February 7, 2007
Follow-up from Andy Lakoff Talk at UCSF 2/7/07
Fantastic talk by Andy Lakoff this afternoon at UCSF. Very clear presentation of the argument made by Andy Lakoff and Steven Collier in their working paper “Vital Systems Security.”
Their point regarding the simultaneous existence of vital systems security, population security, and sovereign state security became much more clear to me during the talk. In particular, their attention to the point that moves between different regimes have more to do with relationships and layering than a replacement of one regime by another. This seems key in many arenas. The need to emphasize the existence of different forms of reasoning about and justifying decisions about right action under the different regimes of security also became clear during the Q and A when multiple people objected to the decisions made by those engaging in vital systems security on the grounds that these actions were unjust. These objections were made from particular traditions of reasoning about justice which are perhaps incompatible with the form of reasoning about justice used in vital systems security. I wonder how the conflicts between modes of justification are played out by the experts involved in these decisions. It seems that both Boltanski and MacIntyre could be conceptually helpful here, but observation is clearly necessary as well. I was also wondering… Have any of you co-laborators seen spots in your work where elements of the vital systems security apparatus have migrated “backwards” by being applied to problems previously or simultaneously secured through the logic of population security or sovereign state security?
Great China,
I also wanted to write about the question you are raising; which is in my words: what are the limits of the “preparedness rationale”? and as to my specific research, I wish to emphasize the multiplicity of rationales rather then a known historical movement form one unified- coherent security form to another.
Generally, I’m arguing against the “world of emergencies” (Calhoun) and his homorganic- unitary rational which explains the intensification of emergencies and the way to confront them.
In a very similar way I’m asking about the limits of the “preparedness rationale” as THE rational of the bio-security apparatus and questioning the ALL HAZARDS preparedness notion that this rationale is claimed to present.
In my observations of the Israeli bio-security preparedness apparatus, I found multiple discourses and “rationales” affecting the entire dynamics of this system. Namely, there is no single rational representing the entire system, rather several discourses that engaged with each other, that are in motion and are themselves changing; So as the “entire” assemblage of science- security- public health. Notwithstanding the preparedness rationale does exists in the Israeli case and appears to be used mainly by epidemiologist, infectious diseases experts and other public health practitioners. (Just for the means of comparison I might say that other security rationales in addition to the vital-systems security co-exist and are affecting each other at present).
Moreover I argue that the Israeli preparedness system doesn’t hold “an all hazard preparedness perspective” and there are events which stay out of the apparatus concern. (one interesting example are earthquakes, which are not a part of this preparedness apparatus).
Additional to the claim above I’m trying to think about the connection of the preparedness apparatus and what is an “event”.
Here I use Deleuze’s concepts of “event” and more precisely “the time of event”. Deleuze differentiates between the “ordinary time” and “the time of event.” While the former points to the time of occurrence, the time when the event is actualized, the later refers to the event as virtual and sees events as becomings. From this perspective, the event is real-abstract but yet to become. In my case and as an attempt to position myself in the literature of disasters, I would say the following: An event is not the actual event and its aftermath (as the literature about “disasters” is used to argue) but rather we should take into consideration the pre-event as part of it. However, the “preparedness” that I suggest to add to the perception of events, is not the “actual” preparedness practices that were done before the event, but the preparedness as a virtual space that affects what will be actualized in the event; what will emerge and what will become a non- event. In that sense, the preparedness multiplicity is important in understanding how events are becoming, what will be an event/ emergence/ disaster and what will be a non event/ natural event and will not be part of the states responsibility and preparedness apparatus.
Hi Limor,
So if I’m understanding you correctly, you are agreeing with Lakoff and Collier’s in the sense that the preparedness rationale exists simultaneously with other rationales and that elements can be borrowed back and forth. It sounds like you’ve got some great data. Its interesting how what gets incorporated into the preparedness rationale varies between different countries.
Your writing on event is also interesting. I was wondering if you’ve ever read Willian Sewell’s Logics of History. I’ve found his synthesis of Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sahlin’s interesting for thinking about the distinctions betwen happenings and events, and the relationship between his concept of event and Foucault’s concept of event/problematization. The mutual involvement of happenings and structures in the creation of events sounds somewhat similar to what your talking about, but not quite. The differences between your work and his could be interesting to think about. Perhaps a conceptual mapping of “event” in Foucault, Sewell, Deleuze, and Darash.