“A question of power and war:” Social Conflict in Hamburg and London in the Late Nineteenth Century

C. Krüger, Friedrich Lenger
{"title":"“A question of power and war:” Social Conflict in Hamburg and London in the Late Nineteenth Century","authors":"C. Krüger, Friedrich Lenger","doi":"10.5771/9783845293547-239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is stating the obvious if one stresses the intimate relationship between questions of security and those of power. The problem becomes more interesting, however, if one contrasts different conceptions of both power and security and their implications for empirical analysis. This is what this article tries to do, taking the reactions to social unrest in Hamburg and London at the end of the nineteenth century as the empirical example and the conceptual work of the Copenhagen School of security studies and the theoretical offerings of governmentality studies in a Foucauldian tradition as analytical tools.2 For London, we will concentrate particularly on three events: the West End Riots in February 1886, “Bloody Sunday” in November 1887 and the dock labourers’ strike in summer 1889, and for Hamburg on the riots of May 1890 and the dock workers’ strike of 1896/97.3 And since comparing two cases and two theoretical approaches at the same time is bound to confuse the reader, the main part of the article will demonstrate the usefulness of the terms ‘securitization’ and ‘desecuritization’4 for understanding our two metropolitan stories, while the comparative reflection of the tradition of governmentality studies will be reserved for a much briefer epilogue.","PeriodicalId":318436,"journal":{"name":"Conceptualizing Power in Dynamics of Securitization","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conceptualizing Power in Dynamics of Securitization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293547-239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is stating the obvious if one stresses the intimate relationship between questions of security and those of power. The problem becomes more interesting, however, if one contrasts different conceptions of both power and security and their implications for empirical analysis. This is what this article tries to do, taking the reactions to social unrest in Hamburg and London at the end of the nineteenth century as the empirical example and the conceptual work of the Copenhagen School of security studies and the theoretical offerings of governmentality studies in a Foucauldian tradition as analytical tools.2 For London, we will concentrate particularly on three events: the West End Riots in February 1886, “Bloody Sunday” in November 1887 and the dock labourers’ strike in summer 1889, and for Hamburg on the riots of May 1890 and the dock workers’ strike of 1896/97.3 And since comparing two cases and two theoretical approaches at the same time is bound to confuse the reader, the main part of the article will demonstrate the usefulness of the terms ‘securitization’ and ‘desecuritization’4 for understanding our two metropolitan stories, while the comparative reflection of the tradition of governmentality studies will be reserved for a much briefer epilogue.
权力与战争的问题:19世纪末汉堡与伦敦的社会冲突
如果强调安全问题与权力问题之间的密切关系,这是显而易见的。然而,如果对比权力和安全的不同概念及其对实证分析的影响,这个问题就变得更有趣了。这就是本文试图做的,以19世纪末汉堡和伦敦对社会动荡的反应为实证例子,以哥本哈根安全研究学派的概念工作和福柯传统的治理研究的理论成果为分析工具在伦敦,我们将特别关注三个活动:西区暴动在1886年2月,1887年11月“血腥星期日”和码头工人的罢工,1889年夏天,和汉堡1890年5月的暴乱和码头工人罢工以来1896/97.3和比较两种情况下,两种理论方法的同时必然会迷惑读者,文章的主要部分将演示有用的术语“证券化”和“desecuritization”4了解我们两个城市的故事,而对治理学研究传统的比较反思将保留在更简短的结语中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信