Abstract
Very soon after the World Trade Center attacks on September
11th 2001, political geography underwent something of a terror
turn e a significant refocusing of attention on the war on terror that
led to some important work on geopolitics, terrorism and securitisation. Every disciplinary turn has its emphases and omissions,
and perhaps inevitably this turn has constructed the events it
studies in unintended ways. In particular, there have been many
assertions about the impacts of the war on terror on everyday life,
yet relatively little attention to empirical evidence. The World Trade
Center attacks were rapidly heralded as marking a sea-change for
global politics and for local social, political and spatial relations,
although recent interventions have emphasised continuities as well
as breaks with the past (Gregory & Pred, 2007; Hopkins & Smith,
2008). Further, the flurry of work has been dominated by analyses that centre on ‘big’ politics and the global as the most pressing
issue and scale of analysis. As political geographers, we have not
always paused to reflect on what is taking place at other scales, as
a part of, or despite, the ‘big’ processes. I have written elsewhere
(Pain, 2009, 2010) about the dangers of ascribing fear as a taken for
granted effect of the war on terror and securitisation; it has been
a consistent theme in political geography since 2001. Hopkins’ text
is one of the first in a growing group of studies to question some of
these assumptions and reorient our attention.
11th 2001, political geography underwent something of a terror
turn e a significant refocusing of attention on the war on terror that
led to some important work on geopolitics, terrorism and securitisation. Every disciplinary turn has its emphases and omissions,
and perhaps inevitably this turn has constructed the events it
studies in unintended ways. In particular, there have been many
assertions about the impacts of the war on terror on everyday life,
yet relatively little attention to empirical evidence. The World Trade
Center attacks were rapidly heralded as marking a sea-change for
global politics and for local social, political and spatial relations,
although recent interventions have emphasised continuities as well
as breaks with the past (Gregory & Pred, 2007; Hopkins & Smith,
2008). Further, the flurry of work has been dominated by analyses that centre on ‘big’ politics and the global as the most pressing
issue and scale of analysis. As political geographers, we have not
always paused to reflect on what is taking place at other scales, as
a part of, or despite, the ‘big’ processes. I have written elsewhere
(Pain, 2009, 2010) about the dangers of ascribing fear as a taken for
granted effect of the war on terror and securitisation; it has been
a consistent theme in political geography since 2001. Hopkins’ text
is one of the first in a growing group of studies to question some of
these assumptions and reorient our attention.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 339-348 |
Number of pages | 10 |
Journal | Political Geography |
Volume | 30 |
Issue number | 6 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Aug 2011 |
Keywords
- political geography
- muslims
- identity