提出安全政治:运动的首要性和安全的主体

IF 2.8 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
J. Huysmans
{"title":"提出安全政治:运动的首要性和安全的主体","authors":"J. Huysmans","doi":"10.1177/09670106211044015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article explores challenges that giving conceptual primacy to movement poses for thinking the politics of security. In security studies, there has been an intense interest in mobile phenomena and the nature of security techniques that seek to control, contain or steer them. However, when exploring how these mobile phenomena bear upon conceptions of politics and their contestation, the analytics tend to turn back to more static or sedentary categories and reference points. Against this background, the article develops an analytical framework for security and its politics that gives conceptual primacy to movement. Giving conceptual primacy to movement implies three key moves: (a) changing lines from enclosures and connectors to pathways; (b) shifting from understanding movement through positions and nodes to the continuity of movement; and (c) displacing architectural and infrastructural readings of the relations between movements with readings of continuously unfolding confluences of movements moving in relation to one another. Applying these three moves displaces conceptions of movement as border crossings and networked connections with the notion of entangling movements moving in relation to one another. One of the implications for security studies is that taking such a point of view challenges the use of ‘the subject of security’, understood in terms of state sovereignty and the positioning of differential security claims hooked into group identity, as a key device for making security politically meaningful and contested. The article concludes that giving conceptual primacy to movement invites security studies not to limit itself to studying the politics of movement but to also incorporate a motioning of politics.","PeriodicalId":21670,"journal":{"name":"Security Dialogue","volume":"53 1","pages":"238 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motioning the politics of security: The primacy of movement and the subject of security\",\"authors\":\"J. Huysmans\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09670106211044015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article explores challenges that giving conceptual primacy to movement poses for thinking the politics of security. In security studies, there has been an intense interest in mobile phenomena and the nature of security techniques that seek to control, contain or steer them. However, when exploring how these mobile phenomena bear upon conceptions of politics and their contestation, the analytics tend to turn back to more static or sedentary categories and reference points. Against this background, the article develops an analytical framework for security and its politics that gives conceptual primacy to movement. Giving conceptual primacy to movement implies three key moves: (a) changing lines from enclosures and connectors to pathways; (b) shifting from understanding movement through positions and nodes to the continuity of movement; and (c) displacing architectural and infrastructural readings of the relations between movements with readings of continuously unfolding confluences of movements moving in relation to one another. Applying these three moves displaces conceptions of movement as border crossings and networked connections with the notion of entangling movements moving in relation to one another. One of the implications for security studies is that taking such a point of view challenges the use of ‘the subject of security’, understood in terms of state sovereignty and the positioning of differential security claims hooked into group identity, as a key device for making security politically meaningful and contested. The article concludes that giving conceptual primacy to movement invites security studies not to limit itself to studying the politics of movement but to also incorporate a motioning of politics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Security Dialogue\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"238 - 255\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Security Dialogue\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211044015\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Security Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211044015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文探讨了赋予运动以概念上的首要地位给思考安全政治带来的挑战。在安全研究中,人们对移动现象和寻求控制、包含或引导它们的安全技术的性质有着浓厚的兴趣。然而,当探索这些流动现象如何影响政治概念及其争论时,分析倾向于回归到更静态或更固定的类别和参考点。在此背景下,本文发展了一个安全及其政治的分析框架,赋予运动概念上的首要地位。赋予运动概念优先意味着三个关键动作:(a)将线路从外壳和连接器更改为路径;(b)从通过位置和节点理解运动转变为运动的连续性;(c)将对运动之间关系的建筑和基础设施解读,替换为对不断展开的运动相互关联的汇合的解读。应用这三种移动方式将移动的概念替换为边界交叉点和网络连接,而不是相互关联的纠缠运动。对安全研究的影响之一是,采取这样的观点挑战了“安全主体”的使用,以国家主权和与群体身份挂钩的不同安全主张的定位来理解,作为使安全在政治上有意义和有争议的关键手段。这篇文章的结论是,赋予运动概念上的首要地位,使得安全研究不再局限于研究运动的政治,而是将政治的运动纳入其中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Motioning the politics of security: The primacy of movement and the subject of security
The article explores challenges that giving conceptual primacy to movement poses for thinking the politics of security. In security studies, there has been an intense interest in mobile phenomena and the nature of security techniques that seek to control, contain or steer them. However, when exploring how these mobile phenomena bear upon conceptions of politics and their contestation, the analytics tend to turn back to more static or sedentary categories and reference points. Against this background, the article develops an analytical framework for security and its politics that gives conceptual primacy to movement. Giving conceptual primacy to movement implies three key moves: (a) changing lines from enclosures and connectors to pathways; (b) shifting from understanding movement through positions and nodes to the continuity of movement; and (c) displacing architectural and infrastructural readings of the relations between movements with readings of continuously unfolding confluences of movements moving in relation to one another. Applying these three moves displaces conceptions of movement as border crossings and networked connections with the notion of entangling movements moving in relation to one another. One of the implications for security studies is that taking such a point of view challenges the use of ‘the subject of security’, understood in terms of state sovereignty and the positioning of differential security claims hooked into group identity, as a key device for making security politically meaningful and contested. The article concludes that giving conceptual primacy to movement invites security studies not to limit itself to studying the politics of movement but to also incorporate a motioning of politics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Security Dialogue
Security Dialogue INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Security Dialogue is a fully peer-reviewed and highly ranked international bi-monthly journal that seeks to combine contemporary theoretical analysis with challenges to public policy across a wide ranging field of security studies. Security Dialogue seeks to revisit and recast the concept of security through new approaches and methodologies.
×
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