Scenes of emergency: Dis/re-assembling the promise of the UK emergency state

Abstract

The paper traces the development of UK ‘state of emergency’ legislation through three ‘scenes of emergency’: the introduction of the Emergency Powers Act in 1920, a revision to the Act in 1964, and discussion within government departments about possible changes to emergency powers in 1973. Through these scenes, and contra to existing work on the state of emergency as an occasion for the intensification of sovereignty, I show how the introduction of and revision to ‘state of emergency’ legislation were occasions for a double concern – with the excessiveness of the state, as per Foucault’s analysis of liberalism, but also for the excessiveness of events. In ‘scenes of emergency’ a specific ‘state effect’ was dis/re-assembled: the promise of the providential state that protected life through control of events. As emergency legislation was subject to deliberation and contestation, other versions of the state surfaced: beginning with the interested, classed, state and the tyrannical state as emergency powers were introduced and ending with the anxious state that loses faith in the efficacy of emergency powers in a world of changing events. As well as arguing that work on governing emergencies should be orientated to ‘scenes of emergency’ in which that which governs relates to excess, the paper suggests that assemblage approaches to the state should be concerned with dis/re-assembly.

Assemblage theory and disaster risk management

“…Other distinctions in research foci revolve around the types of risks and hazards considered. Critical disaster studies have historically been more preoccupied with meteorological and geophysical hazards (Burton, 1978; Collins et al, 2017), while the geographical study of emergency governance has tended to focus on political/state emergencies (Anderson, 2020), national defence and terrorism (De Goede, 2012), health emergencies (Adey and Anderson, 2012) and technological/infrastructural emergencies (Lakoff and Collier, 2010).…”

Infrastructure in times of exception: Unravelling the discourses, governance reforms and politics in ‘Building Back Better’ from COVID-19

“…In contrast to other historic States of Emergency (e.g. Anderson, 2020 ; Adey, et al, 2015 ), neither the COVID-19 economic response nor the focus on infrastructure was subject to significant contestation in the three nations studied. This consensus was influenced by pre-pandemic discourses that framed the delivery of infrastructure as problematic and a failure of statecraft, in particular inefficient planning and decision-making.…”

“…It is important to acknowledge that even under states of emergency, extensions of state power may meet resistance. As Anderson (2020) argues, such moves can precipitate intense political scrutiny and opposition to state excessiveness, drawing on fears of over-reaching government. For Anderson, this suggests the need to analyse what he refers to as ‘scenes of emergency’ in relation to the dis-assembly and re-assembly of the state, rather than as straightforward power grabs.…”

“…The states of exception literature helps explain how new and expedited forms of postpolitical tactics come into being. Indeed, the well-worn phrase ‘never waste a good crisis’ is often invoked ironically in such moments and the heightened sense of urgency can be used by governments as a legitimising tactic to build consensus, but not without also creating new grounds for challenge of the dominant model ( Anderson, 2020 ). There is dissent on many fronts across the political spectrum and it is virtually impossible – and indeed undesirable – to suppress these, so the state has to find new ways of accommodating or at least, engaging through, for instance, introducing new venues for community engagement.…”

Governing pandemic fatigue: an International Relations case of experiential biopolitics

“…Characterised by 'invasive measures with unprecedented impacts on the daily lives of everyone' (WHO, 2020b: 6), pandemic biopolitics has serious 'socio-economic and psychological' (WHO, 2020a: 7) implications. The experience of pandemic fatigue -expressed in feelings of hopelessness, a lack of control, and distress -is identified as an excessive element that 'escapes' the 'techniques that govern and administer' (Foucault, 1978: 143; see Anderson, 2021Anderson, : 1360 life. While assessing pandemic fatigue thus exposes a gap in the emergency regime governing the Covid-19 pandemic, it is central to recognise that this gap is not easily filled with previously lacking information.…”