Between welfare and warfare: an International Political Sociology of anti-radicalisation as a technology of government

福利与战争之间：反激进化作为政府技术的国际政治社会学

• 批准号: 2455318
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: King's College London
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2455318
• 关键词: Between; welfare; warfare; International; Political

The analysis of security politics from the perspective of everyday practices has been a key move in IR. Scholars at the nexus of International Political Sociology/Critical Security Studies offer detailed accounts of how security actors advance and legitimise illiberal solutions to diverse societal issues (migration, terrorism). They show how military, intelligence, police, and border agencies expand their influence beyond institutional and geographical borders by generating unease about insecurities that are constructed as universal. Yet we know little of the major shift in the post 9/11 era: the mass enrolment of nonsecurity professionals into security practices. Since the bombings in Madrid (2004) and London (2005), EU member states have unified behind a "societal response" to terrorism that places public professionals on the front-line. The consensus is that (1) education, healthcare, social work, police, prison, and probation staff are primed to detect of "signs of radicalisation" and (2) that this requires building trust within and between communities. Existing scholarship continues to frame this activity as either directly conducive to the work of public professionals, or a mechanism of their co-optation into coercive and oppressive practices. Reorienting the analysis around everyday practices in socially differentiated "professional fields," I instead analyse anti-radicalisation as a 'technology of government" involving both care and control, trust and suspicion.

从日常实践的角度对安全政治进行分析一直是IR的一个关键举措。国际政治社会学/批判安全研究中心的学者详细介绍了安全行为体如何推进和合法化各种社会问题（移民，恐怖主义）的非自由解决方案。他们展示了军事、情报、警察和边境机构如何通过对普遍存在的不安全感产生不安来扩大其在机构和地理边界之外的影响力。然而，我们对后9/11时代的重大转变知之甚少：大规模招收非安全专业人员进入安全实践。自2004年马德里和2005年伦敦爆炸案以来，欧盟成员国团结一致，对恐怖主义采取“社会反应”，将公共专业人员置于第一线。人们的共识是：（1）教育、医疗、社会工作、警察、监狱和缓刑工作人员都有能力发现“激进化的迹象”;（2）这需要在社区内部和社区之间建立信任。现有的学术界继续将这一活动框定为直接有利于公共专业人员的工作，或将其纳入胁迫和压迫性做法的机制。围绕社会差异化的“专业领域”的日常实践重新定位分析，我反而将反激进化分析为一种“政府技术”，涉及护理和控制，信任和怀疑。