No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
How do we examine the political effects of the different ways in which societal danger can be articulated? This paper explores what happens if security and risk – rather than being considered ‘primary’ in relation to politics or endowed with singular logics or grammars are treated as concepts that take on different meanings in structured arrangements of mutually defining political concepts – i.e. if they are ideological. The morphological approach to ideology is suggested to navigate a path between reified (historical) logics and case-to-case contextualism: ideologies are not stringent logical systems but precisely the place where complexity and multiple contexts are translated into political programs. Through an analysis of the role of two ‘risk-gurus’ in recent UK ideological debate, it is shown how risk has joined ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ as a central political concept in two contemporary UK ideologies. Instead of having a singular performative logic risk has been enlisted to support very different political projects from government interventionism global governance and activism to financial austerity, deregulation and decentralization. It is suggested that the value of the morphological approach lies in a) highlighting relational meaning-formation and context without giving up on there being a ‘core’ to security or risk, b) analysis of real-world blending of concepts and logics (e.g. threat, risk and uncertainty) rather than logical abstractions c) it allows us to differentiate between core and peripheral elements in risk or security politics and d) leaves the possibility open that one concept may in fact still be ‘primary’ or ‘foundational’ for politics and thus ‘beneath’ the level of ideology. This would bring a critical question of foundations to ideological fields back to ideological/morphological theory
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.