Comments on: Devolution in a new guise http://72.10.34.174/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/ An ARC Collaboration Thu, 20 May 2010 03:21:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Nils http://72.10.34.174/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Nils Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:47:45 +0000 http://anthropos-lab.net/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/#comment-116 I don't think this move by the governors is necessarily best framed up as a story about devolution/distributed preparedness. Rather, I see this as a story about how growing human awareness of the growing threat climate change (which is the real driver behind this story) is exposing the fundamental inadequacies of nation-state governance structures. The states are going to be left holding the bag, and so they're scrambling to come up with some sort of response. But frankly, this state insurance program is a band-aid on a severed artery. I don’t think this move by the governors is necessarily best framed up as a story about devolution/distributed preparedness. Rather, I see this as a story about how growing human awareness of the growing threat climate change (which is the real driver behind this story) is exposing the fundamental inadequacies of nation-state governance structures.

The states are going to be left holding the bag, and so they’re scrambling to come up with some sort of response. But frankly, this state insurance program is a band-aid on a severed artery.

]]> By: Stephen Collier http://72.10.34.174/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Stephen Collier Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:45:34 +0000 http://anthropos-lab.net/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/#comment-79 Obviously Andy and I wrote a substantial amount about this issue in our "Distributed Preparedness" paper, and I very much agree with Dale's impulse that this is a question that needs to be on the radar. It definitely is not a simple response to expanded executive authority; there is a long line of thinking about the relationship of the U.S. federal structure and various kinds of security. Here, the interesting question is not the fact that there is a "distributed" structure of security but the question of what can be distributed to whom? Natural disasters are relatively local, and it is generally accepted that states are, for the most part, the lead players in disaster response. What would be really surprising is if terrorism insurance was taken up at a state level. As an aside: New York has by far the most advanced counter-terrorism office in the country. NYPD counterterrorism has a substantial overseas component, and, it is rumored, more Arabic speakers than the CIA. It is also based, in part, on the assumption that the Feds simply aren't going to do anything at the end of the day. Obviously Andy and I wrote a substantial amount about this issue in our “Distributed Preparedness” paper, and I very much agree with Dale’s impulse that this is a question that needs to be on the radar. It definitely is not a simple response to expanded executive authority; there is a long line of thinking about the relationship of the U.S. federal structure and various kinds of security.

Here, the interesting question is not the fact that there is a “distributed” structure of security but the question of what can be distributed to whom? Natural disasters are relatively local, and it is generally accepted that states are, for the most part, the lead players in disaster response. What would be really surprising is if terrorism insurance was taken up at a state level.

As an aside: New York has by far the most advanced counter-terrorism office in the country. NYPD counterterrorism has a substantial overseas component, and, it is rumored, more Arabic speakers than the CIA. It is also based, in part, on the assumption that the Feds simply aren’t going to do anything at the end of the day.

]]> By: stalcup http://72.10.34.174/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/comment-page-1/#comment-73 stalcup Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:40:11 +0000 http://anthropos-lab.net/vss/2007/02/devolution-in-a-new-guise/#comment-73 California’s counterintelligence apparatus, in development now, has at least partial genesis in state-level government deciding that the federal apparatus was inadequate. One interviewee said that California’s Intelligence Bureau was conceived on 9/11. Agents across the state received phone calls saying they were being transferred and within weeks intel analysts were reassigned, often staying at their same desks but with a new title, and focus. He described it as a moment when the state said it clearly couldn’t trust the federal government to take care of terrorism, and this included preventing attacks and preparation for dealing with possible successes. This isn’t unique to California, so I think it is an example of states “forging their own paths”. Note, however, that the way counterterrorism is set up, much of the funding comes from the federal government in order to be spent by the state. So, what do we make of this? Does it just have to do with extant funding patterns? Perhaps it is wistful turn towards confederation in response to increased executive authority – but the reality of the funding would make that superficial anyway. What is new about using the unit of the state or geographic region? Is it the issues that are being dealt with? If so, the question is, are these paths being forged “in an attempt to secure the future and life itself”? For sure, there is epistemological contingency in the way processes are grasped and formulated… are these paths being forged as they are because what could be understood as different is being understood as related? First I guess we should ascertain if the actors (first order observers) involved take the relation to be that of “life” (or “life itself”)? Do the people who are funding and organizing stem cell research, health insurance, catastrophe insurance and counterterrorism say that their work pertains on a fundamental level to life? Or is that the addition of second order observation, and if so, where does that get us? How is that useful to all concerned? If each group is trying to ensure the vitality (power of enduring? of thriving?) of its community, at least economic and physical aspects are co-present (I know, Luhmann is groaning). Stem cell research is on life in some ways, but also about the economic bonus of locating a research facility, same for counterterrorism measures. California’s counterintelligence apparatus, in development now, has at least partial genesis in state-level government deciding that the federal apparatus was inadequate. One interviewee said that California’s Intelligence Bureau was conceived on 9/11. Agents across the state received phone calls saying they were being transferred and within weeks intel analysts were reassigned, often staying at their same desks but with a new title, and focus. He described it as a moment when the state said it clearly couldn’t trust the federal government to take care of terrorism, and this included preventing attacks and preparation for dealing with possible successes.

This isn’t unique to California, so I think it is an example of states “forging their own paths”. Note, however, that the way counterterrorism is set up, much of the funding comes from the federal government in order to be spent by the state. So, what do we make of this? Does it just have to do with extant funding patterns? Perhaps it is wistful turn towards confederation in response to increased executive authority – but the reality of the funding would make that superficial anyway. What is new about using the unit of the state or geographic region? Is it the issues that are being dealt with?

If so, the question is, are these paths being forged “in an attempt to secure the future and life itself”? For sure, there is epistemological contingency in the way processes are grasped and formulated… are these paths being forged as they are because what could be understood as different is being understood as related? First I guess we should ascertain if the actors (first order observers) involved take the relation to be that of “life” (or “life itself”)? Do the people who are funding and organizing stem cell research, health insurance, catastrophe insurance and counterterrorism say that their work pertains on a fundamental level to life? Or is that the addition of second order observation, and if so, where does that get us? How is that useful to all concerned? If each group is trying to ensure the vitality (power of enduring? of thriving?) of its community, at least economic and physical aspects are co-present (I know, Luhmann is groaning). Stem cell research is on life in some ways, but also about the economic bonus of locating a research facility, same for counterterrorism measures.

]]>