You are not authenticated through an institution. Should you have institutional access?
Here's how to get it
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed
Requires Authentication
6 The report of the 22 July Commission
-
J. Peter Burgess
J. Peter BurgessSearch for this author in:
Abstract
This chapter is a comprehensive analysis of the report of the 22/7 Commission, published one year after the attacks. The analysis begins with a discussion of the concept of security used in the report, and in particular the tacit relation assumed between society and security. The chapter begins by focussing on one of the core concepts of the report, ‘defence’, and in particular the defence of the Norwegian ‘we’. This analysis constitutes the foundation for a reflection on the power of concepts, and the conflict of concepts that at times characterises collective crises. The chapter continues with reflection on the social meaning of terrorism and the correlation between societal values and terrorist threat, before turning to a close analysis of the 22/7 Commission’s official mandate. The formulation of the mandate leads to a consideration of the agency of society itself and of the accountability of society as an actor. In this context, it then asks in what way society is accountable or responsible for the damages done to its members, and what kind of ethics and values it can be expected to embody.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.
Abstract
This chapter is a comprehensive analysis of the report of the 22/7 Commission, published one year after the attacks. The analysis begins with a discussion of the concept of security used in the report, and in particular the tacit relation assumed between society and security. The chapter begins by focussing on one of the core concepts of the report, ‘defence’, and in particular the defence of the Norwegian ‘we’. This analysis constitutes the foundation for a reflection on the power of concepts, and the conflict of concepts that at times characterises collective crises. The chapter continues with reflection on the social meaning of terrorism and the correlation between societal values and terrorist threat, before turning to a close analysis of the 22/7 Commission’s official mandate. The formulation of the mandate leads to a consideration of the agency of society itself and of the accountability of society as an actor. In this context, it then asks in what way society is accountable or responsible for the damages done to its members, and what kind of ethics and values it can be expected to embody.
You are currently not able to access this content.
Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.
Chapters in this book
- Front Matter i
- Dedication vii
- Contents ix
- Acknowledgements x
- Introduction 1
- I Theory of disenchantment 27
- 1 Terror and disenchantment 29
- 2 The enchantment of security 49
- 3 The invention of vulnerability 85
- 4 Our coming security 110
- II Making security sense of Oslo/ Utøya 133
- 5 22-Jul-11 135
- 6 The report of the 22 July Commission 161
- 7 There is no alternative to security 186
- 8 Giving and taking responsibility for terrorism 215
- After thought 242
- References 258
- Index 277
Chapters in this book
- Front Matter i
- Dedication vii
- Contents ix
- Acknowledgements x
- Introduction 1
- I Theory of disenchantment 27
- 1 Terror and disenchantment 29
- 2 The enchantment of security 49
- 3 The invention of vulnerability 85
- 4 Our coming security 110
- II Making security sense of Oslo/ Utøya 133
- 5 22-Jul-11 135
- 6 The report of the 22 July Commission 161
- 7 There is no alternative to security 186
- 8 Giving and taking responsibility for terrorism 215
- After thought 242
- References 258
- Index 277
