Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article critically considers what is at stake with the emergence of a ‘pre-emptive’ politics of security based upon governing the future through anticipatory interventions in the present. It begins by developing a detailed account of how the idea of pre-emption has come to inform the global governance of (in)security in the post-9/11 era. It then turns to a discussion of the logic of pre-emptive security itself. Here it is argued that its focus upon the future implies a prioritization of the imagination in its decisional logic, which has the effect of enhancing the degree of discretionary subjectivity granted to state authorities under a pre-emptive approach. The article then expands upon this claim by considering how it suggests an important conceptual link between a politics of pre-emption and political exceptionalism. It then concludes that the very notion of pre-emptive security can be seen as conceptually incoherent, since this link serves to compromise its capacity to produce a condition congruent with the understanding of ‘security’ presupposed by its own normative framework. Accordingly, the practical viability and political legitimacy of pre-emption as a rationality for (in)security governance can be seriously called into question.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liam Stockdale (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: