Introducing the ‘conceptual archive’: A genealogy of counterterrorism in 1970s Britain

IF 2.5 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
M. Livesey
{"title":"Introducing the ‘conceptual archive’: A genealogy of counterterrorism in 1970s Britain","authors":"M. Livesey","doi":"10.1017/eis.2023.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article contributes to an ‘historical turn’ in security scholarship. It addresses imbalance in security studies’ attention to historical empirics, and argues against notions of temporal disjunct prevalent within the discipline. I employ a genealogical framework to clarify the interpellation of past and present; and I introduce the ‘conceptual archive’ as a lens for pursuing that interpellation in research. My thesis on the ‘conceptual archive’ represents a twofold contribution. Firstly, a conceptual contribution: I advance the ‘conceptual archive’ as a way of thinking about past-present interpellation (specifically, existing conceptual logics’ remodelling in arguments justifying new practice). Secondly, an analytical contribution: I propose the ‘conceptual archive’ as a tool for doing genealogy (a research programme with historicising promise, but one suffering nebulous operationalisation at present). I use the field of terrorism studies as an entry-point to these contributions: adopting a mixed-methods research design to trace British counterterrorism practices’ roots within an ‘archive’ of logics on Northern Ireland. I find 1970s British governments remodelled long-standing ‘archival’ vocabularies in their arguments for new security provisions: framing exceptional practices according to an accepted fabric of concepts.","PeriodicalId":44394,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Security","volume":"8 1","pages":"471 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2023.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article contributes to an ‘historical turn’ in security scholarship. It addresses imbalance in security studies’ attention to historical empirics, and argues against notions of temporal disjunct prevalent within the discipline. I employ a genealogical framework to clarify the interpellation of past and present; and I introduce the ‘conceptual archive’ as a lens for pursuing that interpellation in research. My thesis on the ‘conceptual archive’ represents a twofold contribution. Firstly, a conceptual contribution: I advance the ‘conceptual archive’ as a way of thinking about past-present interpellation (specifically, existing conceptual logics’ remodelling in arguments justifying new practice). Secondly, an analytical contribution: I propose the ‘conceptual archive’ as a tool for doing genealogy (a research programme with historicising promise, but one suffering nebulous operationalisation at present). I use the field of terrorism studies as an entry-point to these contributions: adopting a mixed-methods research design to trace British counterterrorism practices’ roots within an ‘archive’ of logics on Northern Ireland. I find 1970s British governments remodelled long-standing ‘archival’ vocabularies in their arguments for new security provisions: framing exceptional practices according to an accepted fabric of concepts.
引入“概念档案”:20世纪70年代英国反恐谱系
摘要这篇文章有助于安全学术的“历史转折”。它解决了安全研究对历史经验的关注不平衡的问题,并反对该学科中普遍存在的时间脱节的概念。我采用系谱学的框架来澄清对过去和现在的质询;我介绍了“概念档案”,作为在研究中进行质询的一个镜头。我关于“概念档案”的论文有两方面的贡献。首先,概念贡献:我提出了“概念档案”,作为一种思考过去-现在质询的方式(特别是现有概念逻辑在论证新实践的论据中的重塑)。第二,分析贡献:我提出将“概念档案”作为家谱研究的工具(这是一个有历史前景的研究项目,但目前操作起来模糊不清)。我将恐怖主义研究领域作为这些贡献的切入点:采用混合方法研究设计,在北爱尔兰的逻辑“档案”中追溯英国反恐实践的根源。我发现,20世纪70年代的英国政府在其新安全条款的论点中重塑了长期存在的“档案”词汇:根据公认的概念结构制定特殊做法。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.60%
发文量
30
×
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