No Exceptions: Authoritarian Statism. Agamben, Poulantzas, and Homeland Security / Critical Studies on Terrorism, special issue - winter 2014 (original) (raw)
Related papers
This chapter surveys key aspects of Anglo-saxon counterterrorism, and assesses their implications for the state-form. Specifically, it examines: (a) the legal definition of terrorism as a politically motivated crime, which defines all counterterrorism law and policy; (b) the reconfiguration of the rule of law into a novel law-form termed authoritarian legality; (c) the expansion of surveillance powers and the rise in prominence of the intelligence apparatus, leading to total intelligence; and (d) the platforms for popular involvement in counterterrorism, in which new citizen (and enemy) subjectivities are forged. These aspects of counterterrorism are unified in their primary consideration with popular politics; and are inscribed in a strategy of pre-emption. This shared orientation grants coherence to counterterrorism policy.
The War on Terror and the State of Exception Paradigm
2017
This thesis seeks to investigate the global paradigm that exists in the War on Terror. It will do so over several steps, starting with the second chapter which will first document the history, both in the field of International Relations and of global politics, before 9/11. Afterward it discusses the international reaction and immediate war strategies of the War on Terror. The following section will go into the nuances of the War on Terror that make it distinct from other wars and make it harder to explain by legal and political scholars. In Chapter 3, various research of the State of Exception theory will be presented, including that of: John Locke, Carl Schmitt, Nicos Poulantzas, Michel Foucault, and Giorgio Agamben. This section highlights the strengths of Agamben's theory over the others in looking at the War on Terror paradigm. In Chapter 4, the Agambenian State of Exception theory will be applied to the empirical reality of the War on Terror. In the Conclusion chapter, thi...
The State and Terrorism: National Security and the Mobilization of Power
Taylor & Francis eBooks, 2007
Adopting an innovative approach to the ongoing debate over homeland security and state response to terrorism, Joseph Campos investigates the contextualizing of national security discourse and its management of terrorism. New ideas developed in this book reflect ways in which national security is mobilized through specific discourse to manage threats. In addition, a review of presidential rhetoric over the last 30 years reveals that national security discourse has maintained an ideological hegemony to determine what constitutes violence and appropriate responses. The volume incorporates historical depth and critical theory in a comparative framework to provide an invaluable insight into how national security is developed and how it works with the concept of terrorism to secure the state.
The War on Terrorism: When the Exception Becomes the Rule
2004
This article argues that the semiotics of the war on terrorism points at a significant shift in United States' discourses on security. This shift can best be described as a move from defence to prevention or from danger to risk. Whereas the notion of defence is closely connected to the state of war, this article claims that the war on terrorism instead institutionalises a permanent state of exception. Building upon Agamben's notion that the state of exception is the non-localisable foundation of a political order, this article makes two claims. First, it argues that semiotic shifts in United States' security politics point at a general trend that, to some extent, structures international American interventions. In a sense, the semiotic shifts in American security discourse declare the United States as the sovereign of the global order: they allow the United States to exempt itself from the (international) framework of law, while demanding compliance by others. Second, it claims that this production of American sovereignty is paralleled by reducing the life of (some) individuals to the bare life of homo sacer(life that can be killed without punishment). In the war on terrorism, the production of bare life is mainly brought about by bureaucratic techniques of risk management and surveillance, which reduce human life to biographic risk profiles.
2005
This dissertation explores and interrogates how terrorism is consistently brought into the political and controlled by the power structure, specifically the ways in which national security discourse is used to create a specific knowledge structure and the ways in which discursive practices represent the mobilization of power. In addressing the role of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation is based on the strength, tenacity, support, and encouragement of a variety of people. To all of these people lowe immense gratitude. Nevzat Soguk has been the best advisor one could ask for! Throughout this project, he guided my intellectual development and consistently provided me the confidence needed by always being available for advice, feedback, and the much-needed encouragement. I also appreciate the input and expertise of Drs. Henriksen, Henningsen, Manicas, and Shapiro. I thank Margot Henriksen for her guidance and close reading of the chapters; Manfred Henningsen and Peter Manicas for their support and skepticism that challenged me to defend my ideas and enhance my arguments; and to Michael Shapiro for his encouragement and contributions to my theoretical development. The support of my entire committee and their contributions were invaluable. Coupled with the intellectual and emotion support garnered from my committee, this dissertation would still be only an idea if was not for the love, support, and encouragement of friends and family. To my mother, Shirley Campos, thank you for sharing in my dreams and visions. Your strength, knowledge, and love have been guiding forces throughout my life. Finally, to the most important person in my life, my fabulous wife, Marta GonzaIez-Lloret, this dissertation only came to fruition because of the unabated support, enthusiasm, and love you have consistently given to me and this project. IV DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Lawrence Eugene Campos, who taught me the value of independent inquiry and analysis. v
Neoliberalism, the homeland security state, and the authoritarian turn
Latino Studies, 2016
This article interrogates the writings of Milton Friedman and Samuel Huntington to theorize the cultural and ideological processes that gave rise to the homeland security state, a complex and integral configuration of the modern capitalist state that has come to police migrants in multiple realms. Though I discuss some of the major policies and institutional shifts that were central to the forging of the homeland security state from the 1980s to the early twenty-first century, I argue that such policies could not be separated from the authoritarian turn in civil society; that is a cultural and ideological tendency to support the use of violence and repression to deal with dissent and social problems writ large. I also argue that the authoritarian turn should be viewed as the civil society-based cultural and ideological counterpart of "authoritarian statism," a concept developed by the Greek political theorist Nicos Poulantzas to characterize a repressive form of governance that can exist within the legal framework of a constitutional democracy. The article concludes with some notes about what the authoritarian turn and statism means for the migrant rights movement and parallel social movements in light of President Obama's Deferred Action for Parental Accountability.
War Makes the State, but Not as It Pleases: Homeland Security and American Anti-Statism
Security Studies, 2006
The shock of war is thought to be closely associated with the growth of the state, in the United States and elsewhere. Yet each proposal to significantly expand state power in the United States since September 11 has been resisted, restrained, or even rejected outright. This outcome-theoretically unexpected and contrary to conventional wisdom-is the result of enduring aspects of America's domestic political structure: the separation of powers at the federal level between three co-equal and overlapping branches, the relative ease with which interest groups access the policy-making process, and the intensity with which executive-branch bureaucracies guard their organizational turf. These persistent aspects of U.S. political life, designed by the nation's founders to impede the concentration of state power, have substantially shaped the means by which contemporary guardians of the American state pursue "homeland security." War does make the state, but not as it pleases. Theoretical approaches to state building should recognize that domestic political institutions mediate between the international shock of war and domestic state building. Homeland Security and American Anti-Statism 227 to the detention of terrorist suspects, and from the organization of domestic intelligence to the surveillance of the U.S. citizenry. 4 This article will argue that this virtually uniform outcome is the result of enduring aspects of America's domestic political structure: the separation of power at the federal level between three co-equal and overlapping branches, the relative ease with which interest groups access the policy-making process, and the intensity with which executive-branch bureaucracies guard their organizational turf. Solely and in combination, these three persistent aspects of U.S. political life, designed by the nation's founders to impede the concentration of state power, have substantially shaped the contemporary state's pursuit of "homeland security." This argument will proceed in five sections. The first section will review the theoretical literature on the relationship between war and state building. The second will provide a method for measuring state power, finding that, contrary to conventional wisdom, state power has not significantly increased since the war on terrorism began. Next, a theoretical framework will be developed to explain the observed pattern of state building in post-September 11 America. Empirical support for this theory will come in three qualitative case studies: the detention of enemy combatants, cyber-security, and domestic intelligence. The concluding section will consider the implications of this argument for both theory and practice. We find that war makes the state, but not as it pleases. 5 Theoretical approaches to state building can usefully incorporate domestic political structure as an intervening variable that mediates between the shock of war and the growth of state power. In the policy realm, we argue that domestic political pressures may be leading the U.S. government to outsource the garrison state.