In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Aristide R. Zolberg Introduction THIS SECTION OF THE SOCIAL RESEARCH ISSUE DEVOTED TO THE FEAR conference addresses three very different case studies, all of which deal with a fundamental problem: the state as the source of fear, or as the exploiter of fear. I would like to introduce it, however, by remind­ ing us that the relationship of the state to fear is a paradoxical one: we also depend heavily on the state to protect us from fear. Reflect, for example, on the situation encountered in a number of African coun­ tries, notably Liberia, which is currently in the headlines because there is a UN commitment—really an American comm itment—to provide assistance in rebuilding a countiy destroyed by civil war. For a number of years, the basic protection that the inhabitants of most states take for granted—namely, to avoid being killed by roving armed gangs—was lacking: instead Liberians faced a very Hobbesian situation of a war of all against all. Unfortunately, this is now hardly unique, and political scientists are struggling to elaborate the notion of “failed states,”which might perhaps be better termed “an absence of state.” In keeping with this, although the papers deal with the state as the source of fear, each also deals with the state as protector. Jessica Stern acknowledges that there really is terrorism out there, and that the issue of how to deal with it effectively remains unresolved. Ellen Schrecker, in her paper on McCarthyism, also points out—in passing, because that is not what her paper is about—that we know since the end of the Cold War that there really were spies out there, and that the Soviet Union engaged in persistent attempts to enlist Americans in the spying game. E. Valentine Daniel, in his paper on Sri Lanka, deals with a situation that is not precisely of the “failed state” variety, but social research Voi 71 : No 4 : W inter 2004 1039 does entail a protracted civil war in whose course the state is unable to protect those who need protection, and at the same time contributes to the further promotion of insecurity. Thus, all three papers are situated in the midst of very complex situations, and as we read them, it is vital to keep this complexity in mind. Within a democratic context, the papers raise practical issues: • How do you evaluate a threat? And what sorts of democratic controls can you have over processes that are inherently secretive? How do you control intelligence? For example, the US Congress exercises oversight by way of specialized committees, but most of what goes on in those that deal with intelligence is itself secretive. As we have been made painfully aware by developments since 2001, how do we make sure that intelligence is not misused? * How do you balance protection and respect for civil liberties in the face of genuine threats? The inherent tension is well illustrated by Ellen Schrecker’s case, and we are living through something like that now as well. Most of us probably recognize that certain kinds of threats require unusual actions, but how do we ensure that government does not overstep its bounds in carrying them out? How can balance be established? 1040 social research ...

pdf

Share