CFP: EISA Section on The Politics of (In)Security

Call for Abstracts, EISA 2015: The Politics of (In)Security:
Securitization, Technocratisation or (Re)Politicisation?

September 23-26, Giardini Naxos, Sicily

Section Chairs:
Jonas Hagmann
ETH Zurich

Hendrik Hegemann
University of Hamburg

For the EISA "Pan-European Conference" (23-26 September 2015, Catania), we 
are putting together a series of panels on "The Politics of (In)Security". 
We want to address the extent to which security politics has become subject 
to new forms of securitization, technocratization and/or (re-)politicization. 
We would be happy to receive your submissions for papers or panels along the 
following tentative thematic clusters or other related themes: 
1. Parliament strikes back: The post-9/11 reassertion of legislative control 
over security affairs 
2. Technocratic and bureaucratic approaches to security politics 
3. Private companies in the management of risk and danger 
4. Action! Forms and tactics of emancipation and resistance to insecurity 
politics 
5. Civil society authorities in security affairs 

Please submit your proposals between 8 December and January 15 via the 
conference submission system, which can be found at 
http://www.paneuropeanconference.org/2015/. 
For more information on our section see 
http://www.paneuropeanconference.org/2015/section.php?s=38. 

Full section description: 
The political and societal response to comprehensive (in)security has shaped 
discussions of security policy for at least two decades. Securitization 
theory, for instance, prominently focused on the ways in which constructions 
of new security issues empower emergency measures, and thus how security 
logics affect and curtail 'normal' democratic politics. Yet, the focus of the 
debate has shifted. Discussions on energy security, climate change or 
critical infrastructure protection seemingly defy the logic of exception. In 
these domains, discourses of resilience and risk governance prevail, and are 
strongly geared to technocratic or scientistic risk management technologies. 
Indeed, even exceptional policies adopted in the post-9/11 'Global War on 
Terror' - such as rendition, data retention or blacklisting - have become 
subject to rather 'normal' political discussion as well as parliamentary and 
judicial control. These latter developments raise important questions about 
the state and trajectory of contemporary insecurity politics: Is this 
politics still as much of a challenge to 'normal' democratic politics as it 
was after 9/11 - or hasn't security governance become de- or repoliticised in 
new ways instead? If so, which actors - from politicians to parliaments, 
bureaucrats, academics experts and private companies - control logics of 
(in)security politics today and by what means? And what does the observed 
development imply for popular, political and scholarly practices of 
contestation and resistance? The section invites panel and paper proposals 
addressing issues of technocracy and (de/re)politicization in the security 
field from a theoretical, empirical and normative perspective, using 
different approaches and looking at different areas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s