|
|
|
|
The Language of Fear: National Security in Modern Politics |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP!
You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
I examine here one of the most potent languages of fear in modern politics, that of security, and ask why security offers the most powerful justification for the suppression of rights. Using Hobbes as my touchstone, I make three claims. First, that the language of security empowers the state, in theory, to define threats to the public safety however the state sees fit, but contrary to what Hobbes envisioned, the state that defines those threats is not -- and cannot be -- separate from the pressures and interests of the subjects or citizens of the state. Second, that the language of security, particularly the language of imminent threats, provides states with a ready-made justification for exaggerating threats. And, third, that the language of security demands from the state a unity of will and judgment that no state, not even the most authoritarian, is ever in a position to provide. The combination of these three elements creates for a dangerous combination: of a theory of security as a universal, neutral good that the state provides universally and neutrally, and of a reality of security as a partial, controversial good that no state provides universally or neutrally. It is in the gap between the theory and the reality of security that the suppression of rights arises. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
state (64), secur (50), war (44), threat (42), right (30), polit (27), peopl (24), govern (24), univers (23), danger (23), new (21), one (21), press (20), power (20), nation (20), pp (19), hobb (19), fear (19), would (19), american (18), must (18), |
|
|
 | Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association
URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Robin, Corey. "The Language of Fear: National Security in Modern Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL, Aug 30, 2007 <Not Available>. 2009-05-27 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p211551_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Robin, C. , 2007-08-30 "The Language of Fear: National Security in Modern Politics" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Chicago and the Sheraton Chicago Hotel and Towers, Chicago, IL Online <PDF>. 2009-05-27 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p211551_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I examine here one of the most potent languages of fear in modern politics, that of security, and ask why security offers the most powerful justification for the suppression of rights. Using Hobbes as my touchstone, I make three claims. First, that the language of security empowers the state, in theory, to define threats to the public safety however the state sees fit, but contrary to what Hobbes envisioned, the state that defines those threats is not -- and cannot be -- separate from the pressures and interests of the subjects or citizens of the state. Second, that the language of security, particularly the language of imminent threats, provides states with a ready-made justification for exaggerating threats. And, third, that the language of security demands from the state a unity of will and judgment that no state, not even the most authoritarian, is ever in a position to provide. The combination of these three elements creates for a dangerous combination: of a theory of security as a universal, neutral good that the state provides universally and neutrally, and of a reality of security as a partial, controversial good that no state provides universally or neutrally. It is in the gap between the theory and the reality of security that the suppression of rights arises. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
PDF |
| Page count: |
19 |
| Word count: |
6867 |
| Text sample: |
| Corey Robin Associate Professor of Political Science Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center City University of New York March 10 2007 The Language of Fear: National Security in Modern Politics1 My topic here is the political language of fear and one of its idioms in particular: security. There are of course other idioms: racism religion risk assessment to name a few. But security both national and domestic is probably the most potent and pervasive. Security is the one good |
| Hackett 1983) p. 46; J.S. Mill On Liberty in On Liberty and other Writings ed. Stefan Collini (New York: Cambridge University Press 1989) p. 13; Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919). 18 when they have tried to confront conservatives for using security for political ends they have found themselves hopelessly outgunned. Having endorsed – indeed invented – the idea that security is not properly speaking a subject of and for the political arena they cannot possibly hope |
Similar Titles:
Managing Homeland Security in American States: Politics versus Risk in State Allocations of Federal Security Grants
The Political Transformation of Corporate Rights: Incorporation Law in American State and National Politics, 1880-1914
|
|
