‘onto-politics’ of security have global, national and local inflections, the interplay of which requires re-examination.
In this paper I examine the reorganization of border controls associated with the Schengen process in the European Union and some of its close neighbours. Rather than asking the political science question of why states are committed to Schengen (or not, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland), I interpret Schengen as a political moment for genealogical reflection and analysis. The purpose is to contribute to a more historicized understanding of borders. Schengen is analyzed in terms of three trajectories, each of which allows us to denaturalize certain key aspects of the border, such as its identity, function, rationality, and contingency. Schengen is theorized in relation to the geopolitical border, the national border, and the biopolitical border. Other possibilities for genealogies of the border are also canvassed.
This work attempts to recast conceptions of global/ised political resistance. Instead of following systematic accounts of actors seeking global social transformation, it is shown how a Foucauldian understanding of power and resistance-here developed into a 'politics of discomfort'-can help illuminate more situated and cautious approaches to expressions of dissent. It is illustrated how undocumented migrants, or sans-papiers, with the support of the German activist network No One Is Illegal (NOII) can assume political subjectivity to confront and resist the dominating power of sovereign state agencies that attempt to marginalise and silence acts of contestation. I argue that NOII's practical resistance, although local, nonetheless has important dimensions 'beyond', as it critiques through its creative actions (global) sovereign hypocrisy, violence, and the 'governmentality of documentation'.
The globalization of economics, politics, and human affairs has made individuals and groups more ontologically insecure and existentially uncertain. One main response to such insecurity is to seek reaffirmation of one's self identity by drawing closer to any collective that is perceived as being able to reduce insecurity and existential anxiety. The combination of religion and nationalism is a particularly powerful response (“identity-signifier”) in times of rapid change and uncertain futures, and is therefore more likely than other identity constructions to arise during crises of ontological insecurity.
This article proposes the concept of the biometric border in order to signal a dual-faced phenomenon in the contemporary war on terror: the turn to scientific technologies and managerial expertise in the politics of border management; and the exercise of biopower such that the bodies of migrants and travellers themselves become sites of multiple encoded boundaries. Drawing on the US VISIT programme of border controls (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology), the article proposes three central themes of the politics of the biometric border. First, the use of risk profiling as a means of governing mobility within the war on terror, segregating ‘legitimate’ mobilities such as leisure and business, from ‘illegitimate’ mobilities such as terrorism and illegal immigration. Second, the representation of biometrics and the body, such that identity is assumed to be anchored as a source of prediction and prevention. Finally, the techniques of authorization that allow the surveillance of mobility to be practiced by private security firms and homeland security citizens alike. Throughout the article, I argue that, though the biometric border is becoming an almost ubiquitous frontier in the war on terror, it also contains ambivalent, antagonistic and undecidable moments that make it contestable.
About the book: The issue of security – what it means and how it can be achieved - is one of the defining questions of the early 21st century. It is a question that has come to affect more and more intimate elements of people's lives, impacting on relationships between states, between individuals and the state, but also between individuals as they interact in their everyday lives. This is the starting point of this interdisciplinary collection, which aims to both unpack and engage with current debates in the global fight against terrorism by focusing on the question of what security and insecurity do, can and should mean politically. Considering a wide range of social and political forums in a range of countries, the chapters in this book open up a serious debate about what community and citizenship mean in the present securitized context, in order to sharpen our appreciation of the political and social consequences of the range of understandings that are currently under negotiation.
This article explores a performative understanding of social science method. First, it draws on STS to consider the plausibility of the claim that research methods generate not only representations of reality, but also the realities those representations depict. Second, it undertakes an archaeology of a major survey — a Eurobarometer investigation of European citizens' attitudes to farm animal welfare — in order to explore the character of its performativity. Finally, it considers some of the implications of the performativity of research tools for the future of methods in social science.
This article is about political representation and representative claim making, taking as its backdrop the ongoing public controversy and disaffection concerning the British government's policy and conduct in the ‘war on terror’. We investigate ethnographic-style data that chart the responses of citizens to foreign and domestic policy in the war on terror and in particular their responses to the representation and justification of policy decisions by political leaders. Our focus is not on political representatives and their intentions, but on the representations of objects and identities in political discourse and how citizens respond to these representations. We suggest that despite the existence of matters of potentially shared concern, such as ‘Iraq’ and ‘terrorism’, the representations offered by the British government have often been too certain, fixed and direct, making it difficult for citizens to comprehend or connect to their representations as meaningful and negotiable. Following Bruno Latour, we describe this mode of representation as ‘fundamentalist’, and contrast it with a ‘constructivist’ mode of more contingent representations where politicians take into account and can be taken into account. Our analysis suggests citizens respond to fundamentalist claims in several ways. For some, the response has been antagonism, alienation and a lack of belief in the ability of democratic politics to arrive at responsible decisions on shared problems and concerns. For others, however, inadequate representative claims generate a demand for the construction of more nuanced, complex representations, even acting as a spur for some to contest the claims through political engagement.
Liberating irregularity: No borders, temporality, citizenship
- Peter Nyers
Peter Nyers, 'Liberating irregularity: No borders, temporality, citizenship', in Xavier Guillaume and Jef Huysmans (eds), Citizenship and Security: the Constitution of Political
Being (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), pp. 37-52.
Liberating irregularity: No borders, temporality, citizenship
- John Gillom
The vernacularisation of borders
- Cooper
- Anthony
- Chris Perkins
- Chris Rumford
Enhancing Security in a World of Mobility: Improved Information Exchange in the Fight against Terrorism and Stronger External Borders
- Eu Commission
Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe - Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy
- Eu Commission