|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
148328
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Embracing the spirit of his observation that ‘what was ruled out beforehand as inconceivable is taking place’, this article urges a re-engagement with Ulrich Beck’s work within security studies. In so doing, the article falls into three parts. First, we provide necessary contextual orientation, discussing the magnitude of Beck’s contribution to understandings of risk and security in the social sciences. Second, we discuss the importance of comprehending Beck’s unique methodological approach in order to appreciate the more specific resonances of his work. Third, we endorse the theoretical novelty of Beck’s work, demonstrating the ways in which the tools that he devised might be put to use and extended in future. To this end, we focus on three interconnected conceptual devices developed by Beck in the latter stages of his career: nichtwissen, emancipatory catastrophism and metamorphosis. We conclude by emphasizing the vital need to grasp the practical as well as the academic ambitions that underpinned Beck’s projective style of social theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
135985
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Resilience has become a concept that has increasingly informed political and policy discussions around disaster planning and preparedness. In this article, we explore this “resilience creep” and examine the different ways in which this concept has been used in making sense of how to respond to contemporary threats to national security. In order to do this, we establish a typology of resilience that enables us to identify both the overlapping and the contradictory uses that this term has been put to. In addition, this typology affords the opportunity to reflect upon what is made visible and invisible in contemporary resilience speak and to highlight the dangers that may lie in continuing with an uncritical embrace of this concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
138762
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The term ‘resilience’ has grown in its usage across a range of disciplines and practices.
The US military and the British armed forces have typified this increasing use of ‘resilience’ in recent years within such initiatives as Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) and throughout British Army Doctrine. However by unpacking what being ‘resilient’ for soldiers might mean we explore the interaction between their personal ‘masculine’ characteristics, the structural environment within which they operate, and the civilian life they return to. In doing so this paper offers a critical sociological analysis combining the agency of the soldiers’ body with the structure of the military as a [total institution] to problematize issues of masculinity, stigma and resilience within the military setting. As such, we question if the fostering of ‘resilience’ in military personnel is something that may be productive during service, but counterproductive thereafter when service personnel return to civilian life as veterans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
081454
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, we explore the ways in which cross-disciplinary theories of risk can enable us to grasp salient issues that arise out of the construction, assessment and regulation of terrorism in contemporary society. First, we demonstrate how risk society theory can be utilized to unpack the changing nature of terrorism. Second, deploying Furedi's work on the culture of fear, we show how the discourse of terrorism nestles into a broader politics of risk that is disproportionately directing economic and political policies and encouraging a climate of public anxiety. Third, utilizing the tools of the governmentality perspective, the linkages between measures designed to combat the terrorist threat and authoritarian domestic law and order policies are elucidated. We go on to analyse the contents and practices of the `war on terror', arguing that the offensive and pre-emptive strategies that it legitimates are wedded to a creeping shift in risk assessment from retrospective estimations of harm to an outlook based on futurity. It is posited that this shift ushers in a number of contradictions and dilemmas around the political deployment of discourses of risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|