Public relations: Theorizing the contestation of security technology

Abstract

This article contributes to the emerging literature on publics within critical security studies. Its particular focus is on contestation in the context of diffuse security technology. Contemporary security practices are characterized by diffusion and dispersion. As a result, contestation of security technology is also dispersed and diffuse and requires an account of publics that is sensitive to this aspect. The article conceptualizes ‘multiple publics’ as a mode of fundamental contestation of established political institutions. In order to do so, it discusses previous approaches to sociotechnical controversies and material participation. As a result of this discussion, it becomes apparent that we need a concept of publics that does not reduce political contestation to a pre-existing set of institutions. I develop a notion of publicness that emphasizes the way in which publics are embedded in societal struggles. This is achieved by reading John Dewey as a theorist to whom contestation is a vital part of democracy. It becomes possible to understand contestation against diffuse security practices – such as surveillance – as forms of emerging publics, even though they might not feed back into governmental decisionmaking.

Drone Use for COVID‐19 Related Problems: Techno‐solutionism and its Societal Implications

“…The two phenomena, besides requiring different regulatory responses, are also potentially interpreted differently by the public. Both the issues of safety and function expansion/function creep may have implications in terms of public acceptance of technology, especially if we acknowledge that ‘new technologies foster the diffusion and decentring of security practices’ (Monsees, 2019, p. 531). The public contestation of emerging technologies is ‘thus equally diffuse and require an understanding of “publics” that can account for the diffuse situation from which they emerge’ (Monsees, 2019, p. 532).…”

“…Both the issues of safety and function expansion/function creep may have implications in terms of public acceptance of technology, especially if we acknowledge that ‘new technologies foster the diffusion and decentring of security practices’ (Monsees, 2019, p. 531). The public contestation of emerging technologies is ‘thus equally diffuse and require an understanding of “publics” that can account for the diffuse situation from which they emerge’ (Monsees, 2019, p. 532). Hence, the acceleration of the processes of technology integration, and the new practices coming along with technology development, challenge law and regulatory design, but also public perception and acceptance.…”

“…We build on the literature on technological fixes and techno‐solutionism that critiques a predominant confidence in new technology as ideally placed to respond to particular problems (Johnston, 2020; Milan, 2020; Morozov, 2013; Rosner, 2004; Stilgoe, 2020). Informed by conceptual tools emanating from the fields of regulatory studies, critical security studies, and science and technology studies, we build a main, three‐layered argument in this article: (1) the prevalence of techno‐solutionism as an idealogy of public policy, materialized inter alia in the extensive use of drones by the national authorities during the COVID‐19 pandemic, has created a new socio‐technical assemblage of actors, technologies and practices (Monsees, 2019; see also Bellanova and Duez, 2012); (2) this, in turn, has generated a number of relevant societal effects that cannot be overlooked; (3) yet, the combination of the techno‐solutionism logic with the exceptional character of this global pandemic makes this new socio‐technical assemblage harder to contest by the public.…”

Taking the trouble: science, technology and security studies

“…The growing interest of STS in IR is also due to the fact that it speaks to adjacent trends. These trends include an emphasis on the socio-political significance of the seemingly mundane (Guillaume and Huysmans 2018;Lisle and Johnson 2019), the conditions of possibility for politics and contestation (Mandelmaum, Friis Kristensen, and Athanassiou 2016;Monsees 2019), and the need for creative methods and deeper methodological reflection (Aradau et al 2015;Naumes 2015). Recent conceptual exchange with IR also places an emphasis on those entanglements (Bellanova and Fuster 2013;Voelkner 2011) and processes (Jackson and Nexon 1999;Passoth and Rowland 2010) that create both the 'state' and the 'international', which make them look like frictionless wholes.…”

Engagement all the way down

“…The engagement between STS and Critical Security Studies offers empirically rich examples of such critical attentiveness, including, for example, border policing (Dijstelbloem and Pelizza 2020; Bourne and Lisle 2019), weapons technologies (Shah 2017;Saugmann, this volume), and data mining and biometrics (Bellanova and Gonzalez-Fuster 2013;Jacobsen 2020;Weber 2016). These studies offer novel approaches to studying security practices, for example, by analysing how human and nonhuman actors are enrolled and associated to normalise or to contest particular security technologies, and by showing how publics are (not) constituted around security questions (Monsees 2019; also this volume). However, the redeployment of STS concepts and tools to sites of security also raises considerable questions.…”