In his essay, "Security and Terror", Giorgio Agamben discusses the problems associated with focus too much on security. Throughout this essay he talks about how security though seemingly it's a beneficial focus for governments can in some ways lead to forms of terrorism and even opposes discipline and law as instruments of governance. At one point he describes the difference between security and strong preventative measures and discipline, by saying "In a word, discipline wants to produce order, while security wants to guide disorder." And in my opinion, though I never even gave it a second thought until reading this essay, is that he's exactly right., mostly.

In his opening paragraph, Agamben eludes to the idea that fear may not be an all bad thing, as it can unite societies together. As far as discipline and law making bodies go, I'm sure he would not be opposed to striking a little fear into the hearts of citizens in order to prevent disorder or chaos that could widely expand with an attitude that is lax and ready to use security after the problems have already started. As I said earlier, I am in agreement except for something he briefly mentions about freedom. He says security can only function within a context of freedom of traffic, trade, and individual initiative, which too me seem like good things, and this is the only aspect of his piece that I feel strongly in opposition with. Because to me, and I don't think I'm alone here, freedom in any form it comes, is the herald of human experience, and what I desire most out of my own personal experience in life. But for the most part, I would have to say I can see where he's going with this and I understand and concur with it very much so.

Another issue Agamben addresses that places security in an awkward moral space is the fact that while perhaps negatively, the law closes off territories and isolates, whereas security perhaps positively can lead to more a more open approach and globalization even though discipline and law produce order where security only seeks to guide the disorder.

The dangerousness with security takes shape more and more as security comes to the forefront of traditional political state tasks by way of importance. Agamben states that "A state which has security as it's only task and source of legitimacy is a fragile organism; it can always be provoked by terrorism to turn itself terroristic." Which makes us question how strongly we want to focus on security vs. prevention all together through stricter disciplinary measures and laws. It could even cause security and terrorism to become one system in societies that mutually justify and balance each other. The ever growing 'hunt' for security causes people in a way to turn on themselves causing civil wars and destroying the hope of civil coexistence. It also in the end causes a depoliticization and a permanent detachment from democracy, one of the very cherished aspects of our governmental system. To fix this impending disaster Agamben suggests we redefine our policies on security and become more critical in our law making and disciplinary measures with the focus on prevention of disasters be they medical, military, ecological or otherwise, and not merely having the focus be on security of these disasters and controlling them after the fact.

The ways in which I see this essay connecting with and elaborating on my understanding of Feldman's and Sekula's essays I have yet to mention. Though I don't know who Turgot and Quesnay are, Agamben says of them at the beginning of his essay, "Neither Turgot and Quesnay nor the Physiocratic officials were primarily concerned with the prevention of famine or the regulation of production, but rather wanted to allow for the development in order to 'secure' their consequences." Then at the end he further states, "On the contrary, we can say that politics works towards the production of emergencies." In these two quotes Agamben, though I could be completely wrong, sounds like he is saying that governments are so for security because they like to use them to control certain public situations and emergencies or even cause them for their own needs agenda's kept secret from the public. Not saying that this is fact but in my opinion I could see the attacks on 9/11 being exploited by the bush administration to get us into a war to raise funds for the government that supposedly would go solely for military purposes. Again I'm not saying this is fact or even that I necessarily think that that's what happened but I could see it as being an example of what Agamben describes here in politics secretly working toward the production of these emergencies to guide and secure the consequences in their own favor. All in all I was fascinated by the new viewpoints I was able to engage after further researching this essay by Giorgio Agamben, I will most likely refer back to this source in later assignments and perhaps for my final paper.

1. Should we sacrifice a complete freedom in favor of stronger laws and disciplinary measures? Why or why not? How might Globalization be bad or good for societies?

2. What are the current security policies of America and other modern nations, and how might this be seen as good or bad for societies long term? And how might a more free policy on traffic, trade, and individual initiative play into security and he negative light Agamben shows it in?