Advertisement

Discourse of Olympic Security

  • Malcolm N. MacDonaldEmail author
  • Duncan Hunter
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter investigates the discursive realization of the security operation for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Drawing on Didier Bigo’s (Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2008) conceptualisation of the ‘banopticon’, it explores which distinctive linguistic features are used in documents relating to security for London 2012 and how Olympic security is realized as a discursive practice. Our findings suggest that this discourse indeed realized key features of the banopticon: exceptionalism, exclusion and prediction; as well as what we call ‘pedagogisation’. Claims were made for the exceptional scale of the Olympic events; predictive technologies were proposed to assess the threat from terrorism; and access to Olympic venues was constituted to resemble transit through national boundaries. Finally, pedagogic practices were constituted to regulate the training of security operatives for the Games.

References

  1. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  2. Bigo, D. (2008). Globalised (In)security: The Field and the Ban-Opticon. In D. Bigo & A. Tsoukala (Eds.), Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes After 9/11 (pp. 10–49). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, P., & Haggerty, K. D. (2009). Spectacular Security: Mega-Events and the Security Complex. International Political Sociology, 3(3), 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brianas, J. J. (2004). NATO, Greece and the 2004 Summer Olympics (Unpublished Masters Dissertation). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Bridging the Gap. (2012). Training—Preparing You for the Games. Available at http://www.bridging-the-gap.co.uk/Training.aspx.
  7. Coaffee, J., Fussey, P., & Moore, C. (2011). Laminated Security for London 2012: Enhancing Security Infrastructures to Defend Mega Sporting Events. Urban Studies, 48(15), 3311–3327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS). (2010, November). London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Quarterly Report.Google Scholar
  9. Dunmire, P. (2011). Projecting the Future Through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1973). The Birth of the Clinic. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1984). The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-78. Basingstoke; New York; Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Fussey, P. (2012). Eastern Promise? East London Transformations and the State of Surveillance. Information Polity, 17(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
  15. Giulianotti, R., & Klauser, F. (2011). Introduction: Security and Surveillance at Sport Mega Events. Urban Studies, 48(15), 3157–3161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  17. Home Office (HMO). (2010, September 16). A Consultation Paper on the Proposed Use of a Legislative Reform Order to Permit a Temporary Police Muster, Briefing and Deployment Centre on Wanstead Flats to Support the 2012 Olympic Games. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  18. Home Office (HMO). (2011a). London 2012: A Safe and Secure Games for All. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  19. Home Office (HMO). (2011b). London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Safety and Security Strategy. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  20. Home Office (HMO). (2011d, January). London 2012 Olympic Safety and Security Strategic Risk Assessment (OSSSRA) and Risk Mitigation Process, Summary Version 2.Google Scholar
  21. Home Office (HMO). (2012). Current Threat Level. Available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/counter-terrorism/current-threat-level/.
  22. Klein, N. (2008). The Olympics: Unveiling Police State 2.0. The Huffington Post. Available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-klein/the-olympics-unveiling-po_b_117403.html.
  23. London Assembly Health and Public Services Committee. (2010, October). Business as Usual? Londons Emergency and Health Services Preparations for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. London: Greater London Authority.Google Scholar
  24. London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG). (2012). Business as Usual Final Report. London: LOCOG.Google Scholar
  25. Lukacs, G. 1923/1967. History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press.Google Scholar
  26. May, T. (2011). Olympic Security Conference Speech. Monday, 21 November. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/home-secretarys-olympic-security-conference-speech.
  27. May, T. (2012). RUSI Olympic Security Conference Speech. Wednesday, 25 January.Google Scholar
  28. Metropolitan Police (MET). (2012). Delivering the Games. Available at http://content.met.police.uk/Site/safeandsecuregames.
  29. Migdalovitz, C. (2004). Greece: Threat of Terrorism and Security at the Olympics. CRS Report for Congress. Available at https://fas.org/irp/crs/RS21833.pdf.
  30. Ministry of Defence (MoD). (2011, December 15). Military Support to 2012 Olympic Games Announced.Google Scholar
  31. Mulderrig, J. (2011a). The Grammar of Governance. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(1), 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mulderrig, J. (2011b). Manufacturing Consent: A Corpus-Based Critical Discourse Analysis of New Labours Educational Governance. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller, M. (2015). What Makes an Event a Mega-Event? Definitions and Sizes. Leisure Studies, 34(6), 627–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peirce, C. S. (1991) Writings on semiotics (J. Hoopes, Ed.). University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  35. Price, S. (2008). Missiles in Athens and Tanks at Heathrow: Urban Security and the Materialisation of “Global” Threat. Social Semiotics, 18(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samatas, M. (2011). Surveillances in Athens 2004 and Beijing 2008: A Comparison of the Olympic Surveillance Modalities and Legacies in Two Different Olympic Host Regimes. Urban Studies, 48(15), 3347–3366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott, M. (2008). Wordsmith Tools Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd.Google Scholar
  38. Security Industry Association (SIA). (2012a). Olympic Security: Be Aware and Prepare.Google Scholar
  39. Security Industry Association (SIA). (2012b). Compliance and Enforcement: Olympic Preparation.Google Scholar
  40. Security Industry Association (SIA). (2012c). The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Exemption) (Olympics Security) Regulations.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, M. (2012). G4s Considers Bringing in More Staff to Cover Olympic Security Shortfall. The Guardian, Wednesday, 11 July. guardian.co.uk.
  42. The British National Corpus, Version 3 (BNC XML Edition). (2007). Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on Behalf of the BNC Consortium. http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.
  43. Tsoukala, A. (2006). The Security Issue at the 2004 Olympics. European Journal for Sport and Society, 3(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UK Border Agency (UKBA). (2012). Coming to the UK to Watch the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.Google Scholar
  45. Yu, Y., Klauser, F., & Chan, G. (2009). Governing Security at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 26(3), 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Applied LinguisticsUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations