CISD Yearbook of Global Studies

CISD Yearbook of
Global Studies

Volume 1 Number 1 June 2014

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal
governmentality through risk in International Relations

Erin Bishop

Abstract

The rationality of ‘risk’ has come to shape our world and pervade our daily
lives, producing subjects, practices, and particular forms of conduct. This
neoliberal ‘governmentalising’ of life continues to generate risk-based
hierarchies and inequalities within and across states. It also produces, is
undermined and simultaneously reinforced by sites of resistance. I argue
that the literature on risk, however, largely does not look at or take this
seriously, with the exception of its post-structuralist variants, which are also
limited. Yet there is resistance to governmentality through risk by those
who refuse to be governed ‘thusly, like that, by these people, at this price’
(Foucault, 2007: 75), and who consequently conduct themselves in ways
that appropriate, subvert, or even challenge, ordering by risk. I will focus
on an empirical and analytical elaboration of resistance to the ‘risk of
terrorism’, illustrating my central thesis by applying Foucault’s concept of
counter-conducts to two exploratory case studies: the first looking at
resistance to the UK government’s counter-terrorist Channel/Prevent
strategy, and the second analysing incidences of resistance to the US
National Security Agency’s counter-terrorism surveillance programme
PRISM.

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

Introduction

The rationality of ‘risk’ has come to shape our world and pervade our daily lives, producing
subjects, practices, and particular forms of conduct. Across the Global South and (especially)
in the Global North we are all governed through the dispositif of risk as informed by the
rationality of neoliberalism - the social order currently being advanced (Foucault, 2004: 108).
This form of governmentality creates a strategic ordering of society that extends the
neoliberal project by intervening in ‘failed’ or illiberal states, and is concerned with the
management and control of ‘risk originators’ through a security architecture geared to
monitor, categorise, and target groups and individuals with attributed ‘risk identities’
(Clapton, 2009: 20). This neoliberal ‘governmentalising’ of life has fundamentally altered the
underlying constitution of international society by generating anti-pluralist trends and risk-
based hierarchies within and across states (Clapton, 2009). It also continues to produce, be
undermined and simultaneously reinforced by sites of resistance. I argue that the literature on
risk, however, largely does not look at or take this seriously, with the exception of its post-
structuralist variants, which are also limited. Yet there is resistance to governmentality
through risk by those who refuse to be governed ‘thusly, like that, by these people, at this
price’, (Foucault, 2007b: 75) and who consequently conduct themselves in ways that
appropriate, subvert, or even challenge, ordering by risk: a type of resistance Foucault has
termed ‘counter-conduct’ (Foucault, 2004). The existing risk literature has a top-down focus
on those actors and processes involved in devising the strategies and mechanisms through
which to govern populations, while the incidence of resistance to risk-based neoliberal
governmentality is an area which remains strikingly under-examined in the International
Relations scholarship. Currently, there is little to challenge the perception that an over-
bearing security architecture only encounters a modicum of resistance. This is due, in part, to
the fact that insufficient agency has been attributed to those who are resisting processes of
‘riskisation’ through counter-conducts. Meanwhile, the scholarship that has addressed
resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk is overwhelmingly limited to the field of
health (Alaszewski, 2011; Armstrong & Murphy, 2012; Brown, 2013; Harrison, 2011;
McGovern & McGovern, 2011). This literature provides some valuable insights into the
nuanced and heterogeneous ways in which resistance manifests itself, and how it can feed
back into domineering power; observations which are transferable to the study of other areas
of resistance. However, this scholarship only looks at resistance to neoliberal health
governance through risk as a bio-political rationality, while resistance to the governance of
other ‘risky’ issues such as terrorism, migration, and climate change remain neglected in the
International Relations scholarship. I maintain that literature is constitutive of reality as it has
the power to shape discourse, policy and analysis, and to influence the dominant narratives
deployed in society. For instance, Laffey and Barkawi highlight how the inherent Euro-
centrism of the Security Studies literature has generated dominant colonial narratives and
discriminative international policy responses which marginalise subaltern states, leading to “a
distorted view of Europe and the West in world politics.” (Barkawi & Laffey, 2006: 329).
With this in mind, I argue that the existing risk literature is distorting policy and analysis, as it
too has left out the social reality by failing to acknowledge the prevalence of resistance. Top-
down accounts of neoliberal governmentality through risk have become hegemonic in the
post-structuralist International Relations scholarship, obscuring the evidence of widespread
resistance to governance through risk taking place on a daily basis; from those who refuse to
comply with anti-terrorism legislation, to those choosing to support asylum seekers from
‘problem’ states, and teaching staff who have refrained from marking attendance registers
which may be passed on to the UK Border Agency. This lacuna in the scholarship is all the
more surprising given that Foucault emphasises how, “the analysis of types of

230

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

governmentality is inseparable from analysis of corresponding forms of resistance, or
‘counter-conducts.’” (Foucault, 2004: 389).

Why is it important that scholars of International Relations focus on those resisting neoliberal
governmentality through risk? Because, as Hollander and Einwohner sum up; “creating a
dichotomy between the powerful and powerless is problematic… Studying resistance may
help restore the balance between oppression and agency.” (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004:
550) IR scholars writing about risk have tended to create a dichotomy between those
governing through risk and the subjects of this governance, depicting the former as powerful
and the latter as powerless, thereby distorting the balance between oppression and agency.
Because those resisting ordering by risk are markedly underrepresented in the literature, their
voices and narratives have been effectively silenced, whereas practices of governing through
risk remain the focus of extensive analysis. In the absence of an analytics of resistance, the
existing risk literature implicitly accepts that neoliberal governmentality is an incontestable
reality, reinforcing it as the status quo. Thus, through the reproduction of hegemonic
governmentality narratives, both critical realists and post-structuralist scholars have
inadvertently contributed to the neoliberal discourse. By engaging with this significant lacuna
in the knowledge, and employing Foucault’s counter-conducts approach, which allows for
analysis of the close interrelationship between practices of governance and resistance, I argue
that post-structuralists can advance the risk literature in three key ways: Namely, by restoring
the balance between oppression and agency, shedding light on previously unobserved
subjectivities, identities and networks of power being generated by counter conducts, and by
producing a counter-discourse to challenge the scholarship taking for granted that within the
context of neoliberal globalisation, the establishment of concurrent risk-based regimes is
inevitable, making any resistance inherently futile.

I will defend my central thesis through an empirical and analytical elaboration of resistance to
governance through the risk of terrorism. The remainder of this paper will proceed as
follows: Firstly, I discuss theoretical approaches to the concepts of governmentality,
resistance and counter-conduct. I then provide a critique of the existing IR literature on
governmentality through the risk of terrorism in relation to the theme of resistance,
underlining implications for the scholarship and resistance itself. Finally, I will elaborate on
my two exploratory case studies by employing Foucault’s notion of ‘counter-conducts’, as
elaborated upon by Carl Death, to show how resistance to governance through the terrorist
‘risk’ can both undermine and simultaneously reinforce domineering power (Death, 2010).
The first exploratory case study comprises an analysis of resistance to the UK government’s
counter-terrorist Channel/Prevent strategy, and the second looks at resistance to the National
Security Agency’s counter-terrorism surveillance programme PRISM. I have purposefully
selected these case studies as the first is illustrative of resistance to neoliberal governmentality
through the risk of terrorism within a state, while the second is illustrative of transnational
resistance.

Theoretical Approach

I adhere to the governmentality approach which asserts that risk and neoliberal globalisation
are strategies, methodologies and techniques through which populations are governed.
(Joseph, 2012: 14) According to Foucault, governmentality is a specific and complex form of
power, which “has as its target population, as its principal form of knowledge political
economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security.” (Foucault, 2003: 244).
Therefore, in the current climate it is the political economy of global neoliberal governance

231

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

that informs regimes of governmentality. Unlike the critical-realist International Relations
scholarship on risk pioneered by Beck and Giddens, a governmentality approach contends
that, “There is no such thing as risk in reality” (Dean, 1999: 177). Consequently, as Joseph
points out, “A strength of the governmentality approach is that it does not buy into the
ontological aspects of the things it describes.” Rather than being preoccupied with the
obsolescent ontological debate which grapples with the question ‘Is risk really out there?’, a
Foucauldian approach goes a step further in its analysis to reveal how risk acts as a
‘dispositif’ through which the rationality of neoliberalism shapes modern life, regimenting our
conduct, and legitimising a wide-reaching security architecture with its epicentre in the
Global North geared to survey, categorise and target entire populations by governing them ‘at
arms-length’. Viewed through this Foucauldian lens, the dispositif of risk is instrumental in
producing a strategic ordering of society whereby ‘risk identities’ are attributed to individuals,
groups and ‘failed’ or illiberal states necessitating targeted interventions which extend the
neoliberal project (Clapton & Hameiri, 2011). This explains why security issues pertinent to
the core, such as terrorism and HIV/AIDS are socially constructed as universally de-bounded
‘risks’ which merit more urgent international policy responses than peripheral problems such
as curable disease and famine. This kind of strategic ordering produces risk-based hierarchies
which privilege certain forms of life over others, protecting the core from risks accumulating
in the ‘illiberal’ periphery (Clapton & Hameiri, 2011). For this reason, Clapton and Hameiri
caution that, “It is not a solidarist international society that is emerging, but rather one
characterised by the existence of new hierarchical relationships” (Clapton & Hameiri, 2011:
60). Within the context of neoliberal governmentality, whereby, “‘homo economicus is
manipulable man’, a subject who should be forever open to and responsive to signals: from
the markets, from risks and dangers, from opportunities”, (Harisson et al., 2011: 482) my
argument follows that there is a need to explore the ways in which people are able to resist
being assimilated into these risk-based hierarchies by conducting themselves in ways which
subvert the “homo economicus” archetype.

The Concept of Resistance

What do I mean by resistance? I understand resistance to be a heterogeneous, highly
sophisticated and socially contested concept. There is general agreement in the literature that
resistance comprises some kind of oppositional action, and can manifest itself in diverse
ways; for example in the form of protests at international summits, hunger strikes, or simply
through observed silence (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004: 544). However, whether overt,
covert or unwitting it is futile to attempt to provide a finite definition of resistance, as
Armstrong and Murphy emphasise, stating; “We do not believe it is helpful, or indeed perhaps
even possible, to offer a definitive definition of resistance. Rather, what is crucial is to
recognize its heterogeneity and context specificity” (Armstrong & Murphy, 2012: 323). Past
studies have understood resistance as directly opposing powers of domination, dichotomising
dissent and collaboration (Aronowitz & Gautney, 2003; Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005; Bond &
Desai, 2008). Yet, as Carl Death highlights in his Foucauldian analytics of protest, power and
resistance are not mutually exclusive but mutually constitutive, invalidating the quest for a
‘pure’ emancipatory form of resistance (Death, 2010). Through Death’s analysis it is clear
that subscribing to classic binaries of political thought will mean that complex power relations
are overlooked. In search of a more comprehensive approach to resistance, Death makes a
strong case for Foucault’s concept of ‘counter-conduct’ advocating that, “A counter-conducts
approach is not an attempt to undermine the actual struggles of activists and movements… it
aims at the opposite: the introduction of a serious focus upon dissent and protest into the
governmentality literature” (Death, 2010: 248). Like Death, I argue that Foucault’s counter-

232

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

conducts approach to resistance has much to offer scholars of governmentality. Indeed, I
consider that it provides a useful starting-point from which to embark on a more in-depth and
variegated analysis of resistance to neoliberal governance through risk.

Foucault first mentions the notion of counter-conduct in his March 1 1978 lecture at the
College de France, defining it as; “resistance to forms of power that do not exercise
sovereignty and do not exploit, but ‘conduct’” (Foucault, 2004: 200). He illustrates the
concept with examples of the laity’s revolts of conduct against the Christian pastorate
(Foucault, 2004: 198). Significantly, rather than dichotomising those doing the governing and
those being governed, a counter-conducts approach understands that, “those who command…
know that the general system of obedience envelops them just as much as those over whom
they exercise their power” (Foucault, 2004: 201). By focussing both on those resisting
regimes of governmentality and those doing the governing, the balance between oppression
and agency is not distorted by this approach. Furthermore, a counter-conducts approach it
illuminates the mutually constitutive relationship between the practices of governance and
resistance, showing how resistance can simultaneously disrupt and reinforce dominant power
(Death, 2010: 235). For this reason, I argue that by deploying Foucault’s concept of counter-
conducts and dedicating due analysis to the role that resistance has to play in subverting,
reproducing and appropriating oppressive power, post-structuralist scholars of risk can
produce a more balanced account of reality.

Risk and Resistance in IR

I argue that resistance to neoliberal governance through risk is an area ripe for further study in
International Relations. If this is the case, then what has the existing risk literature left out?
And does it provide legitimate analysis? Thus far, three different theoretical approaches to
risk have dominated the International Relations scholarship: Namely, critical-realist,
constructivist and post-structuralist or Foucauldian (Clapton, 2011). Due to spatial limitations
I will only provide a brief outline of these approaches. The critical-realist perspective
pioneered by Beck and Giddens contends that risks are objectively real and found ‘out there’,
but are socially constructed during processes of interpretation (Beck, 1990; Giddens, 1999).
This scholarship takes a problem-solving rather than a critical approach, so is primarily
concerned with the management and control of risks, rather than their utility as a tool of
governance. Contrastingly, constructivist scholars such as Furedi and Gusterson maintain that
risk is not ontologically real, but an entirely socially constructed entity (Furedi, 2006;
Gusterson, 1999). They explore how the discourse of risk is deployed in society and
investigate its concomitant effects, such as the ‘culture of fear’ that it creates (Furedi, 2006).
Post-structuralists also assert that there is no reality of risk, but go a step further in their
analysis to see risk as a dispositif through which populations can be governed (Aradau & Van
Munster, 2007; Elbe, 2008; Mythen & Walklate, 2008; Wee-Kiat Lim, 2011). This body of
literature is valuable as it provides us with insights into the ontology and epistemology of risk.
Yet there remain a number of lacunae in IR’s understanding of risk which need to be
addressed, including resistance. Clapton writes, “The literature on risk, risk management and
IR is still comparatively small and there is still significant scope for the theorisation of these
concepts in an IR context.” (Clapton, 2011: 280). Lund Peterson has also emphasised the
need for risk scholarship in IR to pursue new lines of enquiry, as a preoccupation with Beck’s
‘world risk society’ thesis and the ontological nature of risk has caused it to grow stale (Lund
Peterson, 2012). The stagnation of the debate between these three theoretical approaches has
meant that thus far there has been virtually no exploration of resistance to neoliberal
governmentality through risk. Clapton concurs that, “The post-structuralist literature has not

233

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

engaged… rigorously with the issue of resistance to the practices and technologies associated
with governing through risk” (Clapton, 2011: 286). Through a critical review of some of the
key contributions of IR scholarship on the risk of terrorism, I will show that the resistance of
those who reject governance through risk by engaging in practices and relations of ‘solidarity’
and counter conducts has been broadly neglected.

Critical Realist Scholarship, Terrorist Risk and Resistance

Beck’s path-breaking ‘world risk society’ thesis traces a transition from industrial society (the
production of global goods), to risk society or ‘reflexive modernity’ (the production of global
bads), identifying a paradigm shift from “I am hungry” to “I am afraid” (Rasborg, 2012).
According to Beck, terrorism represents one of the ‘risks’ of our own creation that we now
confront (Beck, 2002: 43). He constructs the risk of terrorism as an imminent, universally de-
bounded risk, which “suddenly broke upon us on September 11th.” (Beck, 2002: 41). Beck’s
amplification of this ‘global risk’ can be observed in his comment, “Every advance from gene
technology to nanotechnology opens a ‘Pandora’s box’ that could be used as a terrorist’s
toolkit.” (Beck, 2002: 46). His thesis also contends that the existence of this ‘new’ risk will
give way to state and cosmopolitan political solutions (Beck, 2002). Beck characterises the
terrorist risk:

“(bad) intention replaces accident, active trust becomes active mistrust, the context of individual risk is
replaced by the context of systemic risks, private insurance is (partly) replaced by state insurance, the
power of definition of experts has been replaced by that of states and intelligence agencies.” (Beck,
2002: 45)

Beck’s understanding of the terrorist risk has been deconstructed and discredited by post-
structuralist scholars Krahmann, Mythen, Walklate and Van Munster, among others, who
have demonstrated his ‘world risk society’ thesis to be fundamentally flawed. Mythen and
Walklate point out that terrorism itself is not a new phenomenon, and that its practices do not
rely on cutting-edge technologies, but on crude weapons that have been used in the past by
terrorist groups such as ETA and the IRA. They add that, “Beck’s theory… muddies the
waters between the possible and the probable degree of threat” (Mythen & Walklate, 2008:
232) emphasising that terrorist attacks are not an imminent risk, but an extremely low
probability. In fact, it was even highlighted this year that Americans are more likely to be
killed by a toddler than by a terrorist (Becker, I.J. Review, 2013). Meanwhile, Krahmann
disproves Beck’s claim that private insurance and expertise will be replaced by state insurance
and cosmopolitan political solutions. She highlights that within the context of neoliberalism,
privatisation, individualisation, and ‘responsibilitisation’ of risk has allowed the private
security industry to multiply its profits through the provision of solutions to the constructed
risk of global terrorism (Krahmann, 2011).

Resistance to neoliberal governmentality does not feature in Beck’s analysis of the terrorist
risk, as he takes a top-down problem-solving approach which has the management and control
of ‘global risks’ as its main focus (Lund Peterson, 2012). In other words, Beck is primarily
concerned with how the terrorist ‘risk’ itself can be resisted - which he understands to be an
ontologically real entity, rather than how people can resist being governed through it. The
inhabitants of Beck’s ‘world risk society’ are characterised by a crippling lack of agency. He
writes, “People feel like the helpless hostages of this process [risk management].” (Beck,
2002: 42). In his theorisation of risk there is no concept that people can employ their agency
to resist such processes. Indeed, by scrutinising Beck’s thesis it becomes clear that he deems

234

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

resistance to neoliberal globalisation, and by extension neoliberal governmentality, to be
inherently futile. He writes, “The perceived risk of global terrorism… has pushed us into a
new phase of globalization… Once more, the rule has been confirmed that resistance to
globalization only accelerates it.” (Beck, 2002: 4). Drawing a causal link between the
terrorist risk and the acceleration of globalisation, Beck effectively implies that we are all
powerless to resist the ‘forces’ of neoliberalism. As Joseph points out, Beck deploys a
received wisdom of neoliberal globalisation in his analysis, reinforcing the status quo rather
than critiquing it (Joseph, 2012: 172). For example, he harnesses the discourse of the terrorist
risk to legitimise the advance of the neoliberal order, stating:

“Since September 11th, the gulf between the world of those who profit from globalization and the
world of those who feel threatened by it has been closed. Helping those who have been excluded is no
longer a humanitarian task. It is in the West’s own interest: the key to its security. The West can no
longer ignore the black-holes of collapsed states and situations of despair.” (Beck, 2002: 48)

Thus, Beck justifies neoliberal interventions in illiberal states as a form of ‘duty’ through the
discourse of the ‘new’ terrorist risk, and evidences how risk-based hierarchies are principally
designed to serve the security requirements of the core. Furthermore, he reserves agency for
the governors of risk in ‘the West’. In sum, Beck’s critical realist approach to the risk of
terrorism broadly overlooks the theme of resistance, denies agency to the subjects of
governmentality, and reinforces the hegemonic interests of neoliberalism.

Post-structuralist Scholarship, Terrorist Risk and Resistance

Krahmann, Mythen, Walklate, Aradau and Van Munster all adopt a post-structuralist
approach to examine the ways in which terrorism is governed through the dispositif of risk,
yet all fail to systematically engage with evidence of resistance to these strategies of
neoliberal governmentality. Elke Krahmann contributes to the specialist literature on risk,
critically analysing the role of the private security industry in governance through the risk of
terrorism and crime (Krahmann, 2011). She analyses the ways in which this industry creates
and perpetuates a demand for private risk management solutions, disproving Beck’s claim
that, “in times of crises, neoliberalism has no solutions to offer.” (Beck, 2002: 48). However,
despite providing these valuable insights a key limitation of Krahmann’s argument is that she
does not create a space for resistance in her analysis. Indeed, not only does she fail to
acknowledge resistance to governance through the risk of terrorism, but she dichotomises,
“those who profit from the production and management of risks and those who suffer the
consequences.” (Krahmann, 2011: 353). Here, she conveys the existence of a clear-cut
division between the powerful and the powerless, and in doing so she effectively
disempowers the targets of neoliberal governmentality by denying them sufficient agency.
Krahmann thereby distorts the balance between oppression and agency. What is more, in her
analysis, she only considers governments (in particular democratic governments) and private
security companies as the potential beneficiaries of governance through the risk of terrorism.
She fails to entertain the possibility that the subjects of neoliberal governmentality and even
those resisting this form of governance through counter-conducts may also benefit directly or
indirectly through the appropriation or subversion of resources intended for anti-terrorism
purposes. For example, a number of mosques in the North of England have reportedly used
funding from the UK government’s anti-terrorism Channel/Prevent programme to enhance
their facilities, while certain Muslim community groups in the same region have benefitted
from this funding while simultaneously seeking to resist and change the programme from
within (Kundnani, 2009: 25).

235

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

Krahmann criticises Beck for neglecting, “how the discourse and practices of risk are
changing the public perception of these and other dangers.” (Krahmann, 2011: 354). Yet,
while she does discuss how a risk-induced ‘culture of fear’ influences the public’s perception,
she fails to explore alternative perceptions. For instance, she does not consider that a
different public perception of neoliberal governance through risk may be that the strategies
and technologies deployed to manage the risk of terrorism present more of a ‘danger’ than the
perceived risks themselves, leading some to reject this form of governmentality. Krahmann
links public fear to the growing demand for private security solutions to risk in her statement,
“Extensive security arrangements such as pervasive monitoring and increased patrols can
create the image of a dangerous environment making people feel unsafe in the first place. The
demand for assurance, thus, becomes self-perpetuating.” (Krahmann, 2011: 368). However,
in her account of reflexive public fear no mention is made of those who have chosen to
actively resist an increase in monitoring and surveillance. Take for instance the public
backlash provoked by the deployment of a large number of CCTV cameras in the West
Midlands as part of anti-terrorist Project Champion in 2010, whereby local campaigners, civil
liberties organisations and human rights groups succeeded in getting many of the cameras
removed by the police (Independent Online, 2010). Krahmann does not discuss the failures of
risk management, but takes for granted that private and individualised solutions will
inevitably prevail, encountering little or no resistance as a result of or during their widespread
implementation. Furthermore, she factors out resistance writing, “There is no way of
challenging the risk assessments of experts who inform the public of unknown and unknown-
unknown risks.” (Krahmann, 2011: 356). This claim is refutable if we take into account the
public backlash that ensued when Weapons of Mass Destruction were not discovered in Iraq
following Tony Blair’s announcement that they presented a genuine ‘risk’ (ISN, 2010). In
Krahmann’s analysis, resistance is conspicuous by its absence. She takes for granted that
conformity and passive acceptance of the strategies and technologies of neoliberal
governmentality are the norm, thereby reinforcing the status quo and denying agency to those
conducting themselves in ways that counter governance through the risk of terrorism.

Aradau and Van Munster employ a Foucauldian perspective to show how precautionary risk
has emerged in the dispositif of risk being deployed to govern terrorism (Aradau & Van
Munster, 2007). They argue that the ‘war on terror’ is “a new form of governmentality that
imbricates knowledge and decision at the limit of knowledge, war and strategies of
surveillance, injunctions to integration and drastic policies against anti-social behaviour.”
(2007: 91) They take a top-down approach, as the primary focus of their analysis is how state
and non-state actors govern populations through the risk of terrorism. Notably, they explain
that, “A governmental analysis of risk is able to expose how the world and existing
problematizations are made into risks, and what effects this form of ordering entails upon
populations” (Aradau & Van Munster, 2007: 97). Yet they fail to discuss how one of the
major ‘effects’ of this strategic ordering of society upon populations is resistance. While they
talk about the ‘conduct of conduct’, Aradau and Van Munster only succeed in producing a
one-sided account as they fail to explore corresponding ‘counter-conducts’. They discuss the
strategies and methodologies of governance through the risk of terrorism, such as the
targeting of Muslim communities by police ‘fishing’ trips, CCTV cameras and stop and
search policies (Aradau & Van Munster, 2007). However, they stop short of analysing the
agency being actively exercised by these target communities in their resistance to neoliberal
governmentality through the risk of terrorism. Like Krahmann, Aradau and Van Munster
describe the roll out of surveillance programmes as smooth and uncontested, with,
“everybody… regimented into technologies of vigilance and prudentialism.” (2007: 108)
Again, there is no implication that this reality is contestable, it is simply taken for granted.

236

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

Consequently, their scholarship serves to reinforce and reproduces hegemonic neoliberal
discourse. They go on to write that, “Technologies of intervening upon the future are always
failing; their failure is, however, part of governmentality, the very motor of the continuous
requirement for new technologies and more knowledge.”(Aradau & Van Munster, 2007: 108).
Aradau and Van Munster do not contemplate why regimes of governmentality continue to
fail, or that these failures may be attributable to the incidence of counter conducts. This is
because resistance is entirely excluded from their analysis.

Mythen and Walklate also look at the risk of terrorism from a post-structuralist perspective
(Mythen & Walklate, 2008). In their analysis they outline the ways in which governance
through the dispositif of the terrorist risk advances the neoliberal state through targeted
interventions, and discuss how in the UK, strategies and technologies of governmentality have
been used to target the Muslim community in particular (2008: 228). For example they report
that, “The incitement to self-surveillance is… typified by the establishment of Muslim
Contact Units designed to proactively seek out intelligence about suspicious activity.” (2008:
231). Notably, Mythen and Walklate touch on the theme of resistance, writing, “Widespread
concerns have been raised in the UK by civil rights campaigners, academics and journalists
about the effects of anti-terrorism legislation on fundamental democratic freedoms and
liberties.” (2008: 230). However, their article is essentially another top-down analysis of
neoliberal governmentality through the risk of terrorism. Mythen, Walklate and Khan take
steps towards a more bottom-up approach in a more recent study by examining the effects of
counter-terrorism measures on a group of young Pakistani Muslims through a series of
interviews (Mythen, Walklate & Khan, 2013). However, resistance remains an afterthought.
While the study transcends previous scholarship on governmentality through the terrorist risk
by attributing agency to participants from this targeted ‘risk group’, its primary focus remains
the strategies and methodologies of governance, and the corresponding ‘conduct of conduct’
invoked by “risk subjectification” such as ‘hushing’, self-censorship and self-surveillance
(Mythen, Walklate & Khan, 2013). In the study, there is only one reference made to a form
of counter-conduct: Namely, resistance through style of dress. They write, “While many
participants had become inured to monitoring and modifying sartorial styles, others argued
that their choice of clothing was an important statement of identity and an active marker of
resistance.” (Mythen, Walklate & Khan, 2013: 392). They fail to produce an in-depth
analysis of this, or any other counter-conducts practiced by the participants, but
encouragingly, their study succeeds in producing a more balanced account of oppression and
agency.

Implications for the Scholarship and Resistance

I have argued that in the existing IR literature on the risk of terrorism, resistance to neoliberal
governmentality only features as an after-thought, if at all. This neglect of resistance limits
analysis of governance through risk both in terms of the specialist literature, and more
generally for a number of reasons. Significantly, it means that the relationship between power
and resistance cannot be adequately explored, and there can be no elucidation of how
resistance feeds back into domineering power (Death, 2010). What is more, by factoring out
resistance, any discussion of the effects that neoliberal governmentality has on target
populations (or the toll it takes) and the behaviours it produces will be severely restricted. In
the literature, oppressive power is currently construed as disproportionately greater than that
of agency. Consequently, there can only be limited analysis of the role of agency in general,
and of those who leverage their agency to counter regimes of neoliberal governmentality, or
to shape them (Clapton, 2011: 286). This narrow scope of analysis is conducive to an over-

237

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

simplified and inaccurate depiction of neoliberal governmentality that is top-down in focus.
IR scholars will only strengthen their grasp of neoliberal governmentality through risk and
how people respond to its related strategies and technologies by scrutinising the role that
resistance and counter conducts have to play in its operation.

The implications for the scholarship are that it currently fails to illuminate the close
interrelationship between the governors and the governed, oppression and agency, therefore
implying that regimes of neoliberal governance through risk necessarily entail the collapse of
agency. By overlooking the incidence of resistance, the scholarship also insinuates that the
strategies and technologies deployed to govern the terrorist risk are universally accepted as
the status quo (Joseph, 2012). By neglecting to analyse the friction, failures, and sites of
contestation resulting from the roll out of risk-based security architectures, the scholarship
takes for granted the hegemony of neoliberal governmentality. As Joseph explains, this
serves to reinforce the school of thought endorsing, “the unstoppable nature of [neoliberal]
globalisation and the view that we have lost control of macro forces.” (2012: 172). These
inadvertent assumptions underlie the critical realist scholarship in particular, as Joseph points
out, writing, “instead of providing a clear analysis of risk, approaches such as those of
Giddens and Beck effectively contribute to the discourse of the very thing they are meant to
analyse and in doing so reproduce a governmentality of risk” (2012: 172). In this sense, the
IR scholarship currently reinforces existing risk-based hierarchies and the neoliberal order.

Another serious implication of this lacuna in the knowledge is that narratives of resistance to
neoliberal governmentality through risk are being silenced or side-lined by the scholarship. I
maintain that resistance has the potential to develop forms of accountability that impose limits
on the practices and technologies of neoliberal governmentality. However, it seems clear that
while it continues to be obscured by the scholarship, this eventuality remains less tenable.
Given that literature is constitutive of reality, without the production of knowledge which
specifically highlights resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk those doing the
‘governing’ are less likely to critically address the failures, shortcomings, and negative
ramifications of the strategies and technologies that they continue to devise, rendering the
resistance itself less effectual. The implications are that resistance may instead slip under the
radar of policy makers, or be perceived as inconsequential and extraneous to regimes of
neoliberal governmentality through risk.

Resistance to Neoliberal Governmentality in the Health Discourse: What
Knowledge Can Be Transferred?

Foucault informs us that counter-conducts have historically been observed in the field of
health. He writes, “We can say that medicine… has given rise to a whole series of revolts of
conduct… from the end of the eighteenth century and still today.” (Foucault, 2004: 199) This
may explain why scholarship on resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk has
already been pioneered in the health discourse (Armstrong & Murphy, 2012; Brown et al.,
2013; Harrison et al., 2011; McGovern & McGovern, 2011). Past studies have cited
examples of counter-conducts resisting governance through a plethora of ‘risky’ health issues,
including HIV/AIDS, cervical cancer, and breastfeeding, among others. I contend that this
body of literature offers some valuable insights which can be transferred to the analysis of
resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations. While there
is not space here for an extensive analysis of this literature, I will deduce some key
observations from select studies in order to illustrate its potential utility for post-structuralist
scholars.

238

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

Armstrong and Murphy provide an in-depth analysis of how and to what extent people are
able to resist neoliberal governmentality through public health, and their findings make a
strong case for employing a counter-conducts approach. They take a Foucauldian
perspective, maintaining that, “Just as power is diffuse and dispersed, present within all social
interactions, so resistance can also be thought of in such terms” (Armstrong & Murphy, 2012:
326) and advocating that the interrelationship between power and resistance should not be
neglected. In their study, they demonstrate that resistance to governance through risk is
heterogeneous, manifesting itself “in subtle and nuanced ways.” (Armstrong & Murphy,
2012: 314). They also problematise common understandings of resistance, disproving “the
simplistic assumptions… that resistance necessarily involves the rejection of advice and
interventions.” (Armstrong & Murphy, 2012: 314). In this last respect, they evidence that
counter-conducts can be practiced by patients who consent to medical advice and the
administering of treatments, while simultaneously resisting the discourse behind these
targeted interventions on moral, ethical, or personal grounds, through a process of ‘self-
positioning’ (Armstrong & Murphy, 2012). Armstrong illustrates this particular form of
counter-conduct in her analysis of women’s resistance to information outlining the risk of
cervical cancer. She reports that, “women respond to the presentation of risk in diverse and
dynamic ways, and engage in a process of ‘self-positioning’ that individualises cervical
cancer risk and makes it relevant to them as individuals.” (Armstrong, 2005: 161). According
to Armstrong and Murphy, this form of counter-conduct involving a process of internally
rejecting or subverting the medicalised discourse of neoliberal governmentality is commonly
practiced by patients.

Harrison et al. also look at cases of resistance to neoliberal governance through risk in health
(Harrison et al., 2011). They investigate how Australians aged 18-24 were found to be
resisting risk communications from the National Health and Medical Research Council in
Australia (NHMRC) regarding ‘low-risk’ alcohol consumption. Like Armstrong and Murphy,
Harrison et al. observe counter-conducts in the form of ‘self-positioning’, whereby instead of
internalising neoliberal public health messaging these young people, “saw the consumption of
alcohol as pleasurable and socially desirable” socially constructing themselves as, “engaging
in ‘controlled drunkenness’”, rather than being over the recommended limit of alcohol
(Harrison el al., 2011). Significantly, Harrison et al. emphasise that this is in spite of the
discourse of ‘pleasure’ being entirely omitted from neoliberal health messaging. It is also
notable that the findings of this study provide evidence that incidences of counter-conduct to
neoliberal governance through risk can occur in settings as generic as regular social
gatherings. Also demonstrating an alternative perspective to the ‘powerless addict’ depicted
in the mainstream health discourse, McGovern and McGovern’s study of counter-conduct and
crack cocaine provides an interesting account of drug users negotiating at the boundaries of
risk (McGovern & McGovern, 2011). They report that, “By orientating themselves against
other ‘out of control’ users, participants are also able to ‘neutralise’ their own interaction with
risk” (2011: 497). Their findings reveal that, by undertaking a process of ‘self-positioning’,
even those on the margins of society are able to actively employ their agency to contravene
ways of regimenting human behaviour (2011: 487).

To summarise: Manifestations of resistance to neoliberal governance through risk are subtle,
diffuse and complex. Counter-conducts can be observed in processes of ‘self-positioning’
characterised by an internal rejection or subversion of neoliberal risk discourse. This form of
counter-conduct should not be considered anomalous, but understood as a common mode of
human behaviour practised in people’s daily lives. Finally, even those on the margins of
society often depicted as ‘powerless’ are capable of actively employing their agency to

239

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

conduct themselves in ways which counter the patterns of behaviour promoted by regimes of
neoliberal governmentality through risk. This list of transferable observations is not intended
to be exhaustive, but to indicate that there remains significant scope for further mining of the
health literature on resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk.

Case Studies

The purpose of these exploratory case studies is to evidence the existence of resistance to
neoliberal governmentality through risk, to attribute agency to those countering this form of
governance, and to illustrate that oppressive power and resistance are mutually constitutive,
so should be studied in conjunction with each other. I will adopt Foucault’s counter-conducts
approach to analyse instances of resistance to neoliberal governance through the risk of
terrorism by looking at the UK government’s Channel/Prevent strategy and the US NSA’s
PRISM programme.

Resistance to the Channel/Prevent Strategy

What is Channel/Prevent?

The UK government’s anti-terrorism programme ‘Channel’ was launched in partnership with
the Department for Communities and Local Government in April 2007 in the wake of the 7/7
London terrorist attacks in 2005 (Kundnani, 2009: 10). Channel forms a multi-agency
approach within the UK government’s Prevent initiative, which is one of the four main work-
streams of the wider ‘CONTEST’ strategy aimed at countering international terrorism. Its
purpose is to prevent people from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. After being
revised in 2011, it now has three key objectives: challenging ideology that supports terrorism,
protecting vulnerable individuals and supporting sectors and institutions where there is a risk
of radicalisation (Peters, 2012: 4). Siobhan Peters, Director of Prevent at the Office for
Security and Counter-Terrorism states that, “To reduce the risk from terrorism we need not
only to stop terrorist attacks but also to prevent people becoming terrorists.” (Peters, 2012: 3).
In Prevent’s pilot year 2005/2006 only five people were referred to Channel. However, in
2012 a significantly larger total of 748 people were targeted following the roll out of the
programme on a national scale across England and Wales (Telegraph Online, 2013).

How does Channel/Prevent exemplify governance through the risk of terrorism?

Risk is a core tenet of Channel/Prevent. The programme outline states, “Risk is a theme that
runs through the entire Channel process: risk to the individual; risk to the public; and risk to
statutory partners and any intervention providers” (Peters, 2012: 19). Channel/Prevent is a
clear example of neoliberal governmentality through the terrorist risk as it allows the state to
take a step back by actively encouraging communities to govern each other, and to act as the
“front line” against terrorism, by surveilling, categorising and informing on potential
terrorists, or anyone perceived as vulnerable to ‘radicalisation’ (Peters, 2012: 11). For this
reason, IR scholar Gutkowski has related the Prevent agenda to Foucault’s work on ‘pastoral
governance’, writing that, “British government attention to its Muslim population has
resembled the kinds of rationalities and technologies identified by Foucault in his
genealogical exploration of modern governance.” (Gutkowski, 2011: 357). Within
Channel/Prevent people are categorised under three ‘vulnerability indicators’ which include;
engagement with a group, cause or ideology, intent to cause harm, and capability to cause
harm. Targeted interventions are then carried out on those referred to the programme (Peters,

240

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

2012). The programme can be understood as operating through a dispositif of precautionary
risk, as elucidated by Aradau and Van Munster in their theorisation of governmentality
through the terrorist risk. This precautionary element is evident in the programme’s strong
emphasis on early intervention, which stipulates that even children deemed ‘at risk’ should be
targeted (Peters, 2012: 3).

How has resistance to Channel/Prevent manifested itself?

There has been widespread resistance to Channel/Prevent. In a critical response to the
programme, Rachel Robinson of the human rights organisation Liberty writes, “Since its
inception Prevent has met with much resistance, particularly from amongst the Muslim
community.” (Robinson, 2010: 4) Significantly, it was instances of resistance that led the
Channel/Prevent strategy to be revised and re-focussed in June 2011 (Peters, 2012: 3). I will
show that resistance to Channel/Prevent has been dispersed, variegated and heterogeneous
through an analysis of resistance by schools, teachers, and Muslim community groups. In my
analysis I will draw on Foucault’s concept of counter-conducts to reveal how, paradoxically,
resistance feeds back into domineering power.

Resistance by schools and teachers

Since its inception, Channel/Prevent has actively targeted primary, secondary and tertiary
education establishments, recruiting teaching practitioners as ‘governors’ as part of its
strategy to manage and mitigate the risk of terrorism. However, in 2011 it was reported that,
“Fears about the "anti-Islamic" ethos of the project” led to a large number of the 7,500
schools enlisted by the programme opting out (Travis, Guardian Online, 2011). Viewed
through a Foucauldian lens, this form of counter-conduct entailed education professionals
activating “technologies of the self” (Foucault, 2003: 145) through processes of ‘self-
positioning’ in order to reject and resist what they perceived to be a discriminatory discourse
behind this neoliberal governmentality. The refusal of these teachers and schools to be
governed ‘thusly, like that, by these people, at this price’ (Foucault, 2007: 75) represented an
open challenge to governance through the terrorist risk, and succeeded in undermining the
Prevent initiative by highlighting its detrimental effects, and prompting MPs to criticise it
publically for, “triggering accusations about teachers and community leaders being asked to
spy on Muslim youths.” (Travis, Guardian Online, 2011). Yet, paradoxically, while the
counter-conduct of schools and teachers succeeded in challenging the legitimacy of Prevent, it
simultaneously fed back into domineering power by giving rise to a review of the strategy
aimed at ‘improving’ it. This resulted in the redoubling of efforts to make Prevent a strategic
success, and in 2011 - the same year that this resistance was manifested - the strategy’s focus
on educational institutions was reinvigorated and broadened in scope (Independent Online,
2011). Kundnani highlights how this resistance only led to the strategy’s intensification,
writing, “The new strategy has… widened the definition of extremism from support for
violence to any rejection of ‘British values’; this is likely to mean a wider range of individuals
are identified as potential radicals.” (Kundnani, 2011). This outcome serves to evidence the
mutually constitutive relationship between counter-conducts and regimes of neoliberal
governmentality through risk.

Resistance by Muslim community groups

Arun Kundnani unearths further evidence of resistance to Prevent based on a series of
interviews with Muslim community groups in the North of England (Kundnani, 2009).

241

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

Although he reports that some organisations have taken advantage of Prevent funding, he
stresses that resistance to this strategy of governance through the terrorist risk is building,
stating, “There is a growing trend for organisations in the community and voluntary sector to
reject Prevent funding as a matter of principle.” (Kundnani, 2009). Kundnani outlines the
power struggle between those governing through Prevent and those attempting to resist its
strategies of governance. He writes, “Different groups wrestle with the issue of whether to
engage with the programme, often in the face of strong pressure from local authorities to
accept money and strong pressure from the community to refuse it.” (Kundnani, 2009: 25).
The resistance to Channel/Prevent identified in Kundnani’s study is nuanced and
heterogeneous. A number of groups and individuals resist Prevent based on what they
perceive as the discriminatory ideology behind its discourse; for instance the leader of one
voluntary organisation states, “We decided not to apply for Prevent funding as the whole
philosophy is against that of our organisation. Our objectives are connecting people for
improved community relations, not to focus on the Muslim community, which we feel would
have a negative impact on relations.” Another explains that, “Young Muslims… aren’t
interested in getting involved with the buying of Muslims to work against Muslims.”
(Kundnani, 2009: 26). Evidence of counter-conduct through the process of ‘self-positioning’
can be identified in one Muslim community volunteer’s words; “Those who have not engaged
with Prevent projects are… advocates, like myself, of listening to each other, challenging
each other’s beliefs and opinions, talking about what we feel is right and wrong and then
being free to practice as we wish” (Kundnani, 2009, 26). An additional form of counter-
conduct characterises the actions of community members who reported that, “by engaging
with Prevent, they had a voice within the system and could try to change it from within”
(2009, 26). This last form of resistance is paradoxical, as by partaking in Prevent these
members of the community reinforce oppressive power, yet by simultaneously seeking to
change the strategy from within, they undermine the objectives that it was originally intended
to fulfil. This covert form of counter-conduct illustrates that power is constantly being
negotiated between the practices of governance and resistance.

Resistance to the US National Security Agency’s PRISM Programme

What is PRISM?

My second exploratory case study looks at resistance to the US National Security Agency’s
counter-terrorism surveillance programme PRISM. PRISM (Planning Tool for Resource
Integration, Synchronisation and Management) in operation since 2007, is a wide-reaching
electronic data-mining government surveillance programme which allows American
intelligence operatives to gain access to private information online across the US and
internationally, including audio, video, photos, emails and other files held by companies such
as Facebook, Yahoo, Google and Apple (Wired UK, 2013). On 6th June 2013 NSA
intelligence contractor Edward Snowden leaked reports to The Guardian and the Washington
Post exposing this programme to the public (Guardian Online, 2013). Public knowledge of
PRISM has since sparked a debate about the balance between privacy and liberty worldwide,
potentially giving rise to new sites of resistance to neoliberal governmentality through the risk
of terrorism.

How does PRISM exemplify governance through the risk of terrorism?

PRISM is a tangible example of the “insatiable quest for knowledge” (Aradau & Van
Munster, 2007: 91) which has come to characterise neoliberal governance through the risk of

242

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

terrorism. As a single terrorist profile does not exist, everyone presents a potential terrorist
risk, and this necessarily entails the surveillance of entire populations. (Mythen & Walklate,
2008) As critics of PRISM have pointed out, even data from people who are not linked to the
risk of terrorist ideologies or organisations can be swept into NSA’s wide net
(Stopwatching.us, 2013). PRISM is a tool providing a technical means of governmentality to
the US Government. It governs the terrorist risk through a complex security apparatus with
global reach geared to survey, monitor, and categorise US and international communications
‘at arm’s length’ in order to target potential terror suspects. The UK Government’s
intelligence agency GCHQ, and numerous internet companies worldwide have also colluded
to act as ‘governors’ of the terrorist risk through PRISM. Like Prevent, PRISM is
characterised by an underlying rationality of precautionary risk, as it aims to intervene before
terrorists get the chance to carry out atrocities. According to NSA's director Gen Keith
Alexander, PRISM’s counterterrorism programmes have pre-emptively, “thwarted more than
50 attacks since 9/11.” (BBC, 2013).

How has resistance to PRISM manifested itself?

While those who subscribe to the ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument have described
PRISM as, “a justified and effective effort to head off the threat of terrorist attacks”, (BBC
News, 2013) others have rejected and resisted it. I will show that resistance to PRISM by
those who refuse to be governed ‘thusly, like that, by these people, at this price’ (Foucault,
2007: 75) has both undermined and reinforced oppressive power. I will show this through the
analysis of three different instances of resistance to PRISM: Namely, Edward Snowden’s
whistle-blowing, resistance by civil liberties organisations, and the ‘Restore the Fourth’
protests.

The ‘whistle-blower’

Intelligence contractor Edward Snowden was the first to publicly resist the PRISM
programme by leaking information about it to the media. Snowden explained his actions
stating: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things [surveillance of its
citizens]... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded... My
sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is
done against them.” (Guardian Online, 09/06/2013) Snowden’s act of whistle-blowing was a
clear form of counter-conduct, as it involved him resisting regimentation by PRISM through
his rejection of its principles, its proponents, and the price of its clandestine operation – the
infringement of fundamental human rights to privacy and liberty worldwide. Significantly,
Snowden’s actions illustrate that resistance can come from within the security architecture of
neoliberal governmentality: He was a ‘governor’, yet he defected to become a ‘resistor’ of
governance through the risk of terrorism. However, while Snowden’s manifestation of
resistance created a scandal around PRISM, galvanising further resistance to its strategies and
technologies of governance, it simultaneously reinforced the programme’s oppressive power
by triggering a tirade of responses from politicians and media sources denouncing Snowden’s
actions. For instance, American politician Dick Cheney labelled Snowden a “traitor”, while
Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to normalise PRISM by claiming that this kind of
surveillance was "becoming a global phenomenon", and a practical way to fight terrorism
(BBC News Online, 2013). What is more, the harsh treatment that Snowden has received has
undoubtedly fortified efforts to dissuade others from conducting themselves in ways which
counter oppressive power. Notably, this interplay between dominant power and resistance
was crystallised in the ‘Edward Snowden: Hero or Traitor?’ debate (Telegraph Online, 2013).

243

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

Resistance by civil liberties organisations

Since PRISM’s disclosure, a coalition of 86 civil liberties organisations and internet
companies including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reddit, Mozilla, FreedomWorks, and
the American Civil Liberties Union has openly opposed the surveillance programme (Wired
UK, 2013). This coalition launched the aptly-named petition Stop Watching Us demanding
that the US Congress reveal the full extent of the NSA's ‘spying’ programmes
(stopwatching.us, 2013). The coalition addressed an open letter to Congress stating, “We are
calling on Congress to take immediate action to halt this surveillance and provide a full public
accounting of the NSA's and the FBI's data collection programs” and calling for specific legal
reforms, including an appeal to “Enact reform… to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket
surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the US is
prohibited by law.” (stopwatching.us, 2013). To examine the paradoxical nature of this
resistance, while the Stop Watching Us coalition manifested overt resistance to PRISM by
starting a petition against it and actively encouraging others to join them, at the same time it
reinforced the surveillance programme by openly acknowledging its oppressive power and
having no choice but to operate within the parameters of US law in its bid to affect change.
The actions of this coalition exemplify the close interrelationship between neoliberal
governmentality and the practices of resistance, and can be seen as negotiating at the margins
of domineering power.

‘Restore the Fourth’ Protests

On Independence Day July 2013, the ‘Restore the Fourth’ resistance movement succeeded in
galvanising protests against PRISM in over 100 American cities including New York, L.A.,
San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Memphis, and Miami, as well as in international
cities including London and Munich (venturebeat.com, 2013). The ‘Restore the Fourth’
movement refers to the constitutionally guaranteed Fourth Amendment upholding that, “The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” (restorethefourth.net, 2013). The
protests can be understood as a form of counter-conduct to neoliberal governmentality
through the terrorist risk because, rather than demanding a total rejection of government, they
ask, “not to be governed like that, by that, in the name of those principles… and by means of
such procedures.” (Foucault, 2007: 44). Drawing on Death’s Foucauldian analytics of protest
and counter-conduct, it is possible to see how the ‘Restore the Fourth’ protests are, “produced
and shaped by the forms of government they confront.” (Death, 2010: 241). For instance, it is
paradoxical that the majority of these protests were organised on Facebook, one of the
companies that they actively oppose for agreeing to comply with PRISM’s information
sharing request (https://en-gb.facebook.com/RestoreTheFourth, 2013). Furthermore, it is
significant that many of the protests were staged outside US government buildings. As Death
points out, this practice of counter-conduct implies that protestors unquestioningly accept that
the state is where the power lies, effectively reinforcing the status quo (Death, 2011). Indeed,
the name ‘Restore the Fourth’ itself is even a direct appeal to the US government’s
domineering power. Another conceivable contradiction and irony is the likelihood that, in
spite of their resistance, a large number of the protestors themselves will continue to use
popular websites such as Google and Yahoo, and to covet or purchase Apple products,
regardless of these companies’ collaboration with PRISM. These protests represent another
clear example of resistance to neoliberal governmentality through the risk of terrorism.

244

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

Paradoxical Resistance

It is evident from these exploratory case studies that resistance to neoliberal governmentality
through risk manifests itself in diverse and heterogeneous ways. I have identified examples
of overt resistance, defined by Hollander and Einwohner as, “behaviour that is visible and
readily recognised by both targets and observers as resistance, and, further, is intended to be
recognised as such.” (2004: 545). The protests staged against PRISM, the Stop Watching Us
petition, and the refusal of schools and Muslim community groups in the UK to join Prevent
all fall under into this category. I also have also identified covert resistance, defined as, “acts
that are intentional yet go unnoticed (and, therefore, unpunished) by their targets, although
they are recognised as resistance by other, culturally aware observers.” (Hollander &
Einwohner, 2004: 545). Such examples of resistance include the Muslim community
members seeking to reform Prevent from within, and those making negative comments about
the programme in private. It is likely that there are also unreported cases of ‘attempted
resistance’ to neoliberal governmentality through risk, whereby, “an actor’s intentional act
goes unnoticed by both targets and observers alike.” (Hollander & Einwohner, 2004: 546).
Furthermore, I have found that counter-conducts can be observed at an individual level – in
the case of teachers and members of the Muslim community groups resisting Prevent through
a process of ‘self-positioning’, and collectively – in the case of the Stop Watching Us
coalition and the ‘Restore the Fourth’ protests countering PRISM. The complex nature of
resistance makes it all the more important that IR scholars map its mutually constitutive
relationship with the practices of neoliberal governance, examining the knowledges invoked,
techniques adopted and identities produced.

The nature of resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk can be described as
paradoxical, given that it feeds back into domineering power. How does this occur? Whether
by appropriating the language or resources of those governing through risk, or simply by
acknowledging their oppressive power and being forced to work within the parameters and
the boundaries that they set, resistance that aims to subvert, prevent or challenge neoliberal
governmentality through risk continues to simultaneously reinforce it. As Foucault and
Mitchell Dean elaborate, power and resistance are inextricably linked, meaning that so-called
‘pure’ or emancipatory resistance to governance through risk can never exist, and there will
never be a complete ‘triumph’ of one over the other (Dean, 1999). Resistance therefore feeds
back into the production of risk-based hierarchies, either by reinforcing the status quo or by
provoking the reinvigoration of strategies and technologies of neoliberal governance, keeping
those issues and actors deemed ‘risky’ (predominantly located in the periphery) from those
deemed ‘secure’ (predominantly located in the core) (Clapton & Hameiri, 2011).

Conclusion

This article has argued for the inclusion of the study of resistance to neoliberal
governmentality through risk in the IR literature. Resistance to governance through risk
represents a significant lacuna in the knowledge which must be mined if the post-structuralist
scholarship is to enhance its understanding of regimes of governmentality. The existing
governmentality literature drawing on Foucault’s work is extensive, yet in spite of Foucault’s
assertion that, “where there is power there is resistance”, (Foucault, 2004) thus far, the IR
scholarship has given a skewed impression of reality by focussing primarily on the strategies
and technologies of neoliberalism through which populations are governed, rather than the
effects and outcomes that such regimes of governmentality produce. This has given the
impression that those being governed are passive subjects characterised by a lack of agency,

245

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

and with no choice but to accept the status quo. The literature thereby misrepresents the
balance between oppressive power and agency, and reinforces the neoliberal order currently
being advanced by depicting the roll-out of regimes of governmentality through risk as both
inevitable and seamless. This has led many to accept neoliberal governance through risk as a
received wisdom, and a reality that is not contestable, when in fact such regimes of
governance engender recurring failures and widespread resistance on a daily basis. This
distorted depiction of reality is likely to influence policy and analysis by causing resistance,
and the diverse ways in which people respond to being governed through risk, to be broadly
overlooked. In this instance, I have recommended that Foucault’s concept of counter-
conducts, as elaborated by Carl Death, offers a useful way for post-structuralist IR scholars to
approach the analysis of resistance to governmentality through risk. This is because, a
counter-conducts approach does not limit interpretations of resistance to binaries of power
which dichotomise actors into the powerful and the powerless, oversimplifying complex
power relations. Instead, it allows for an in-depth and variegated understanding of the close
interrelationship between the strategies and techniques of neoliberal governance and
concomitant practices of resistance, and thus can be employed to elucidate the mutually
constitutive relationship between neoliberal governmentality, the governors and the governed.
For this reason, I maintain that the existing health scholarship discussing counter-conducts to
neoliberal governmentality through risk should be further exploited by post-structuralist IR
scholars. By deploying the concept of counter-conducts in two exploratory case studies, I
have provided evidence that there is widespread resistance to neoliberal governance through
the risk of terrorism, and that this resistance is heterogeneous and complex, encompassing
both overt and covert forms of counter-conduct. Notably, these case studies show that it is
not only members of ‘risk groups’ who are resisting neoliberal governmentality through risk
by refusing to be governed, ‘thusly, like that, by these people, at this price’, (Foucault, 2007:
75) but also members of society who are not attributed risk identities – such as teachers,
internet users, and members of civil liberties groups. I have shown that, paradoxically, their
manifestations of resistance simultaneously reinforce and undermine oppressive power and
the means of neoliberal governance employed to tackle terrorism. In conclusion, resistance
will continue to feed into domineering power, and risk-based hierarchies will continue to be
produced. However, by voicing marginalised narratives of resistance and presenting regimes
of neoliberal governmentality as contestable, it may be possible to convey a more accurate
picture of reality, and to counterbalance discourses reproducing oppressive power. I propose
that there is a need for further research to be conducted on resistance to neoliberal governance
through the risk of terrorism, in addition to other ‘risky’ issues such as climate change,
migration, and crime within the field of International Relations. Post-structuralist scholarship
that is produced on resistance to neoliberal governmentality through risk has the potential to
form part of a wider discourse of transnational resistance to the hegemony of neoliberal
globalisation.

References

246

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

Books and Journals:

Alaszewski, Andy, 2011, ‘Drugs, risk and society: Government, governance or
governmentality?’, Health, risk and society, 13(5): 389-396.

Aradau, C and Van Munster, R, 2007, ‘Governing terrorism through risk: Taking precautions,
(un)knowing the future’, European Journal of International Relations, 13(1): 89-115.

Armstrong, Natalie, 2005, ‘Resistance through risk: Women and cervical cancer screening’,
Health, Risk & Society, 7(2): 161 – 176.

Armstrong, Natalie and Murphy, Elizabeth, 2012, ‘Conceptualising resistance’, Health, 16(3):
314-326.

Aronowitz, S. & Gautney, H. (Eds.), 2003, Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance
in the 21st Century World Order, (New York: Basic Books).

Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark, 2006, ‘Eurocentrism in Security Studies’, Review of
International Studies, 32(2): 329-352.

Beck, Ulrich, 2002, 'The Terrorist Threat World Risk Society Revisited', Theory, Culture &
Society, 19(4): 39-55.

Beck, Ulrich, 1990, ‘On the Way toward an Industrial Society of Risk?’, International
Journal of Political Economy, 20(1): 51-69.

Boholma, Åsa, and Hervé Corvellecb, 2011, ‘A relational theory of risk’, Journal of Risk
Research, 14(2): 175–190.

Bond, P., and Desai, A. (Eds.), 2008, Foreign Policy Bottom Up: South African Civil Society
and the Globalisation of Popular Solidarity, (Durban: CCS).

Brown, Sally; Shoveller, Jeannie; Chabot, Cathy; LaMontagne, Anthony D., 2013, ‘Risk,
resistance and the neoliberal agenda: young people, health and wellbeing in the UK, Canada
and Australia’, Health, Risk & Society, 15(4): 333 -346.

Clapton, William, 2011, ‘Risk in international relations’, International Relations, 25(3):
280-295.

Clapton, W. and Hameiri, S., 2011, ‘The domestic politics of international hierarchy:
Risk management and the reconstitution of international society’, International Politics,
49(1): 59-77.

Dean, Mitchell, 1999, Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society, (London:
Sage Publications).

Death, Carl, 2010, ‘Counter-conducts: A Foucauldian Analytics of Protest’, Social Movement
Studies, 9(3): 235-251.

247

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

Death, Carl, 2011, ‘Counter-conducts in South Africa: Power, Government and Dissent at the
World Summit’, Globalizations, 8(4): 425-438.

Della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. (Eds.), 2005, Transnational Protest and Global Activism,
(Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield).

Elbe, Stefan, 2008, ‘Risking lives: AIDS, security and three concepts of risk’, Security
Dialogue, 39(2-3): 177-198.

Featherstone, David, 2003, ‘Spatialities of transnational resistance to globalization: the maps
of grievance of the Inter-Continental Caravan’, Transactions of the Institute Of British
Geographers, 28(4): 404-421.

Foucault, Michel, 2004, Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France
1977-1978, ed. Michel Senellart, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Foucault, Michel, 2007, What is critique, in: M. Foucault, The Politics of Truth, ed. S.
Lotringer, trans. L. Hochroth & C. Porter, (Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e)), 41–81.

Furedi, Frank, 2006, Culture of Fear Revisited, (London: Continuum Books).

Giddens, Anthony, 1999, ‘Risk and responsibility’, Modern Law Review, 62(1): 1-10.

Gutkowski, Stacey, 2011, ‘Secularism and the Politics of Risk: Britain's Prevent Agenda,
2005-2009’, International Relations, (25): 346.

Gusterson, Hugh, 1999, ‘Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination’,
Cultural Anthropology, 14(1): 111-143.

Harrison, Lyn; Kelly, Peter; Lindsay, Jo; Advocat, Jenny; Hickey, Chris, 2011, ‘'I don't know
anyone that has two drinks a day': Young people, alcohol and the government of pleasure’,
Health, Risk & Society, 13(5): 469-486.

Hollander, Jocelyn A., and Einwohner, Rachel L., 2004, ‘Conceptualizing Resistance’,
Sociological Forum, 19: 4, 533-554.

Joseph, J., 2012, The Social in the Global: Social Theory, Governmentality and Global
Politics (Vol. 122), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Krahmann, Elke, 2011, ‘Beck and beyond: selling security in the world risk society’, Review
of International Studies, 37(1): 349-372.

Lund Petersen, Karen, 2012, 'Risk Analysis-a Field Within Security Studies', European
Journal of International Relations, 18(4): 693-717.

Marshall, Alasdair, and Ojiako, Udechukwu, 2013, ‘Managing risk through the veil of
ignorance’, Journal of Risk Research, 16(5): 1-15.

McGovern, Ruth and McGovern, William, 2011, ‘Voluntary risk-taking and heavy-end crack
cocaine use: An edgework perspective’ , Health, Risk & Society, 13(5): 487-500.

248

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)

Mythen, Gabe, and Walklate, Sandra, 2008, 'Terrorism, Risk and International Security: The
Perils of Asking "What If?"', Security Dialogue 39[2-3]: 221-242.

Mythen, Gabe, Walklate, Sandra, Khan, Fatima, 2013, 'Why Should We Have to Prove We're
Alright? Counter-terrorism, Risk and Partial Securities’, Sociology, 47: 383.

Wee-Kiat Lim, 2011, ‘Understanding Risk Governance: Introducing Sociological
Neoinstitutionalism and Foucauldian Governmentality for Further Theorizing’, International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2 (3): 11-20.

Rabinow, Paul, and Rose, Nikolas (Eds.), 2003, The Essential Foucault: Selections from
Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, (New York: The New Press).

Rasborg, Klaus, 2012, ‘"(World) risk society" or "new rationalities of risk"? A critical
discussion of Ulrich Beck’s theory of reflexive modernity', Thesis Eleven 108[1]: 3-25.

Rossdale, Chris, 2010, ‘Anarchy is what anarchists make of it: Reclaiming the concept of
agency in IR and Security Studies’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 39:2, 483-
501.

Online Sources:

Avlon, John, 15/06/2013. “Edward Snowden: Hero or traitor?”, The Telegraph Online, (last
accessed 16 September 2013),
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10122451/Edward-Snowden-
Hero-or-traitor.html>.

Becker, Kyle, 12/06/2013. “Study: Toddlers Kill More Americans Than Terrorists in 2013”,
Independent Journal Review, (last accessed 16 September 2013),
<http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/58736-study-toddlers-kill-more-americans-than-terrorists-
in-2013/>.

Dwyer, Danielle and Johnson, Wesley, 30/09/2010. “Police apologise over CCTV in Muslim
areas”, Independent Online, (last accessed 14 September 2013),
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-apologise-over-cctv-in-muslim-areas-
2094167.html?origin=internalSearch>.

Greenwald, Glenn, 09/06/2013. “NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live
in a society that does these sort of things' – video”, Guardian Online, (last accessed 16
September 2013), <http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-
edward-snowden-interview-video>.

Holland, Alex, 02/02/2010. “Checking Blair's 'Calculus of Risk'”, International Relations and
Security Network, (last accessed 14 September 2013),
<http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=112035>.

Kelion, Leo, 25/06/2013. “Q&A: NSA's Prism internet surveillance scheme”, BBC News Online, (last
accessed 16 September 2013),

249

Neglected resistance: Counter-conducts and neoliberal governmentality through risk in International Relations

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23027764>.

Koetsier, John, 04/07/2013, “Restore the 4th galvanises over 100 nationwide protests against
NSA, PRISM and government spying”, VentureBeat, (last accessed 14 September 2013),
<http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/04/restore-the-4th-galvanizes-over-100-nation-wide-
protests-against-nsa-prism-and-government-spying/>.

Kundnani, Arun, 07/07/2011. “Still Spooked”, Institute of Race Relations, (last accessed 14
September 2013),
<http://www.irr.org.uk/news/still-spooked/>.

Reitman, Rainey, 10/06/2013, “86 Civil Liberties Groups and Internet Companies Demand an
End to NSA spying”, Electronic Frontier Foundation, (last accessed 14 September 2013),
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/86-civil-liberties-groups-and-internet-companies-
demand-end-nsa-spying>.

Shubber, Kadhim, 10/06/2013. “A simple guide to the PRISM controversy”, Wired UK News,
(last accessed 14 September 2013),
<http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/10/simple-guide-to-prism>.

Travis, Alan, 18/02/2011. “Schools’ counter-terrorism project reviewed: Teachers feared
£12.5m Channel project to identify radicalised children was ‘anti-Islamic’”, Guardian Online,
(last accessed 15 September 2013),
<http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/18/schools-counter-terrorism-project-
review>.

Public Papers:

House of Commons, October 2012. Channel: Protecting vulnerable people from being drawn
into terrorism, (last accessed 12 September 2013),
<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118194/chann
el-guidance.pdf>.

House of Commons, March 2010. Prevent and Contest, (last accessed 12 September 2013),
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcomloc/65/6505.htm>.

Institute of Race Relations, Kundnani, Arun, October 2009. Spooked! How not to prevent
violent extremism, (last accessed 14 September 2013),
<http://www.irr.org.uk/pdf2/spooked.pdf>.

Liberty, December 2010. Liberty’s Response to the Home Office consultation on the Prevent
strand of the UK counter-terrorism strategy, (last accessed 16 September 2013),
<http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy11/response-to-home-office-
consultation-on-prevent-january-2011.pdf>.

Websites:

250

CISD Yearbook of Global Studies 1(1)
Restore the Fourth, 2013. (last accessed September 14 2013),
<http://www.restorethefourth.net/>.
Restore the Fourth Facebook Group, 2013. (last accessed September 16 2013), <https://en-
gb.facebook.com/RestoreTheFourth>.
Stop Watching US, 2013. (last accessed September 14 2013),
<https://optin.stopwatching.us/>.

251