Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society

Rasmussen, Mikkel Vedby

doi:10.1177/03058298010300020901

Cited by 59 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences are also "reflected" in the fact that the terms "reflective" or "reflexive" are used to qualify a wide variety of "things," which adds a confusion as to what a "reflexive ontology" is supposed to look like or what distinguishes the ontological concerns of "reflexive scholarship" from those of other academic For example: 'reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Keohane 1988;Adler and Haas 1992;Linklater 1992); 2 'self-reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Hopf 1998;Steele 2007c;Ackerly and True 2008); 'reflexive' (Neufeld 1993(Neufeld , 1995Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Rasmussen 2001;Fierke 2002;Tickner 2006;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cTickner and Tsygankov 2008;Hamati-Ataya 2010, 2011a; 'reflexivity' (Lapid 1989;Neufeld 1993Neufeld , 1995Hopf 1998;Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Guillaume 2002;Fierke 2002;Widmaier 2004;Hendershot 2004;Tickner 2005;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cAckerly and True 2008;Lynch 2008;Tickner and Tsygankov 2008; Hamati-...…”

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of "reflexivity" has been so intimately tied to the critique of Positivism and Empiricism inIR that the emergence of post-Positivism has naturally produced the anticipation of a "reflexive turn"in IR theory. Three decades after the launch of the post-positivist critique, however, reflexive IR hasfailed to impose itself as either a clear or serious contender to mainstream scholarship. Reasons for thisfailure include the proliferation of different understandings of "reflexivity" in IR theory that entailsignificantly different projects and concerns for IR scholarship; the equation of "reflexive theory" with"critical" and "emancipatory theory" and the consequent confusion of ethical/normative issues withstrictly epistemic/theoretical ones; and the refusal to consider reflexive IR as a "research programme"concerned with empirical knowledge, not just meta-explanation. The development of reflexivity in IR theory as a sustainable cognitive and praxeological effort is nonetheless possible-and still needed.This paper suggests what taking the "reflexive turn" would really entail for IR Introduction: In his 1989 article on the 'Third Debate' in International Relations (IR), Yosef Lapid (1989:249-50) noted, after Mervyn Frost (1986:11), that '[f]or many years the international relations discipline ha[d] had the dubious honour of being among the least self-reflexive of the Western social sciences.' This diagnosis was shared by many scholars who thought it necessary to start reflecting on the epistemic and theoretical premises that subtended the discipline's predominant narratives on world politics. The critique of Positivist (American) IR scholarship has therefore naturally produced the anticipation of a 'reflexive turn' (Neufeld 1991) in IR, and in the early 1990s the view ! 1 was that 'the prospects for the development of theoretically reflexive international relations theory [were] real and significant, while the need for such theory [was] urgent' (Neufeld 1991:2). With the emergence and development of a sustained and coherent metatheoretical critique of Positivist IR, "reflexivity" has, indeed, gained a substantive

show abstract

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bearing this point in mind, the creeping ‘presence of the future’ (Rasmussen 2001) does lend some support to Isin's (2004) assertion of a functioning neuro‐politics working with a neuro‐subject. Yet, contrary to this vision, whilst efforts to govern through fear clearly exist, our minds have not all become unwitting labourers in Tillich's (1952) ‘factory of fear’.…”

Section: Conclusion: Checking the Spectre Of The Future Presentmentioning

confidence: 95%

Agency, reflexivity and risk: cosmopolitan, neurotic or prudential citizen?

Walklate

Mythen

2010

British Journal of Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the turn to risk within sociology and to survey the relationship between structure and agency as conceived by popular strands of risk theorizing. To this end, we appraise the risk society, culture of fear and governmentality perspectives and we consider the different imaginings of the citizen constructed by each of these approaches. The paper goes on to explore what each of these visions of citizenship implies for understandings of the structure/agency dynamic as it pertains to the question of reflexivity. In order to transcend uni-dimensional notions of citizenship and to reinvigorate sociological debates about risk, we call for conceptual analyses that are contextually rooted. Exampling the importance of knowledge contests around contemporary security threats and warnings of the deleterious effects of pre-emptive modes of regulation that derive from the 'risk turn' within social science, we argue for a more nuanced embrace of reflexivity within risk theorising in order to facilitate a more dynamic critique of the images of citizenship that such theorizing promotes.

show abstract

“…his understanding of security in terms of uncertainty and incalculable risks is not unique to the cyber discourse. Indeed, scholars of international security have long observed this shit in a variety of ields, such as health, aviation and inancial security (Rasmussen 2001;amoore 2013;elbe 2008;salter 2008). Critical analyses have shown how ideas like the precautionary principle constitute a distinct form of governing security (aradau and Van Munster 2007).…”

Section: Conclusion: Multi-stakeholderism and Internet Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Encryption as a Security Technology. Notes on the German Debate on encryption, Uncertainty and Risk

Monsees

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>This article contributes to the emerging literature on digital encryption as a political issue by focusing on the way in which debates about encryption are embedded in a broader security discourse. Drawing on empirical material from Germany, this article shows how debates on encryption bring its ambiguous nature to the fore. Encryption is seen as both a threat and a source of protection, it thus becomes clear that technology only acquires its political meaning in discourse. Furthermore, I show that security is discussed in terms of uncertainty, risks and complexity. The article concludes by arguing that this prevailing idea of security as risk leads to security measures that attempt to deal with complexity by involving a variety of actors, making multi-stakeholder approaches as a solution more plausible.</p>

show abstract

Reflexive Security: NATO and International Risk Society

Cited by 59 publications

References 2 publications

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Agency, reflexivity and risk: cosmopolitan, neurotic or prudential citizen?

Encryption as a Security Technology. Notes on the German Debate on encryption, Uncertainty and Risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About