Terrorism, Risk and International Security: The Perils of Asking 'What If?'

Abstract

In this article, we explore the ways in which cross-disciplinary theories of risk can enable us to grasp salient issues that arise out of the construction, assessment and regulation of terrorism in contemporary society. First, we demonstrate how risk society theory can be utilized to unpack the changing nature of terrorism. Second, deploying Furedi's work on the culture of fear, we show how the discourse of terrorism nestles into a broader politics of risk that is disproportionately directing economic and political policies and encouraging a climate of public anxiety. Third, utilizing the tools of the governmentality perspective, the linkages between measures designed to combat the terrorist threat and authoritarian domestic law and order policies are elucidated. We go on to analyse the contents and practices of the `war on terror', arguing that the offensive and pre-emptive strategies that it legitimates are wedded to a creeping shift in risk assessment from retrospective estimations of harm to an outlook based on futurity. It is posited that this shift ushers in a number of contradictions and dilemmas around the political deployment of discourses of risk.

Counter-Terrorism and the Counterfactual: Producing the ‘Radicalisation’ Discourse and the UK PREVENT Strategy

“…Indeed, the UK government CONTEST strategy makes this link blatantly apparent in statements (which precede the ‘securitisation’ of ideologues and ‘self‐starting networks’ of terrorists) that ‘A new form of terrorism emerged overseas in the late seventies and early eighties’ (Home Office 2009a, 10). Furthermore, Mythen and Walklate connect the discourse of ‘New Terrorism’ to the rise of risk‐based counter‐terrorism in the post‐9/11 era (Mythen and Walklate 2008, 221–223). The ‘New Terrorism’ discourse depicts a fundamentally more dangerous (because it is) religious terrorism, contrasting it with old‐fashioned political and instrumental terrorism.…”

“…The centrality of risk to contemporary security policy is well noted in analyses of government and policy (Aradau 2004; Amoore and De Goede 2008; Mythen and Walklate 2005 and 2008), and this article aims to situate the discourse of ‘radicalisation’ and the UK PREVENT strategy within that literature. Ulrich Beck's (1992 and 1999) work on ‘risk society’ sparked the interest in risk within the social sciences by providing a macro‐level, sociological analysis of environmental risk which theorists of governmentality and the war on terror have developed to their own ends.…”

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

“…The new calculus of risk does not assess the future by focusing on the past, nor indeed the present. Instead, security assessments are being directed by the future based question: ‘What if?’ (see Mythen and Walklate 2008). We would argue that the creeping impact of pre‐emptive modes of risk management is one that sociologists should seek to scrutinize closely.…”

Norwegian media substantiation of counterterrorism measures

“…Several scholars have pointed out that terrorism countermeasures have negative side effects in terms of threatening civil liberties De Goede 2005, 2008;Aradau and Van Munster 2007;Balzacq and Carrera 2006;Mythen and Walklate 2008;Stern and Wiener 2006;Viscusi and Zeckhauser 2003;Zedner 2006). Consequently, it is plausible to assume that the initiation, implementation, and sustainment of these measures in a democratic society would imply widespread public acquiescence to counterterrorism measures as being necessary and useful.…”