After reading this chapter i am having trouble connecting the two topics of "Mobilizing Risk" and "The Reflexive Threat" with the idea of technology. I feel that these two parts are more so about the war on terror in general and only relates back to how it ties in with technology at the end so it seems to flow.
The section "Mobilizing Risk" tries to say that the war on terror is not only an "interactive" internet war but also could be described as the political mobilization of a climate of general risk. This is to say that, like with the case of 9/11, the war on terror has the ability to show the public how easily everyday objects could be transformed into devastating weaponry. He continues to state how terrorists have also shown how easily raw materials of daily like could be tainted to become part of a terrorist attack. He concludes this section basically by asking if we see everyday raw materials, should we expect the worst or should we continue to live our lives thinking those materials are doing what they are suppost to do?
The section "The Reflexive Threat" talks about how we, humanity, with our civilizing decisions, actually cause global consequences that trigger problems and dangers that radically contradict that institutionalized language and promises of the authorities in catastrophic cases like the attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City. "The Reflexive model is ultimately one of self-implication: our own actions participate in the genration of risks in ways that remain largely opaque" (171). He concludes this section by saying that with the rise of technology and anti-terrorism programs, terrorism as a whole will too rise. "Terrorism is intimately connected with technologization" (172).
These two topics separately make sense but back to back i am having trouble understanding how they relate to the main concepts of the book.
your question about the ideas interconnect is a good one--it would be a good idea to bring this up in class today (also, if you have questions about class, check the class blog when you get there).
ReplyDeleteone way to think about the connection: the way the war on terror was sold was through individual participation and response; each individual could do something to be involved in stopping terrorism; this kind of individuated participatory rhetoric of response conceals the way terrorism can also be understood as an effect of US policies; it also conceals the fact that American's purchasing of duct tape has nothing to do with terrorism or safety; and, it displaces political action--such as debate over whether a war on terrorism is winnable, justifiable, coherent, and good use of power, etc--with individual acts of interactivity (sharing surveillance as surveillance is off loaded onto everyday people, being 'prepared' and 'vigilant' --whatever that means).