Governing the future: The paradigm of prudence in political technologies of risk management
Governing the future: The paradigm of prudence in political technologies of risk management
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0967010608088778
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Hawkins, Gay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Diprose, Rosalyn;Stephenson, Niamh;Hawkins, Gay
越来越多地，政府对无法估量但后果严重的生命和安全威胁的反应被描述为“预防原则”(Ewald)、“准备”(Collier，Lakoff&Rabinow)或“先发制人”(Drida)。本文重新描述了这些描述的共同特征，作为审慎的范例，并研究了这种风险管理方法是如何在澳大利亚政治想象中的恐惧背景下发挥作用的。我们探讨了范式中所包含的未来方法是如何限制了“生活”，并扼杀了民主参与和生活方式的创新。三个案例研究(生物安全、生物生态学和生物医学)不仅展示了这一范式如何渗透到日常生活的政府中，而且还展示了它如何受到人类“代理人”、物质“生命”的挑战，以及这两者之间的动态关系。通过阐述这所涉及的内容，我们指出了一个更有利于民主多元化、生活多样性和创新文化的政治文化概念。
Increasingly, governmental responses to incalculable, but high-consequence, threats to life and security are framed by what has been described as the 'precautionary principle' (Ewald), 'preparedness' (Collier, Lakoff & Rabinow) or 'pre-emption' (Derrida). This article redescribes features common to these characterizations as the paradigm of prudence and examines how this approach to risk management is playing out in the context of fears that feature within the Australian political imaginary. We explore how the approach to the future entailed in the paradigm enframes 'life' and stifles democratic participation and innovation in ways of living. Three case studies (in biosecurity, bioecology and biomedicine) demonstrate not only how the paradigm pervades the government of everyday life, but also how it is challenged by human 'agents',material 'life' and the dynamic relations between these two. By formulating what this involves, we point to a concept of the political more conducive to democratic pluralism, diversity of life and innovative culture.