Governing emergencies: the politics of delay and the logic of response

Abstract

The paper focuses on the problematisation of delay in state response to the event of 7/7 in the UK in 2005 as a way of understanding how emergencies are governed. It argues that the widespread political, public and organisational concern in the UK with the delayed state is one expression of a distinct logic of governing emergencies: response. Focusing on the declaration of a ‘major incident’ by the UK emergency services, the paper argues that the logic of response is expressed in the tension between acting in an ‘interval’ as a space‐time of emergence and the generation of ‘intervals’ for action. As well as following how the logic of response operates in UK emergency management, the paper offers a conceptual vocabulary designed to understand the multiplicity of ways in which emergencies are governed. Emergency is conceptualised as a ‘mode of eventfulness’ (Berlant L 2011 Cruel optimism Duke University Press, London) characterised by the hope that action will make a difference as harms, damages or losses emerge. The government of emergency involves situations ‘becoming‐emergency’ through particular combinations of apparatuses of emergency and logics. The concern in the UK with delay in response to 7/7 is one example of the intersection of the logic of response with a particular apparatus based on a biopolitics of survival and the promise that lives can be saved by treating emergencies as logistical challenges.

A very personal crisis: Family fragilities and everyday conjunctures within lived experiences of austerity

“…Anderson similarly writes about emergencies as “a future response that would bring to an end the unbearable present of systematic and eventual harms” (, pp. 463–465), although with temporal distinctions: “emergency involves a demand for immediate, urgent action” (Anderson, , p. 18). Crises may be events, they may lead to emergencies, they may require decisions, but these are not neatly synonymous concepts.…”

“…Crises may be events, they may lead to emergencies, they may require decisions, but these are not neatly synonymous concepts. Nor are they are entirely discrete, since “waiting for an emergency response has become a sign of the austerity state in crisis” (Anderson, , p. 17).…”

“…Part of the reason for this, as Elwood and Lawson claim, is because “the geographies of crisis … are always also social, cultural, discursive, and symbolic” (, p. 103). In this sense, “crises are atmospheric … they surround and envelope life” (Anderson, , p. 18).…”

Towards a critical geography of disaster recovery politics: Perspectives on crisis and hope

“…Recently, the politicisation of emergency, response and resilience has led to a greater understanding of the politics of disaster in critical geography (Anderson, ; Anderson & Adey, ; Grove, , ). The lack of focus on the politics of disasters more broadly is something Olson () believes has been influenced by a reluctance within disaster studies, as well as the perspective of many scholars in the discipline, that disasters should not be engaged as political events.…”

“…Importantly, the work carried out by Grove (, b, , b), Pelling and Dill (), Wisner () and Oliver‐Smith (, ) is filling this gap by explicitly interrogating the role of power, politics and capitalism. This literature is increasingly turning towards a more critical understanding of the politicisation of disasters particularly in order to understand the role of capitalism and broader societal processes in shaping disaster response, vulnerability, risk and resilience (Anderson, ; Grove, , ; Vale & Campanella, ).…”