Risk Society or Governmentality

The article by Mythen and Walklate (2006) entitled ‘Criminology and terrorism: Which thesis? Risk society or governmentality?’considers the criminological discourse on the development of the concept of ‘new terrorism’, which is a concept that has developed after the events of September 11, 2001. Mythen and Walklate (2006) write in their article that they seek to address the lacunae in the criminological debate on ‘new terrorism’. In order to address these lacunae in the criminological discourse, the authors employ two distinct theoretical perspectives on risk: first, is the risk-society thesis proposed by Beck (Beck, 1992; Beck, 2002); and the second is the Foucauldian looking glass of governmentality (Foucault, 1991). The authors clearly identify two objectives of their research, which are to critique the ways in which the terrorist threat is being discursively and materially shaped by law and order institutions and setting up an inclusive criminological agenda for the management of ‘new terrorism’ (Mythen & Walklate, 2006). The title of the article itself poses the question as to which of these two theses is able to provide a response to the criminology discourse on the concept of ‘new terrorism’.

The premise on which the article is based is the lack of attention given to the subject of terrorism in criminological research as observed by Mythen and Walklate (2006) in their review of recent content of criminological journals. The authors have argued that the recent criminological research deals with subjects as diverse as emotions, war, cultural criminology, and criminal justice policies but there is little or no research on the question of terrorism. Therefore, the authors seek to provide some theoretical basis for researching terrorism in the field of criminology. The authors themselves clarify their purpose for research at the outset of their article by noting that the purpose is to create a criminological agenda related to terrorism research “through a reconsideration of the relative value of both the risk-society and governmentality theses (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 380). Importantly, the research is sought to be grounded in the goal to reconnect criminology to sociology as pointed by Mythen and Walklate (2006).

Furthermore, the authors clarify that the core purpose of the article is to explore and demonstrate how theories of risk can be useful in developing “understandings of terrorism, contemporary political and military responses to terrorism and the formation of law and order policies” (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 380). An important part of the method of the authors is that they are exploring theoretical questions and ambiguities in this field and not seeking to conduct an empirical study. The authors themselves note that the spirit of their article is that of adventure. Thus, the central methodology of the authors is based on the exploratory method for the purpose of developing an understanding of new terrorism for the field of criminology.

The authors have devoted the first section of their article to defining the terms of reference. This can be considered to be an important part of the article because the central subjects of this research, which are, terrorism and new terrorism, are in themselves terms that are open to contestations. Terrorism, as Mythen and Walklate (2006) point out, is a difficult term to classify in criminological terms. The article does a significant task of explaining the background of defining terrorism, which is useful because the reader is given a brief but comprehensive overview of the discourse on the definition of terrorism from the literature including criminological literature. The authors also provide an overview of the concept of ‘new terrorism’, which is a new concept, in the literature.

Importantly, the authors also provide some context to make an argument that the concept of ‘new terrorism’ is not a new concept as such because the work of some criminologists in 1970s, such as Quinney (1972) have laid the ground work for developing a discourse on new terrorism. Therefore, this article raises a significant question for exploring further whether it is appropriate to consider ‘new terrorism’ as a new concept when there is some evidence as put forth by the article that there is some work already done in an earlier time which may be related to new terrorism.

The major contribution of this article is to put forth two theses that can be useful for further criminological research on terrorism, these theories being the risk-society thesis developed by Beck and governmentality developed by Foucault. The article provides a comprehensive discussion on the two theses in its second part. The risk-society thesis is premised on macro-social transformations and the rising cultural prevalence of risk due to such transformations. Beck’s argument is that social relations in Western cultures have been reformulated in the post industrialisation society due to changes in the nature of risk and the loosening of institutional structures. Beck argues that the society is increasingly individualised and no longer the institutionally ordered industrial society that it was. The individualised society poses more risks to economy, security, politics and environment and also places burdensome demands upon the individual to make reflexive. Thus, the risk-society thesis can be useful in criminological research, according to Mythen and Walklate (2006), for examining the novel features of ‘new terrorism’, and the risks posed by it.

The governmentality thesis was developed by Michel Foucault and this thesis has been adopted in criminology research in the last two decades for analysing how risk is increasing in Anglophone countries (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 384). Foucault explains governmentality as a set of organised practices and guiding rationale and he argues that in Western cultures today, power filtrates through the matrix of governance and not through the direct will of the sovereign. This is related to risk in the modern western societies in that governments govern through risk so that the governments use profiling and assessment to manage risk. Thus, governmentality makes it possible to materially conceptualise risk and have a discursive construction of terrorism.

The article argues that the risk discourse approach can be useful in criminological research on terrorism because it can help criminological researchers to make meaning of how new terrorism is being conceptualised in law and policy and what kind of responses are being formulated by the policy makers to address this risk. As Mythen and Walklate (2006) argue, new terrorism has been conceptualised as a new type of risk to which political and legal narratives are responding. The authors take a critical approach to how political and legal discourse has developed around ‘new terrorism’ and how the responses to the threat are being devised. The authors argue that the application of the risk-society thesis would allow criminological researchers to assess the anti-terrorism measures on the basis of nature of risk and the proportional response. The authors argue that the risk of new terrorism can be classified as a “high- consequence, low-probability risk” (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 387). The authors argue that risk as possibility should be distinguished from risk as harm, instead of adopting universalising language of the risk-society narrative which is being furthered. Furthermore, the governmentality approach can help the criminological researchers to assess the measures of the government. Take a deeper dive into The Legitimacy And Criticism with our additional resources.

The article raises some important questions and possibilities as to how criminological focus can be useful in devising more appropriate measures for responding to terrorism and new terrorism. The authors argue that the current approaches of neo-liberal states in the west are rooted in a risk-society approach which leads to the formulation of aggregate characteristics, such as birthplace, skin colour and religion instead of probabilities of offending. Furthermore, the authors argue that the governmentality lens shows us that there is a construction of a suspect based on ascribed set of ethnic, religious and cultural traits which becomes the basis for the application of the laws of counter-terrorism. In this regard, the authors states that “discourses of risk construct a terrorist other, promoting the unwarranted attachment of blame and invoking intensified strategies of surveillance” (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p. 393).

It is important to note that the authors of this article do not present us with a theoretical framework which can replace the risk-society approach; instead the importance of this article is that it is able to show the lacunae in the present risk approaches and to make a basis for further research that can help criminological literature to devise alternative methods for engagement with terrorism that are more sensitive and reflexive. In other words, the strength of the article under review is that it is able to identify the lacunae in the present approaches so as to lay the groundwork for future research work in criminological research that are based on different approaches. To put it another way, the article raises questions that demand further answers and necessitate further research. The authors use an interpretative approach to extend the governmentality thesis to new terrorism. The weakness of this article is that it does not identify such alternative approaches rather leaves it to future researchers to identify what such approaches might be. To conclude, the article raises some important questions on how criminology researchers can approach the relationship between terrorism, democracy, rights, and security.

Bibliography

Beck, U., 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London : Sage.

Beck, U., 2002. The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited. Theory, Culture and Society, Volume 19 , p. 39–55.

Foucault, M., 1991. Governmentality. In: G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller, eds. The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Mythen, G. & Walklate, S., 2006. Criminology and terrorism: Which thesis? Risk society or governmentality?. British journal of criminology, 46(3), pp. 379-398.