Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In this paper we examine biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare preparedness exercises in the United States. We argue that not only are biological warfare preparedness exercises designed to test for weaknesses in the internal security and public health apparatus, but are also explicitly designed forms of information warfare and perception management. As such they are targeted at both reassuring the population of the ability of the state to respond to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) incidents, and at communicating a message of deterrence to potential enemies, be they domestic or transnational terrorist networks, criminal organizations, or states. We locate the current counterterror and homeland security mobilization in a broader historical context by comparing current preparedness exercises and guidelines to civil defense exercises during the Second World War and Cold War.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: No abstract available at this time.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Sociologists have debated the components of legitimation at lest since the time of Weber's Economy and Society, and both Marx and Habermas have noted that one of the key challenges for capitalistic societies is to develop unequal distributions of resources that are nevertheless accepted as legitimate. Still, even in the process of reaching differing conclusions about the factors that are argued to support legitimation – tradition, expertise, prosperity, and more – most work to date has paid little attention to a complementary set of factors, namely the skillful use of discursive techniques that can help even questionable distributions of resources to escape from question. Two techniques appear to be particularly important. First, like the professional magicians who have learned to make even physical objects disappear from view, professional politicians often have considerable skill in diverting public attention, using a set of techniques that magicians call “misdirection.” Second, much as might be predicted by the literature on risk and technological controversies, many of the topics and techniques that are most effective in drawing attention away from questions of one's own legitimacy are those that involve risk or fear, and in particular those that raise concerns about the legitimacy of others. In this paper, we summarize the available evidence and invite our colleagues to join us in focusing on “what is not there” – in learning to see what is so often not seen, and in making more visible the ways in which the issue of legitimation is made to disappear from view.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In response to critiques from feminist, existential, and postmodern qualitative researchers, the idea of maintaining objective and distant relationships with research subjects gave way to the belief that researchers could and, in some cases, should become intimately connected to research participants. The publication of sexual tales from the field (Goode, 1999, 2002), however, led some to question whether we can go too far in the quest for intimate familiarity and, in particular, take advantage of research subjects in the name of subjectivity (Bryant, 1999; Hopper, 1999; Manning, 2002; Saguy, 2002; Williams, 2002). In this paper, I reflect on some of the debates regarding sex, intimacy, and exploitation by examining my experiences of dating, marrying, and, eventually, divorcing my key informant and offer a new model to evaluate ethical conduct in field research.