This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Diprose, R. Articles by Hawkins, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Governing the Future: The Paradigm of Prudence in Political Technologies of Risk Management

University of New South Wales, Australia, R.Diprose{at}unsw.edu.au, University of Sydney, Australia

Niamh Stephenson

University of New South Wales, Australia, N.Stephenson{at}unsw.edu.au, University of Sydney, Australia

Catherine Mills

University of New South Wales, Australia, Catherine.Mills{at}unsw.edu.au, University of Sydney, Australia

Kane Race

University of New South Wales, Australia, Kane.Race{at}usyd.edu.au, University of Sydney, Australia

Gay Hawkins

University of New South Wales, Australia, G.Hawkins{at}unsw.edu.au, University of Sydney, Australia

Increasingly, governmental responses to incalculable, but high-consequence, threats to life and security are framed by what has been described as the `precautionary principle' (Ewald), `preparedness' (Collier, Lakoff & Rabinow) or `pre-emption' (Derrida). This article redescribes features common to these characterizations as the paradigm of prudence and examines how this approach to risk management is playing out in the context of fears that feature within the Australian political imaginary. We explore how the approach to the future entailed in the paradigm enframes `life' and stifles democratic participation and innovation in ways of living. Three case studies (in biosecurity, bioecology and biomedicine) demonstrate not only how the paradigm pervades the government of everyday life, but also how it is challenged by human `agents', material `life' and the dynamic relations between these two. By formulating what this involves, we point to a concept of the political more conducive to democratic pluralism, diversity of life and innovative culture.

Key Words: biopolitics • security • political ontology • risk • futurity • prudence • risk management • Australia

Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, No. 2-3, 267-288 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0967010608088778


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Kittelsen Conceptualizing Biorisk: Dread Risk and the Threat of Bioterrorism in Europe Security Dialogue, February 1, 2009; 40(1): 51 - 71. [Abstract] [PDF]