Suchergebnisse

AbstractHow do people know how – very practically speaking – to be violent? This article explores that question through a Science and Technology Studies perspective. It does so in order to go beyond the usual location of global political violence at a structural level that attributes its emergence principally to hierarchical orders, formal training, or deep cultural, political, or ideological factors. The alternative explanation offered here draws on Bruno Latour's concept of 'plasma' to sketch a theory of how practices of violence are embedded at a distributed ontological level through the historical accumulation of (popular) cultural, textual, technological, and other epistemic objects. In making that claim, I seek to stress how violent knowledge circulates outside the formal domains associated with it (the military, police) and is instead preconsciously accessible to each and every person. To support this argument, the article draws on empirical examples of the use of torture, including interviews conducted with Syrian perpetrators of torture, as well as by tracing the paradoxical entanglements between scientific practice and the practice of torture. I conclude by engaging the field of preventive medicine to speculate on the need to develop modes of violence prevention that appreciate political violence as a population-level sociopolitical problem.

Abstract
Cruelty is a historical constant across world politics. Nonetheless, something has changed. Today, it is possible to observe death, massacre, torture, police brutality, terrorist attacks, drone strikes, and more, in high-definition video. Sometimes, we can watch live. In this article, I ask what it means when the historical sanitization of cruelty, injustice, and violence is stripped away. I do so in three ways. First, I explore how digital media has transformed how knowledge of violence is produced, circulates, and affects those who witness it. I focus in particular on how this visibility of cruelty affectively fractures our ontological security, undermines societal solidarity, and amplifies polarization. Second, I describe how this process is marked by substantive global inequalities vis-à-vis who is "protected" (or not) from exposure to graphic imagery. Third, I ground my discussion empirically through participant observation conducted with members of the militia group Hezbollah that focused on their emotional, affective, discursive, and political reactions to watching videos circulating on social media depicting members of their own group committing war crimes in Syria. The article concludes by dwelling on the worrying possible political futures these dynamics appear to be opening up.

This is an essay about the personhood of militant violence, the phenomenological underpinnings of political evil and the friendship between two men. It begins by recounting the author's street-side meeting with several Islamist militants in Tripoli, Lebanon, one of whom later described his preparations to become a 'martyr' in Syria. The essay takes my conversations with this man and his friends as a means of exploring the becoming of violent militancy as a fundamentally creative and essentially joyful series of encounters that lead to the emergence of extreme violence. To do so, I read the narrative account at the centre of the essay through the concept of social and political 'fracturing', which is described as the process through which individuals or groups are able to transcend traditional limits on knowledge, action and belief. This discussion of social and political fracturing is then brought into conversation with the question of what constitutes social or political evil in order to demonstrate that debates over what produces violent militant mobilization have generally missed the crucial relevance of a set of small, intimate and embodied rituals that suffuse evil, violence and war-fighting more generally with a fundamentally positive (yet eventually destructive) phenomenology.

AbstractThis article argues that security politics is constituted through the ways in which its contours are 'made sensible' (perceivable to our senses) through material, aesthetic, or affective mechanisms. To make this argument, the article introduces the theoretical scaffolding for what it terms a compositional ontology. A compositional approach to security identifies, theorises, and studies the perceptual base of security politics in order to ask how – say – the sight of a single photograph, sound of a security announcement, or smell of tear gas, can frequently be the direct (efficient) cause of international security policy, discourse, and decision. To theorise the deep political impact of such fleeting moments of local sensory experience, the article lays out a compositional ontology comprised of a synthesis of poststructuralist and new-realist philosophy, as well as the empirical sensibilities of pragmatist sociology. Combined with a focus on sensibility, it is shown that these approaches can produce an ontology of security that more effectively explains contingency, fluidity, and change in world politics. Having laid out the theoretical frame for a compositional ontology, the article discusses its political and methodological implications, suggesting it demands that security studies shift towards a more postcritical, experimental, and collaborative ethos.

This article introduces International Political Ergonomics. International Political Ergonomics is a novel research programme focused on achieving political change through the ergonomic (re)design of world politics. The approach is grounded on a shift across International Relations which recognizes that its epistemic (i.e. knowledge-producing) core is often inadequate to achieve change. Insights from the practice turn and behaviouralist International Relations, as well as from philosophy, sociology and neuroscience, demonstrate that much international behaviour is driven by the 'unconscious' or 'non-reflexive' re-articulation of repertoires of actions even where the pathologies of this process are known. This implies that knowledge production and dissemination (i.e. to policymakers, global publics) is often unable to effect influence over social practices. What is thus required is a non-epistemic means of producing world political change. International Political Ergonomics is a research programme that takes up this task. It does so by describing how small material interventions into world politics can radically shift individual behaviours by encouraging greater rationality, reflexivity and deliberation. After laying out the theoretical basis for this claim, the article demonstrates it by detailing the application of International Political Ergonomics to violence-prevention efforts. The article concludes by reflecting on the radical implications that International Political Ergonomics has for the vocation of International Relations.

This article demonstrates how world political binaries (democratic–autocratic, civilized–barbarian, etc.) are materially, as well as ideationally, constructed. By drawing on the analytical sensibilities of Actor-Network Theory, it is shown that differences in the actions, practices and/or behaviours of states usually situated at one or another extreme of socio-political dichotomies are sometimes dependent only on the availability of, and/or global inequalities in, mundane material 'allies', such as airplanes, sedatives and military bases. Empirically, the article evidences this claim by constructing a comparative case study of the Argentine torture regime and 'Death Flights' programme (c. 1975–1983) and the post-9/11 US-led 'extraordinary rendition' programme. By describing the contours of each case in microsociological detail, I suggest that differences in the forms of violence enacted in these two cases (both involving torture but one resulting in death and the other indefinite detention) were not related to the democratic or 'civilized' status of the US and the authoritarian or fascist-cum-barbarian status of Argentina (and the subjective motivations that we attribute such binary signifiers), but, rather, to differences in the agencies of the non-human object of the aircraft available in each case. These empirical findings allow the article to affirm the value-added of Actor-Network Theory's 'reconstructive' method in International Relations for: 1) 'mangling' power-saturated world political binaries without relying on critical 'deconstruction'; 2) revealing the ever-present material-semiotic fragility of those dualisms; and 3) unveiling the ideational 'purifications' that sustain dichotomies in spite of their often lacking an empirical basis through a refusal to engage with materiality.

How are socially and politically controversial security practices materially-technologically scripted into our lives in ever-deeper ways? This essay proposes that acts of aesthetic design are at the heart of that process and are being deployed by technology corporations to "smooth" the diffusion of security practices, discourses, and politics across global space. To substantiate that claim, we make three moves. First, we propose an understanding of the "script" that returns to the roots of the concept in theater and the arts. That understanding stresses that our material-technological enmeshing is governed strongly by aesthetic and affective factors that operate through forms of resonance (rather that reason). In consequence—we argue—much of the power of technology conglomerates is linked to their capacity to harness these aesthetico-affective resonances. Second, we demonstrate this through a case study focused on the material-aesthetic design activities of Google, teasing out how it deploys aesthetic practices to extend its sociopolitical power. Third, we speculatively conclude by introducing the architect Keller Easterling's concept of "active form" to show how conceptualizing scripts in aesthetic terms also provides insights into how security practices are diffused across global contexts, irrelevant contextual sociopolitical differences, and seemingly without any limit.

Abstract
International relations (IR) shows growing interest in expanding its practical engagements into different domains: the visual, the artistic, the aesthetic, the diagrammatic, and so forth. But a gap remains. Despite widespread acknowledgment of the political transformations caused by material and technological change across world politics, IR rarely fully integrates forms of material-technological praxis into its work. We rarely make digital, architectural, computational, or other seemingly technical things within IR. This article suggests we should start doing so, in direct collaboration with practitioners, applied scientists, and technical experts. Specifically, it suggests that engaging in material-technological making has the potential to (1) increase our basic scientific knowledge of politics, (2) augment our capacity to theorize politics, and (3) radically expand how we normatively and political intervene in politics. To make that argument, the paper conducts a speculative form of counter-factual analysis of the kind of "difference" that might have been made if scholars of IR had been involved in the development of three technologies designed by the International Committee of the Red Cross for humanitarian purposes. In doing so, we show that the exclusion of the material-technological from IR's praxis is not only damaging to its vitality as an intellectual field, but also an abdication of what Haraway terms its ethico-political response-ability within politics.

Abstract
Can we make international things—maps, algorithms, museums, visualizations, computer games, virtual reality tools? Objects that criss-cross global space, exert political influence, and produce novel forms of knowledge? This article, and the special issue it introduces, suggests that scholars of international relations can and should engage in the task of making concrete material, aesthetic, and technological objects that exceed the epistemic, logocentric, or textual. It joins a growing conversation focused on the potential of expanding the praxis of the social sciences into multimodal formats of design, craft, and making. In this article, we explore the intellectual, social, and political stakes of beginning to make international things, unpack the disciplinary reticence to engage in this task, and the potential dangers it entails. Most importantly, we suggest five central benefits moving in this direction holds: (i) generating a future-oriented social science; (ii) cultivating an "atmospheric" social science faithful to new materialist, feminist, and practice theories; (ii) embracing a radical collaborationist ethos more-suited to the demands of the day; (iv) investing us in sociopolitically committed scientific praxis; and (v) inaugurating a radically new disciplinary architecture of scholarly praxis.

Abstract
Has Visual International Relations (IR) become too distant from the content of visual artefacts? This is a paradoxical question. Visual IR is a vibrant and pluralist field exploring visuals in innumerable ways. Nonetheless, the field tends to focus on 'deep' readings of the socio-political implications of visual artefacts at the expense of a close and attentive observation and description of the events, situations, or phenomena they may depict. Simply put, visual IR usually analyses visuals-as-visuals rather than seeing them as entry points for studying the social world. But might a video of torture teach us something about the practicality of torture? Might a video of peace negotiations teach us something about their successes or failures? Can we gain a fleeting glimpse of 'reality' within visuals? We address these questions by first situating our focus on close 'visual (data) observation' in conceptual conversation with the literature's existing focus on deep interpretation. Second, we outline three approaches to visual observation as they are deployed outside IR. Third, we unpack how those approaches might be of value for IR, especially vis-à-vis the study of practice, materiality, and discourse. Finally, we conclude by asking if visual data observation can retain critical political potentiality.