No abstract

ABSTRACT:This article demonstrates how the concept of counter-conducts helps us understand Occupy by directing attention to the correlation between the way advanced liberalism works to control urban spaces and the way that control is countered through Occupy's tactics. The first section outlines the term counter-conducts by looking to Foucault's short and undeveloped theorisation. The second examines how advanced liberalism conducts conduct through the use of urban space, concentrating on London which comes to form a space of and for the mobility and circulation of goods, people and ideas. Occupy's tactics directly confront and counter such movement while engaging in its own forms of counter-circulation and (im)mobility. The third section examines how advanced liberal techniques have increasingly come to use a particular, heavily instrumentalised understanding of community in order to divide and control urban populations. Occupy's tactics embody versions of community which confront and oppose such instrumentalisation, ultimately both engaging with that control and partially reproducing it. Through these counter-conducts we can come to a view of Occupy as inevitably succeeding in its failure as a movement and failing in its success, while opening to a (im)possible futurity of occupying urban space differently.

David Campbell has been at the forefront of showing how deconstruction, and the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, can help us to think international relations differently. Like Derrida himself, Campbell has eschewed the goal of an ethical theory in favour of an ‘ethos of political criticism’ concerned to question and go beyond our assumptions and limits. In order to continue such an ethos of criticism, to push our understanding of ethics in international relations further still, it is surely important to question the assumptions and limits Campbell himself imposes. It is with this in mind that I wish to take a particular political intervention by Derrida in 1993 and read it against Campbell’s Derridean analysis of the Bosnian conflict which began in 1992.

The British government's response to the London bombings sought to make the terror of that day foreign, even though it appeared largely domestic. This helped construct it as unusual, contingent, part of the uncontrollable 'otherness' of the 'foreign'. However, it also drew the response into the arena of British foreign policy, where the 'failing state' has been the dominant conceptualisation of insecurity and terrorism, especially since September 11th. When the bombings are examined through the 'failing state' disturbing and important problems are uncovered. Primarily, the 'failing state' discourse deconstructs under the influence of the terrorism in London, revealing that Britain itself is a 'failing state' by its own description and producing a generalisation of state 'failure'. It thereby reveals several possible sites for responding to and resisting the government's representation.

No abstract