FRA_F_06 Security and Social Cohesion

Objectives/ Research Questions

At the beginning of political thought in modern times is Thomas Hobbes’ thesis that the guarantee of security is the basic prerequisite for the stability of complex societies. From this perspective, security appears as a basic political value that must be guaranteed at all costs. In modern, complex societies, however, there can never be complete objective security. Such a state of absolute security is not only hardly achievable in practice, but also normatively questionable whether it would be desirable at all. Absolute security would also eliminate the productive insecurity potential of a culture of conflict, which, according to an initial assumption of our project, is essential for social cohesion in pluralistic societies. In this project on security and social cohesion we want to pursue the thesis that social integration and cohesion under modern conditions are not only threatened by too little security but also by too much security – that is to say, if it undermines the possibilities of productive conflict resolution. We assume that social cohesion thrives best when, on the one hand, a robust minimum level of security is guaranteed, but, on the other hand, citizens have the possibility to deal with conflicts in institutionally contained arenas. Only under this condition is it possible to engage in conflicts without this being perceived as threatening by one of the parties and triggering feelings of fear that could undermine social cohesion. As an interdisciplinary project from political science, jurisprudence, and legal philosophy, we want to explore the complex connection between security, conflict culture, and social cohesion in three different arenas: migration policy, criminal law, and police law. Each of these case studies will focus on the question of how the different balances of ensuring security and enabling conflict affect social cohesion.

Thematic Reference to Social Cohesion

After a joint conceptual phase (months 1–12), three subprojects (months 13–48) are planned:                                                                                                                            

Social Cohesion and the Securitization of Flight and Migration (Daase):

The “securitization” of flight and migration – that is to say, framing them not as a humanitarian or political challenge but as a threat – has led to a kind of “migration panic” (Bauman 2016) in recent years, which has contributed significantly to the polarization of political positions. Although there is no empirical evidence for the claim that flight and migration significantly increase the risk of terrorism in Germany and Europe (Schmid 2016; Polo / Wucherpfennig 2019; Daase et al. 2019), populist movements and parties have succeeded in reinforcing the impression of this connection among the population, with the effect that the fear of terrorism has grown significantly as a result of flight and migration. However, where the feeling of shared security dwindles, trust in security institutions (military, police, and judiciary) and generally in the institutions of the democratic constitutional state also dwindles – and with it social cohesion in the sense of the heuristics presented in the framework application. Against this background, the subproject asks why security policy in the years of the so-called refugee crisis, from 2015 to 2017 (Haller 2017), did not succeed in maintaining the balance between the promise of security and the warning of danger – and thus trust in state security policy – and how it was possible that the migration and refugee discourse could be entirely dominated by the security question? The subproject reconstructs the securitization of the flight and migration debate in Germany, examines the discursive strategies of central actors, and analyses their effect on social cohesion.

Social Cohesion and the Criminal Justice System (Günther):

In the so-called security architecture of contemporary modern societies, criminal law plays a central role, from legislation to enforcement through the criminal justice system (cf. instead of many only Singelnstein / Stolle 2006). To the extent that this security architecture is itself an important element for social cohesion, it can be assumed, according to the initial hypothesis of this subproject, that criminal law is also part of it. At least since Durkheim’s studies on the division of labour, criminal law has been ascribed the function of affirming fundamental norms (“mechanical solidarity”) (Durkheim 1930 / 1988: 135ff.). This function has already been sufficiently researched in more recent theories on the penal purpose of “positive general prevention” (summarized by Hörnle 2017). However, the question of whether and, if so, how specific socially integrative functions are fulfilled through the solidarization effects generated by the affirmation of these fundamental norms – that is to say, whether social cohesion as such is addressed and stabilized – has not yet been taken into account. This question arises when a fixed set of unquestioned fundamental norms can no longer be assumed, which is shaken by individual crimes and reaffirmed by criminal law, so that an already existing cohesion is only reactivated. In modern, pluralistic societies, which are under the unsettling impressions of migration and economic globalization on many parts of the population, criminal law also seems to be confronted with the expectation of helping to establish a consensus on fundamental norms (Günther 2016 and 2020). In this context, the symbolic-expressive and communicative function of criminal law is called upon; criminal proceedings publicly stage the conflict over the disputed norms, call them into collective consciousness, and are supposed to reaffirm their validity through judgement and punishment. The tightening of sexual criminal law in the wake of the events of the “Cologne New Year's Eve” can serve as an example. This role becomes even more demanding if, as assumed in the initial theses of the subproject as a whole, the fundamental norms for their part are supposed to enable and contain conflicts, that is to say not produce a homogeneous consensus that, for example, sets itself apart from “foreigners”. The example of the criminal law reaction to so-called hate crime will be used to illustrate how the line between permissible and impermissible conflict behaviour is drawn.

Social Cohesion and Police Law (Volkmann):

The subproject discusses the shifts in security law that have been observed in recent years under the guiding question of what connections there are between the discourses on security, which have become more intensive, and the discourses on social cohesion. It thus connects the general discourse on social cohesion, as prepared in the introduction to the application, with the specific discourse on security, specifically a security policy that seeks to organize or guarantee social cohesion specifically by containing the risks emanating from individual “dangerous” or deemed dangerous groups. On the one hand, it could have a sedating effect, possibly promoting cohesion, insofar as it suggests that politics and society have the respective risks under control, that the corresponding problems are being dealt with, etc. The effect of this should not be underestimated, even if and insofar as it is always a form of symbolic-expressive politics, and the law that is set for this purpose is always also symbolic-expressive law. Precisely as such, it then communicates corresponding signals to society, which are taken up and received there. On the other hand, the respective strategies themselves often have stigmatizing and exclusionary effects, which buy cohesion within one’s own group, or even within a majority society, through demarcation from others. In this respect, this strategy paradoxically undermines the goal it is intended to serve. With the strengthening of right-wing populism, which is also thematized and conceptually processed as a central challenge in the proposal, this development receives a new boost, insofar as right-wing populism serves exactly that combination of longings for homogeneity and resentment against minorities (“us”/the “others”), which is also a central problem of this strategy.

Literature

Bäcker, Matthias 2015: Kriminalpräventionsrecht. Eine rechtsetzungsorientierte Studie zum Polizeirecht, zum Strafrecht und zum Strafverfahrensrecht, Tübingen.

Bauman, Zygmunt 2016. Die Angst vor den anderen: ein Essay über Migration und Panikmache. Berlin.

Daase, Christopher 2011: Sicherheitskultur. Ein Konzept zur interdisziplinären Erforschung politischen und sozialen Wandels, in: S+F Vierteljahresschrift für Sicherheit und Frieden 29:2, 59-65.

Daase, Christopher et al. (Hrsg.) 2019: Gesellschaft Extrem. Was wir über Radikalisierung wissen, Frankfurt am Main.

Durkheim, Emile 1988 [1930]: Über soziale Arbeitsteilung, Frankfurt am Main.

Glaser, Jack 2014: Suspect Race: Causes and Consequences of Racial Profiling, Oxford.

Günther, Klaus 2016: (Bedrohte) individuelle Freiheiten im aufgeklärten Strafrecht – Welche Freiheiten?, in: Kritische Justiz 49, 2016/4, 520-534

Günther, Klaus 2020: Positive General Prevention and the Idea of Civic Courage in International Criminal Law, in: Florian Jeßberger u. Julia Geneuss (Hrsg.), Why Punish Perpetrators of Mass Atrocities?, Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2020, 213-227.

Haller, Michael 2017: Die „Flüchtlingskrise“ in den Medien. Tagesaktueller Journalismus zwischen Meinung und Information, Frankfurt am Main.

Hörnle, Tatjana 2017: Straftheorien, 2. Auflage, Tübingen.

Huysmans, Jeff 2000: The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, in: Journal of Common Market Studies 38:5, 751-777.

Huysmans, Jeff; Squire, Vicki 2009: Migration and Security. Handbook of Security Studies, ­London.

Polo, Sara M. T.; Wucherpfennig, Julian 2019: Trojan Horse, Copycat, or Scapegoat? Unpacking the Refugees-Terrorism Nexus, MS.

Rademacher, Timo 2017: Predictive Policing im deutschen Polizeirecht, in: AöR 142:3, 366-416.

Schmid, Alex P. 2016: Links Between Terrorism and Migration, in: International Center for Counter Terrorism (ICCT).

Singelnstein, Tobias; Stolle, Peer 2006: Die Sicherheitsgesellschaft: Soziale Kontrolle im 21. Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden.

Volkmann, Uwe 2007: Die Verabschiedung der Rasterfahndung als Mittel der vorbeugenden Verbrechensbekämpfung, Jura 2007, 132 ff.

Waever, Ole et al. 1993: Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, New York.

Weiner, Myron 1992 / 93: Security, Stability, and International Migration, in: International Security 17:3, 91-126.