1. Home
  2. Students
  3. Chapter 21: What makes the world dangerous?

Chapter 21: What makes the world dangerous?

This chapter introduces the analytical tools needed to answer the question: what makes the world dangerous? Rather than assuming that there is a ready-made list of potential dangers that can be ranked in order of their dangerousness, it considers how certain things come to be seen as dangerous, how these dangers are distributed between different populations and how our perception of what is dangerous enables certain practices and policies. As an illustrative example, the chapter examines debates about drones, which have been used to target those considered to be dangerous, in order to make the world less dangerous for others to live, whilst exposing those living under drones to potential death and destruction.

1

Chapter Abstract

What makes the world dangerous? Global politics is awash with danger but certain people and places seem much more dangerous than others. This chapter will examine what makes the world dangerous but it will also focus specific attention on how certain things come to be seen as more dangerous than others, what we might refer to as the social construction of dangerousness. To illustrate this point, it will examine the arguments in favour of using of remotely piloted drones to target and kill suspected militants, along with the concerns raised by human rights groups about the effects they are having on the populations living below. The chapter will make three broad points. Firstly, it will suggest that dangerous is not an objective condition but something that is produced. Secondly, our perception of what is dangerous is always situated, that is, it is contingent upon our own place and position in the world. And finally, it will suggest that these dangers are rarely distributed evenly and that certain populations are often more vulnerable than others.

2

Additional web content and audio-visual materials

1. Interviews with former drone pilots: This short NBC News segment features interviews with a number of former drone pilots who denounce the United States’ ‘morally outrageous’ program of targeted killings. A challenging insight into the ethical and emotional stresses of drone warfare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ1BC0g_PbQ

2. Afghan Drone Attack Report: This CBS news report on the drone strike in Daykundi/Uruzgan follows the AR15-6 investigation into how civilians were killed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2dCNo0a-kU

3. What It’s Like to Be a Drone Pilot: In this short video, produced by National Geographic, actor Morgan Freeman interviews Brandon Bryant about what it’s like to be a drone pilot. The video provides an interesting insight into the psychological and visual regimes of drone warfare: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg30r0tJ1KE

4. Sweet target, sweet child: A lecture by Professor Derek Gregory dissecting the drone strike in Daykundi/Uruzgan, featuring a close analysis of the transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqMvgrInEts

5. AR 15-6 Investigation Report: Declassified version of the AR15-6 investigation into the drone strike in Daykundi/Uruzgan. Note the use of ‘CIVCAS’ in the document title to denote ‘civilian casualties’. It is worthwhile considering the emotional-political implications of using such language to describe the loss of life: https://archive.org/details/centcom-10-0218-01 [Note: there are images in this document that some may find disturbing]

3

Global Politics Film Club

Eye in the Sky (2015), dir. Gavin Hood.

British thriller starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, and Barkhad Abdi about the morality of drone warfare. The film was well-received by critics and presents a thrilling account of the targeting process, which culminates in a carefully orchestrated moral conundrum about whether or not a specific individual should be killed. Although realistic, the film takes some dramatic license in terms of the technology that is available and the hoops that have to be jumped through. Moreover, the way in which the moral conundrum is constructed works to marginalise some of the bigger questions about the ethics of targeted killing. For an interesting (and very concise) critique, see here.

4

Seminar room activities

Activity 1 – The Social Construction of Danger: Students should begin by listing some of the things that they consider to be dangerous, including things that are particularly dangerous to them as individuals, things that they consider to be dangerous to the country or their broader community, and things that pose a particular threat to humanity or the planet as a whole. As a class, students should discuss why they consider these things and not others to be dangerous.

To help students think critically about this question, the convenor could provide some examples of other things that make the world dangerous but are often overlooked. There are some humorous articles, such as “Why you should be more scared of your oven than of terrorists sneaking into America”, which could be a good ice-breaker.

As part of this exercise, students should be encouraged to think about why they might have neglected these dangers. Students should also think about situations that might be more dangerous for certain populations compared to others because of their race, gender or class (e.g. stop and searches by police).

Activity 2 – The Dangers of Drone Warfare: On the question of drones, students should be shown these two clips from Eye in the Sky, which outline the moral conundrum facing the drone crew:

Clip 1 – Collateral Damage Estimates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMgZW9zwqx0
Clip 2 – Legal Arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YzqzoNKwdA

Students should begin by discussing the dilemma as it is presented in the film: would they risk injury to innocent civilians to kill a dangerous individual? Afterwards, students should be encouraged to deconstruct the scene, focusing on how the problem has been presented and how this might preclude certain avenues of debate.

To address the broader questions about how certain individuals come to be seen as dangerous and how this may leave certain populations vulnerable to death and destruction, the class should examine the transcript of drone strike in Daykundi/Uruzgan, which is available here.

The class should be broken into four or five groups, each given a snippet of the transcript. Going in chronological order, each group should provide a short summary of what the drone pilots are ‘seeing’. This gives them an opportunity to see how the drone crew came to see these individuals as dangerous despite evidence to the contrary. The class can then discuss the role of gender and race in this determination of who or what is dangerous, as well as the role of concepts like ‘military age male’ in the decision to kill.

5

Assessment Questions

  1. What makes the world dangerous and how should we respond to these dangers?
  2. Using an example, explain how certain things come to be seen as dangerous and the kinds of responses this enables?
  3. Using an example, explain how someone’s perception of what is dangerous might be shaped by their position in the world.
  4. Do drones make the world more or less dangerous?