Why Not to Choose a Secure 'We' in a Security-Obsessed World

In an interview in his later life, Foucault voiced his amusement at the diversity of the ways he had been judged and classified along the political spectrum (as “an idealist, as a nihilist, as a ‘new philosopher,' an anti-Marxist, a new conservative, and so on”) and accounted for his project as posing “a problem to politics.” As he comments: I do not appeal to any “we”—to any of those “wes” whose consensus, whose values, whose traditions constitute the framework for a thought and define the conditions in which it can be validated. But the problem is, precisely, to decide if it is actually suitable to place oneself within a “we” in order to assert the principles one recognizes and the values one accepts; or if it is not, rather, necessary to make the future formation of a “we” possible by elaborating the question. Because it seems to me that “we” must not be previous to the question; it can only be the result—and the necessary temporary result—of the question as it is posed in the new terms in which one formulates it. (Foucault 1984:385)

Computer security · Criminology · Sociology · Computer Science · Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies

• Writing with Foucault

  Open Access•Erzsébet Strausz•Critical Studies on Security•2022

  Incluir item

• FoucaultianDispositifsas Methodology

  Open Access•Owen David Thomas•International Political Sociology•2014

  Incluir item

• The Order of Things

  Michel Foucault•The Order of Things•2018

  Incluir item

• War Without End(s)

  Open Access•David Chandler•Security Dialogue•2009

  Incluir item

• Saviors and Survivors; Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror

  Open Access•Bill Freund•Review of African Political Economy•2009

  Incluir item

• Engaging Foucault

  Open Access•Jennifer Selby, Jan Selby•International Relations•2007

  Incluir item