Conducting Government: Governmentality, Monitoring and EU Counter-Terrorism

Abstract

This article draws on Foucault's concept of governmentality in order to challenge the view of EU counter-terrorism as simply a response to terrorism. Rather than focusing on the policies directly targeting terrorism, it is concerned with technologies designed to improve the governance process. The article examines three technologies designed for shaping the conduct of government. These technologies are not value-free but underpinned by specific assumptions of what governing can achieve and, as such, they are implicated in the (re)production of insecurity rather than, as institutionalist accounts do, locating the source of insecurity as external to these institutions. In other words, insecurity is in part brought about by the governance process. The article looks at three technologies targeting the gap-this latter term referring to the difference between a current state of affairs diagnosed as undesirable and the ideal situation (lagging policy implementation for instance). The technologies-the action plan, the timetable and the CounterTerrorist Coordinator-are premised on the understanding of bridging the gap as instrumental to the provision of security. This mode of governing fuels a circular logic whereby the need to perform better leads to calls for improved monitoring and vice versa.

Understanding the European Union's Perception of the Threat of Cyberterrorism: A Discursive Analysis

“…The first is a body of research that offers a conventional account of the historical development of policy in this area, which is largely based on historical-institutionalist and public policy making approaches that are situated within the field of European Studies (Kaunert, 2010;Argomaniz, 2011;Bures, 2011;Bossong, 2012). The second body of literature, drawing on interpretive and critical approaches to the study of security, has highlighted the importance of discourse, language and identity (Tsoukala, 2004;Jackson, 2007;Hassan, 2010;Baker-Beall, 2014, as well as technologies of governance (Bigo, 2007;Wittendorp, 2016aWittendorp, , 2016b, in the creation of security practices and, specifically, the formulation of EU counter-terrorism policy.…”

“…Alongside this literature which explores discourse on terrorism at the EU level, there is also a body of research that critically analyses the emergence of security and counter-terrorism practices. Wittendorp (2016aWittendorp ( , 2016b, has adopted the Foucauldian concept of 'governmentality' to demonstrate how the EU approach to terrorism can be understood as technologies of governance that bind multiple actors together in the creation of a permanent state of insecurity. Wittendorp's analysis demonstrates similarities with Didier Bigo's argument about the role of vested professionals of the 'management of unease' in the development of EU security policies.…”

The new mobilities paradigm and critical security studies: exploring common ground

“…Quite to the contrary, strategies to cope with the dangers of unbridled movement have foregrounded flexibility and adaptation that are grounded in the accumulation of knowledge about the global flows to be regulated, such that certain mobilities can be rendered frictionless while other mobilities can be brought to a halt and isolated from the flow. The EU is a pertinent example of a political space where the idea of 'free movement' is understood as key to fostering economic and political integration and cooperation, while at the same time establishing a multiplicity of institutions and agencies that are concerned with the monitoring and management of cross-border and internal movement (Wittendorp 2016(Wittendorp , 2017.…”

The new EU counter-terrorism Agenda: preemptive security through the anticipation of terrorist events

“…A particular area of focus has been the extent to which the EU can be considered an 'international' or 'global' counterterrorism actor (Monar, 2015: Brattberg andRhinard, 2012), which builds on the extensive literature on EU actorness (Bretherton and Vogler, 2005) in the field of foreign policy (Larsen, 2002) and more recently the notion of the EU as a 'holistic' security actor (see Zwolski, 2012' Baker-Beall, 2016. Similarly, a smaller body of research has adopted a social-constructivist lens to investigate the role of threat perception (Bakker 2006;Monar 2007;Meyer 2009) or applied interpretive and critical approaches that emphasise the important role of identity, discourse and technologies of governance (Baker-Beall, 2014; Wittendorp, 2016a and2016b), in the evolution of policy in this area. Additionally, there is a literature on EU security policy more broadly, taking EU responses to terrorism as its subject, which draws insights from Political Sociology and Political Geography.…”