Vehicles of control: the securitisation of surveillant automobility in the United Kingdom
- PDF / 689,642 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 70 Downloads / 178 Views
Vehicles of control: the securitisation of surveillant automobility in the United Kingdom James Greenwood‑Reeves1 Accepted: 23 September 2020 © Springer Nature Limited 2020
Abstract This paper explores how in the United Kingdom, traffic regulatory systems, cars, and our culture of automobility have been subsumed within a security agenda. Scholars have begun to examine the overlaps between mobilities and security studies, particularly in the context of topics such as migration and terrorism, framing security as a prerequisite to automobility. But little security-mobility research explores how drivers, and the population at large, are themselves securitised through institutions of automobility. The paper details how “surveillant automobility” has manifested in the seemingly mundane traffic systems of the UK, and the deficient transparency and accountability these systems afford. This paper uses government statistics and industry data to support an interdisciplinary theoretical approach, combining mobilities, security, regulatory and Foucauldian approaches. Keywords Securitisation · Roads · Regulation · Surveillance · Cars · Biopower
Introduction: securitised automobility This research investigates how in the United Kingdom, traffic regulatory systems, cars, and a culture of “automobility” (Urry 2004), are subsumed within a security agenda. Mobilities scholars have explored the paradoxes of automobility, the sociopolitical phenomenon of mass automobile transport (Conley and McLaren 2009). It symbolises autonomy, and provides freedom for the individual driver (Rajan 2006), whilst creating structures of dependence and social coercion necessary for mass road transport (Soron 2009). Recently, mobilities scholars have started examining automobility through the lens of security studies, particularly how road systems and cars become secured against potential risks (Leese and Wittendrop 2018; Farrell and Brown 2016; Gayer 2016).
* James Greenwood‑Reeves james‑greenwood‑@hotmail.com 1
The University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Vol.:(0123456789)
J. Greenwood‑Reeves
Less has been written about the “securitisation” (Waever 1995) of transport systems. This entails security becoming the “lens” (Zedner 2009, p. 4) through which that practice becomes analysed. A field usually perceived within its own semantics and logics, such as mobilities, instead becomes subsumed by security discourses and logics (Wyn-Jones, 1999). Mobilities scholars are increasingly combining critical security studies approaches into their research, particularly regarding overlaps of “dangerous mobilities” (Walters 2006) such as migration and terrorism. Air transport is an instructive example of a mobilities field which, particularly since 9/11, has become dominated by security discourse and practice (Salter 2008). In Security/Mobility, Leese and Wiitendorp (2017) curate several essays exploring the frontiers of this “security-mobility studies nexus,” focused on borders, migrants, cyberattacks, and terrorism. Most similar studies focus on securitisation for t
Data Loading...
