This book explores how different publics make sense of and evaluate anti-terrorism powers within the UK, and the implications of this for citizenship and security.
Since 9/11, the UK’s anti-terrorism framework has undergone dramatic changes, including with the introduction of numerous new pieces of legislation. Drawing on primary empirical research, this book examines the impact of these changes on security and citizenship, as perceived by citizens themselves. We examine such impacts on different communities within the UK, and find that generally, whilst white individuals were not unconcerned about the effects of anti-terrorism, ethnic minority citizens (and not Muslim communities alone) believe that anti-terrorism measures have had a direct, negative impact on various dimensions of their citizenship and security.
This book thus offers the first systematic engagement with ‘vernacular’ or ‘everyday’ understandings of anti-terrorism policy, citizenship and security. Beyond an empirical analysis of citizen attitudes, it argues that while transformations in anti-terrorism frameworks impact on public experiences of security and citizenship, they do not do so in a uniform, homogeneous, or predictable manner. At the same time, public understandings and expectations of security and citizenship themselves shape how developments in anti-terrorism frameworks are discussed and evaluated. The relationships between these phenomenon, in other words, are both multiple and co-constitutive. By detailing these findings, this book adds depth and complexity to existing studies of the impact of anti-terrorism powers.
The book will be of interest to a wide range of academic disciplines including Political Science, International Relations, Security Studies and Sociology.
expansive terms – as freedom, for instance – tend, in contrast, to be more sceptical of the necessity of many contemporary powers. Although this loose connection between vernacular securities and attitudes towards anti-terrorism is important, this chapter identifies a second, stronger relationship in public framings of these two phenomena. Vernacular securities, we argue, seem to serve as a
, White, Male) Vernacular securities and everyday life As the above, hopefully, indicates, there exists considerable heterogeneity in the ways in which security is conceptualised by different publics across the UK. Although the numerical recurrence of these six images is of limited relevance due to our methodology, none of
Studies, it is difficult on the basis of our study to maintain the idea that the ‘ordinary’, ‘mundane’, and ‘everyday’ is straightforwardly a politically ‘progressive’ realm. Indeed, as the following discussion of transcript material seeks to demonstrate, it is potentially problematic to associate vernacular security with inherently ‘cosmopolitan’ (Gillespie and O
several areas of convergence both internally to our own programme of research and with extant studies of vernacular security. Crucially, our group discussions established a scale for the perception of security threats comprising four different ‘levels’ – personal, community, national, and global – which then structured survey questions to allow for a more fine-grained analysis than in hitherto existing
inevitably mean that data are always already co-produced between ‘researcher’ and ‘researched’ to the extent that the ability to make that very distinction is challenged (Kurowska and Tallis, 2013 ). Importantly, however, to acknowledge these inescapable dimensions of social scientific research is not to say that any attempt to investigate vernacular security empirically is
, Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006); N. Bubant, ‘Vernacular security: the politics of feeling safe in global, national and local worlds’, Security Dialogue , 36 (2005), pp. 275–96. 77 R. Bleiker, ‘In search of thinking space: reflections on the aesthetic turn in international political theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies
offer a fuller genealogy of how and by whom security is spoken, performed and experienced away from the discourses of elites that typically capture constructivist attention (Dillon 1996: 14–18). In so doing, research into vernacular securities addresses the concomitant normative risk that other voices – and, ultimately, other insecurities – are marginalised, camouflaged or excluded within