Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:00:35.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The post-politics of public-private security governance: An ideology critique of the complaints about Facebook

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2020

Jeppe T. Jacobsen Open the ORCID record for Jeppe T. Jacobsen [Opens in a new window]
Jeppe T. Jacobsen*
Affiliation:
Royal Danish Defence College
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jeja@fak.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do public protests emerge and become impotent? Inspired by Žižek's ideology critique, the article examines the ideological underpinnings of contemporary public-private security governance and suggests that worried, complaining subjects are a product of a dominant discourse of expert knowledge and technification. It then introduces three Žižekian dynamics that prevent protests from challenging the prevailing discourse – particularisation, ultra-politics, and cynicism – and illustrates these dynamic through a case study of the history of public complaints about Facebook. The article suggests that Facebook communicates through a discourse of technification whereby it constantly invents technological fixes unable to satisfy the complaints. The article further suggests that Facebook turning into a national security partner in the fight against terrorism online prevents complaints from becoming universalised by rendering even particularised privacy contestations illegitimate. This is reinforced, the article argues, by the subject's cynical enjoyment; that is, the ‘letting off steam’ on Facebook while criticising it.

Keywords

Critical Security StudiesPublic-Private RelationsSlavoj ŽižekFacebookThe Complaining Subject
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 179 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Leander, Anna, ‘The power to construct international security: On the significance of private military companies’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33:3 (2005), pp. 803–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abrahamsen, Rita and Williams, Michael C., Security beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Petersen, Karen Lund and Tjalve, Vibeke Schou, ‘(Neo) Republican security governance? US homeland security and the politics of “shared responsibility”’, International Political Sociology, 7:1 (2013), pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hansen, Lene and Nissenbaum, Helen, ‘Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen School’, International Studies Quarterly, 53:4 (2009), pp. 1155–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Berndtsson, Joakim and Stern, Maria, ‘Private security and the public-private divide: Contested lines of distinction and modes of governance in the Stockholm-Arlanda security assemblage’, International Political Sociology, 5:4 (2011), pp. 408–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abrahamsen, Rita and Williams, Michael C., ‘Security beyond the state: Global security assemblages in international politics’, International Political Sociology, 3:1 (2009), pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Walters, William and D'Aoust, Anne-Marie, ‘Bringing publics into critical security studies: Notes for a research strategy’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44:1 (2015), pp. 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gros, Valentin, de Goede, Marieke, and İşleyen, Beste, ‘The Snowden files made public: A material politics of contesting surveillance’, International Political Sociology, 11:1 (2017), pp. 73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Monsees, Linda, ‘Public relations: Theorizing the contestation of security technology’, Security Dialogue, 50:6 (2019), pp. 531–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See, for example, Solomon, Ty, The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mandelbaum, Moran M., ‘State, nation, society: The congruency fantasy and in/security of the body-national/social’, Critical Studies on Security, 4:2 (2016), pp. 187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heath-Kelly, Charlotte, ‘Forgetting ISIS: Enmity, drive and repetition in security discourse’, Critical Studies on Security, 6:1 (2018), pp. 85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ali, Nadya and Whitham, Ben, ‘The unbearable anxiety of being: Ideological fantasies of British Muslims beyond the politics of security’, Security Dialogue, 49:5 (2018), pp. 400–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vieira, Marco A., ‘(Re-)imagining the “Self” of ontological security: The case of Brazil's ambivalent postcolonial subjectivity’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 46:2 (2018), pp. 142–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zevnik, Andreja, ‘A return of the repressed: Symptom, fantasy and campaigns for justice for Guantánamo detainees post-2010’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20:1 (2018), pp. 206–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kinnvall, Catarina and Svensson, Ted, ‘Misrecognition and the Indian State: The desire for sovereign agency’, Review of International Studies, 44:5 (2018), pp. 902–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Epstein, Charlotte, ‘The productive force of the negative and the desire for recognition: Lessons from Hegel and Lacan’, Review of International Studies, 44:5 (2018), pp. 805–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eberle, Jakub, ‘Narrative, desire, ontological security, transgression: Fantasy as a factor in international politics’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 22:1 (2019), pp. 243–68Google Scholar; Jeppe Teglskov Jacobsen, ‘From neurotic citizen to hysteric security expert: A Lacanian reading of the perpetual demand for US cyber defence’, Critical Studies on Security, First View (2020), pp. 1–13, available at: {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21624887.2020.1735830} accessed 10 March 2020.

5 In this article, the public-private security governance regime/arrangement refers to the ways in which different forms of insecurity or unease – from lack of privacy, over the online presence of terrorist propaganda to the facilitation of fake news in democratic elections – are managed and dealt with by governments and private companies (through, for example, regulation, tech fixes and partnerships, whether uncontroversial or contested).

6 Here, social media platforms and Facebook in particular are the most discussed cases because they are characterised by being most explicitly in its promise of happiness and a sense of self (through connections and online interaction). Galloway, Scott, The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google (New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin, 2018)Google Scholar; Foer, Franklin, World without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech (New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017)Google Scholar.

7 The article collected the statements primarily through the database, The Zuckerberg Files.

8 Ryan Tate, ‘Facebook's great getrayal’, Gawker blog (14 December 2009), available at: {http://gawker.com/5426176/facebooks-great-betrayal} accessed 18 October 2019.

9 Brendan I. Koerner, ‘Why ISIS is winning the social media war – and how to fight back’, Wired (29 March 2016), available at: {https://www.wired.com/2016/03/isis-winning-social-media-war-heres-beat/} accessed 18 October 2019.

10 Jeff Nesbit, ‘This is only antidote to the poison of fake news’, Time (16 December 2016), available at: {https://time.com/4605146/fake-news-antidote/} accessed 18 October 2019.

11 Leander, Anna, ‘The power to construct international security: On the significance of private military companies’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 33:3 (2005)Google Scholar; Abrahamsen and Williams, Security beyond the State; Abrahamsen, Rita and Leander, Anna (eds), Routledge Handbook of Private Security Studies (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2016)Google Scholar.

12 Leander, Anna and Munster, Rens van, ‘Private security contractors in the debate about Darfur: Reflecting and reinforcing neo-liberal governmentality’, International Relations, 21:2 (2007), pp. 201–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Abrahamsen and Williams, ‘Security beyond the state', pp. 1–17; Berndtsson and Stern, ‘Private security and the public-private divide', pp. 408–25.

14 Karen Lund Petersen, Corporate Risk and National Security Redefined (London: Routledge, 2012).

15 Cavelty, Myriam Dunn and Suter, Manuel, ‘Public–private partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for critical infrastructure protection’, International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2:4 (2009), pp. 180–1Google Scholar.

16 McCarthy, Daniel R., ‘Privatizing political authority: Cybersecurity, public-private partnerships, and the reproduction of liberal political order’, Politics and Governance, 6:2 (2018), pp. 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Petersen and Tjalve, ‘(Neo) Republican security governance?’.

18 Christensen, Kristoffer Kjærgaard and Petersen, Karen Lund, ‘Public–private partnerships on cyber security: A practice of loyalty’, International Affairs, 93:6 (2017), pp. 1435–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Hansen and Nissenbaum, ‘Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen School’, p. 1171.

20 Christensen and Petersen, ‘Public–private partnerships on cyber security’, p. 1449.

21 Ceyhan, Ayse, ‘Technologization of security: Management of uncertainty and risk in the age of biometrics’, Surveillance & Society, 5:2 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marx, Gary T., ‘Rocky bottoms: Techno-fallacies of an age of information: Rocky bottoms’, International Political Sociology, 1:1 (2007), pp. 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amoore, Louise, The Politics of Possibility: Risk and Security beyond Probability (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013), pp. 164–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Huysmans, Jef, ‘What's in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 377–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bauman, Zygmunt et al. , ‘After Snowden: Rethinking the impact of surveillance’, International Political Sociology, 8:2 (2014), pp. 121–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Hegemann, Hendrik and Kahl, Martin, ‘Security governance and the limits of depoliticisation: EU policies to protect critical infrastructures and prevent radicalisation’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 21:3 (2018), pp. 552–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walters, William, ‘Drone strikes, Dingpolitik and beyond: Furthering the debate on materiality and security’, Security Dialogue, 45:2 (2014), pp. 101–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Flyverbom, Mikkel, Deibert, Ronald, and Matten, Dirk, ‘The governance of digital technology, big data, and the Internet: New roles and responsibilities for business’, Business & Society, 58:1 (2019), pp. 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Berndtsson and Stern, ‘Private security and the public-private divide’.

25 Tjalve, Vibeke Schou, ‘Designing (de)security: European exceptionalism, Atlantic Republicanism and the “public sphere”’, Security Dialogue, 42:4–5 (2011), pp. 441–52Google Scholar; Walters and D'Aoust, ‘Bringing publics into critical security studies’; Monsees, ‘Public relations’; Christensen, Kristoffer Kjærgaard and Liebetrau, Tobias, ‘A new role for “the public”? Exploring cyber security controversies in the case of WannaCry’, Intelligence and National Security, 34:3 (2019), pp. 395–408Google Scholar.

26 Walters and D'Aoust, ‘Bringing publics into critical security studies’, pp. 16–23.

27 Monsees, ‘Public relations’, pp. 11–12.

28 Walters and D'Aoust, ‘Bringing publics into critical security studies’; Gros, de Goede, and İşleyen, ‘The Snowden files made public’; Monsees, ‘Public relations’.

29 Slavoj Žižek, The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology (London: Verso, 1999), pp. 198–9.

30 Žižek, Slavoj, ‘The structure of Domination today: A Lacanian view’, Studies in East European Thought, 56:4 (2004), pp. 383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lacan, Jacques, The Other Side of Psychoanalysis, ed. Miller, Jacques-Alain, trans. Grigg, Russell, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII (London, New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, 2007)Google Scholar.

31 Solomon, The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Discourses, pp. 51–62.

32 Žižek, ‘The structure of domination today’, p. 395.

33 Christensen and Petersen, ‘Public–private partnerships on cyber security’, p. 1449.

34 McCarthy, ‘Privatizing political authority’, p. 10.

35 Leander and van Munster, ‘Private security contractors in the debate about Darfur’.

36 Žižek, ‘The structure of domination today’, pp. 399–402.

37 Goede, Marieke De, ‘Beyond risk: Premediation and the post-9/11 security imagination’, Security Dialogue, 39:2–3 (2008), pp. 155–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Petersen, Karen Lund, ‘The corporate security professional: A hybrid agent between corporate and national security’, Security Journal, 26:3 (2013), pp. 222–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Žižek, Slavoj, The Sublime Object of Ideology (2nd edn, London: Verso, 2008), pp. 198–9Google Scholar; Epstein, Charlotte, ‘Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 17:2 (2011), pp. 327–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Žižek, ‘The structure of domination today’, pp. 394–5.

41 Ibid., p. 395.

42 Bigo, Didier, ‘Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27:1 (2002), pp. 63–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Goede, ‘Beyond risk’; Fournier, Philippe, ‘The neoliberal/neurotic citizen and security as discourse’, Critical Studies on Security, 2:3 (2014), pp. 309–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eklundh, Emmy, Zevnik, Andreja, and Guittet, Emmanuel-Pierre, ‘Introduction: Politics of anxiety’, in Eklundh, Emmy, Zevnik, Andreja, and Guittet, Emmanuel-Pierre (eds), Politics of Anxiety (London and New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017)Google Scholar.

43 Žižek, The Ticklish Subject, p. 203.

44 Ibid., p. 204.

45 Monsees, ‘Public relations’, pp. 11–12; Gros, de Goede, and İşleyen, ‘The Snowden files made public’, pp. 82–3.

46 Žižek, The Ticklish Subject, p. 204.

47 Ibid.

48 Ibid., pp. 204–05; Žižek, Slavoj, Welcome to the Desert of the Real! Five Essays on September 11 and Related Dates (London: Verso, 2002), pp. 110–11Google Scholar.

49 Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 25.

50 Sharpe, Matthew and Boucher, Geoff, Žižek and Politics: A Critical Introduction (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010), p. 98Google Scholar.

51 Žižek, The Ticklish Subject, p. 297.

52 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘Calm Down. Breathe. We Hear You’, Zuckerberg Transcripts, Paper 114 (6 September 2006), available at: {http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/114} accessed 18 October 2019.

53 Pete Cashmore, ‘RIP Facebook Beacon’, Mashable (19 September 2009), available at: {https://mashable.com/2009/09/19/facebook-beacon-rip/#9WDIiYQzx5qk} accessed 18 October 2019.

54 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new setting’, Washington Post (24 May 2010), available at: {http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052303828.html} accessed 18 October 2019.

55 Federal Trade Commission, ‘Federal Trade Commission: In the Matter of Facebook INC., Decision and Order’ (27 July 2012), available at: {https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/08/120810facebookdo.pdf} accessed 18 October 2019.

56 Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, ‘Inside Facebook's two years of hell’, Wired (2 December 2018), available at: {https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/} accessed 18 October 2019.

57 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘200 Million Strong’, Zuckerberg Transcripts, Paper 21 (2009), available at: {http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/21} accessed 18 October 2019; Anna Lauren Hoffmann, Nicholas Proferes, and Michael Zimmer, ‘“Making the world more open and connected”: Mark Zuckerberg and the discursive construction of Facebook and its users’, New Media & Society, 20:1 (2018), pp. 199–218.

58 Zuckerberg, ‘From Facebook, answering privacy concerns with new setting’.

59 John Lanchester, ‘You are the product’, London Review of Books, 39:16 (2017), pp. 3–10.

60 Barack H. Obama, A Strategy For American Innovation (Washington, DC: The White House, 2015).

61 Saleha Mohsin, ‘Silicon Valley cozies up to Washington, outspending Wall Street 2-1’, Bloomberg (18 October 2016), available at: {https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-18/outspending-wall-street-2-to-1-silicon-valley-takes-washington} accessed 18 October 2019.

62 Kevin Healey and Richard Potter, ‘Coding the privileged Self: Facebook and the ethics of psychoanalysis “outside the clinic”’, Television & New Media, 19:7 (2018), pp. 660–76.

63 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘Charlie Rose – Exclusive Interview with Facebook Leadership: Mark Zuckerberg/Sheryl Sandberg’, Zuckerberg Transcripts, Paper 45 (11 January 2011), available at: {http://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/45} accessed 18 October 2019.

64 Jay Baumann, ‘Zuckerberg has always believed that we're only entitled to one identity’, Sfist (19 September 2014), available at: {http://sfist.com/2014/09/19/zuckerberg_has_always_believed_that.php} accessed 18 October 2019; Healey and Potter, ‘Coding the privileged self’.

65 Morozov, Evgeny, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism (New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2013), pp. 232, pp. 312–17Google Scholar.

66 Ibid., p. 5.

67 White House spokesman Ned Price, quoted in Tom Risen, ‘Twitter, Facebook, YouTube grapple with Islamic State censorship’, U.S. News & World Report (5 September 2014), available at: {https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/05/twitter-facebook-youtube-navigate-islamic-state-censorship} accessed 18 October 2019.

68 James B. Comey, ‘Encryption Technology and Terrorism’, Hearing at the Senate Intelligence Committee (2015), 1:38:55, available at: {https://www.c-span.org/video/?326953-1/hearing-threats-encryption-issues&start=5919} accessed 18 October 2019.

69 George Selim, ‘Identifying the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror’, available at: {https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/09/22/written-testimony-dhs-office-community-partnerships-house-homeland-security} accessed 18 October 2019.

70 Reuters, ‘Facebook and YouTube use automation to remove extremist videos, sources say’, The Guardian (25 June 2016), available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/25/extremist-videos-isis-youtube-facebook-automated-removal} accessed 18 October 2019.

71 Natalie Andrews and Deepa Seetharaman, ‘Facebook steps up efforts against terrorism’, The Wall Street Journal (11 February 2014), available at: {https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-steps-up-efforts-against-terrorism-1455237595} accessed 18 October 2019.

72 Hansen and Nissenbaum, ‘Digital disaster, cyber security, and the Copenhagen School’.

73 Žižek, The Ticklish Subject, p. 204.

74 Žižek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real!, pp. 110–11.

75 Jon M. Garon, ‘2015 cyberlaw year in review seeking security over privacy, finding neither’, SSRN Electronic Journal (2015), available at: {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2707756} accessed 18 October 2019.

76 Monsees, ‘Public relations’, pp. 11–12.

77 Kurt Wagner, ‘Mark Zuckerberg admits he ahould have taken Facebook fake news and the election more seriously: “Calling that crazy was dismissive and I regret it”’, Recode (27 September 2017), available at: {https://www.recode.net/2017/9/27/16376502/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-donald-trump-fake-news} accessed 18 October 2019.

78 Ibid.

79 Thompson and Vogelstein, ‘Inside Facebook's two years of hell’.

80 Ibid.

81 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘Facebook Q3 2017 Earnings Call’, Zuckerberg Transcripts, Paper 287 (1 November 2017), available at: {https://dc.uwm.edu/zuckerberg_files_transcripts/287} accessed 18 October 2019.

82 Ibid.

83 Mark Zuckerberg, ‘One of Big Focus Areas for 2018 Is …’, Facebook (11 January 2018), available at: {https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571} accessed 18 October 2019.

84 US Senate, ‘Transcript of Mark Zuckerberg senate hearing’, Washington Post (11 April 2018), available at: {https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing/} accessed 18 October 2019.

85 Galloway, The Four; Foer, World without Mind; Taplin, Jonathan T., Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2017)Google Scholar; Zuboff, Shoshana, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (New York: PublicAffairs, 2019)Google Scholar.

86 US Senate, ‘Transcript of Mark Zuckerberg Senate Hearing’; US House Committee, ‘Transcript of Zuckerberg's appearance before house committee’, Washington Post (11 April 2018), available at: {https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/11/transcript-of-zuckerbergs-appearance-before-house-committee/?utm_term=.ae85c8d7a209}.

87 Andrews, Leighton, Facebook, the Media and Democracy: Big Tech, Small State? (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2020), p. 109Google Scholar.

88 Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 25.

89 John Gramlich, ‘10 Facts about Americans and Facebook’ (Pew Research Center, 1 February 2019), available at: {http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/01/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/} accessed 18 October 2019.

90 Sharpe and Boucher, Žižek and Politics, p. 98.

91 Brian Koerber, ‘The best part of Mark Zuckerberg appearing in front of Congress was the memes’, Mashable, available at: {https://mashable.com/2018/04/10/the-funniest-reactions-to-mark-zuckerberg-congressional-hearing/} accessed 11 March 2020.

92 Mannion, Oliver, ‘Reading Facebook through Lacan’, New Zealand Sociology, 26:1 (2011), pp. 143–54 (p. 152)Google Scholar.

93 Žižek, Slavoj, Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993), pp. 203–06Google Scholar.

94 Jodi Dean, ‘Affective networks’, MediaTropes, 2:2 (2010), p. 20, emphasis in original.

95 Ibid.

96 Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology, p. 297.

97 Slavoj Žižek, ‘Concesso non Dato’, in Geoff Boucher, Jason Glynos, and Matthew Sharpe (eds), Traversing the Fantasy: Critical Responses to Slavoj Žižek (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), p. 249.

98 Meier, Adrian, Reinecke, Leonard, and Meltzer, Christine E., ‘“Facebocrastination”? Predictors of using Facebook for procrastination and its effects on students’ well-being’, Computers in Human Behavior, 64 (2016), pp. 65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.