Abstract
AbstractCurrent debates about surveillance demonstrate the complexity of political controversies whose uncertainty and moral ambiguities render normative consensus difficult to achieve. The question of how to study political controversies remains a challenge for IR scholars. Critical security studies scholars have begun to examine political controversies around surveillance by exploring changing security practices in the everyday. Yet, (de)legitimation practices have hitherto not been the focus of analysis. Following recent practice-oriented research, we develop a conceptual framework based on the notion of ‘narrative legitimation politics’. We first introduce the concept of ‘tests’ from Boltanski's pragmatic sociology to categorise the discursive context and different moral reference points (truth, reality, existence). Second, we combine pragmatic sociology with narrative analysis to enable the study of dominant justificatory practices. Third, we develop the framework through a practice-oriented exploration of the Snowden controversy with a focus on the US and Germany. We identify distinct justificatory practices in each test format linked to narrative devices (for example, plots, roles, metaphors) whose fluid, contested dynamics have the potential to effect change. The framework is particularly relevant for IR scholars interested in legitimacy issues, the normativity of practices, and the power of narratives.
Highlights
Edward Snowden’s disclosures cast immediate doubt on the democratic legitimacy of surveillance operations within states but across borders
Following recent practice-oriented research, we develop a conceptual framework based on the notion of ‘narrative legitimation politics’
The exploration above outlines a practice-oriented conceptual framework for the empirical study of narrative legitimation politics. It shows controversies such as the Snowden revelations are characterised by a multitude of interpretations that strive for legitimacy via justificatory practices expressed through test formats ininstitutional contexts
Summary
Edward Snowden’s disclosures cast immediate doubt on the democratic legitimacy of surveillance operations within states but across borders. We build a conceptual framework to study narrative legitimation politics by highlighting the contestation, justification, and production of legitimacy in political controversies.[16] We develop this through an exploration revealing dominant justificatory practices after the Snowden disclosures. While some IR scholars rightly conclude that legitimacy studies should transcend the normative claims of elites and dedicate more attention to ordinary actors’ assertions, we focus on how elites and ordinary actors tap into registers of everyday life to justify or criticise the surveillance nexus.[38] To this end, we repurpose Boltanski’s sociological work, in particular his concept of ‘test’, for IR to more precisely understand how justification and critique draw on the everyday. We consider it fruitful to combine this concept with narrative approaches, which contend that justificatory practices gain practical force by tapping into the everyday via stories that might be ‘accepted, rejected, or improved upon by the partners in the conversation’.39
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
