Airport Security: A Sociology Analyzes on Ambiguous danger

and Actual Threat

Kristin Einarsdottir
Department of Sociology. M.Phil studies: Race, Ethnicity and Conflict, Trinity College
Dublin
________________________________________________________________________

Abstract
This essay explores if airport security is a security theater, or if it does increase
protection of air travelers. The essay discus if it is clear what the threats are, we are
being defended against, or if the treats are ambiguous danger mechanism, designed to
discipline the docile body within the circulatory space of the airport.
The essay explores the sociology of security, how in the circulatory space of the airport,
the bodys circulatory systems, race, biological rhythms, and affective expressions have
become objects of suspicion mobile surfaces from which inner thoughts and potentially
hostile intentions are scrutinized, read, and given threatening meaning by the newest
modes of airport security and surveillance. The essay situates surveillance techniques
within the preemptive biopolitical securitisation of mobility across borders and focuses
on Foucaults arguments, on the ways in which biopolitical governmentality, government
discipline, and sovereignty are braided together, rather than episodically sequential
modalities of power.

The terror of fear

We are surrounded by fear. It is part of a long term campaign to keep us scare
about all sorts of thing, so we dont notice the things that really matter. Media is covered
with all kind of scare threats: A giant bird on the loose or brain eating parasites
discovered in Europe. Then there is the threat of terrorism. Actually, we are probably
more likely to be killed by a brain-eating parasite than terrorism, or as Harvey Molotch
has pointed out: more likely to drown in our own bathtub (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.9).
The events of 9/11 brought home to the United States a different scare, which spread out
to the world. That scare was given the word terror (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.7).
Airports are perhaps today the most obvious places where this scare can be
observed. As I traveled through Heathrow airport with my longhaired, blond 10-year-old
son on the 4th of January 2014, I made some interesting discoveries. Earlier that afternoon,
I had flown from Dublin to Heathrow, just to pick up my son who was coming from
1

visiting relatives in Iceland. While waiting for my child, I read Homi K Bhabhas Of
Mimicry and Man and got particularly interested in hybridity in relation to cultural
pluralism. I looked around the airport to predict who were the cosmopolitans and who
were the transnationals. I had estimated that the time frame between the two connected
flights ought to be enough, but delays on the Icelandic end, resulted in the clear refusal at
the Air Lingus desk to check us in, although we had 45 minutes before the aircraft would
take off to the Emerald Isle. Being determined as I am, I not only found this ridiculous, I
found it illogical and foolish, while at the same time people who own or hire private
aircraft do not have to pass through any type of security to get on their plane, and
certainly there are no two hour before the flight rules, applying to private jets. Still with
Bhabhas theory on mimicry in mind, I decided to turn to a Freudian figure to address my
issues. Almost the same but not quite Almost the same but not white (Bhabha,
Homi. 1994. P.114) or in my case Almost the same but not rich. Therefore I went to a
male security person and explained my situation and that I had to get to Ireland with my
little boy, who was exhausted from traveling from Iceland (I have realized that very few
people are aware of that Iceland is only 2 flight hours away). I mentioned that people on
private planes, did not have to go through any security (acted tearfully as I usually was
one of them). My son, who is an extremely good actor, took on a role of teamwork,
without his mother even mentioning him doing so. His big blue eyes welded up, resulting
in tears showering his little face, and I had to wipe his gorgeous little cheeks with the
sleeves of my white cashmere coat, and at the same time flip my own long, blond hair
away from my face, because I of course, could not keep it together, seeing my little angel
upset about not being able to sleep in his fathers arms in Ireland that night. The sympathy
in the security guys eyes was indescribable; of course I had previously asked him if he
himself had any children. He firmly, put his hand on my shoulder and said to us Ill do
anything I can. He then made a phone call and told us to come with him. Through his
superior on the phone, we were given the privilege to run across the airport, skipping all
the hullabaloo of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and "routine questions". Our man,
made sure that the others (air travellers having the Ervings Goffmans famous total
institution moment) stepped aside as he shouted some code to the security people beside
the metal detectors and I could not help, feeling a little bit royal. He even held my sons

little suitcase on the run through Heathrows corridors, as I was about to get a heart
attack from my out of shape condition. As we got on to the gate of our flight, I had
managed to get his name and tell him I would look him up on Facebook to send him, not
only a thank you note, but an invitation to the Guinness Factory tour (because he had told
me how much he loved his pint). Aircraft doors were slammed behind us and the flight
took off. My son and I looked at each other and both of us said; What was that! The
days after, I was not feeling good about my actions, I felt guilty and could not help
wondering if race mattered, when traveling through a barb wired airport and if this had
happened if I had been an Arabic or Indian woman, traveling with my little dark haired
boy? Why had the space for taking us outside the laws and rules of bureaucratic control
been shrunk?

They are all terrorists

The discipline of sociology has for a long time been interested in physical
mobility. Mobility has in many cases been understood to be an escape from social order
and as an act of resistance (Cresswell, Tim.1993). Gypsies and travellers cross physical
boundaries all the time and are recognized as out of place by both authorities and local
residents (Sibley, David.1995). Being a tourist or a business traveller are a different thing,
although mobility is often viewed in terms of risk to the safe and static containers of
space, territory and social order Therefore, where a business traveller may be welcomed
into a country a migrant may not be (Adley, Peter. 2004).
There are several methods used to control mobility. Surveillance is one of them,
x-raying and CT-scanning are another, and lately fingerprints are a standard at the US
border control. It became famous when; Giorgio Agamben refused to submit himself to
these security procedures, and canceled his scheduled course at the New York
University. Agamben wrote in 2004, an article in Le Monde, called No to Biopolitical
Tattooing (Murray, Stuart, J. 2008) where he argued that this manipulation of bodies
would be what Michel Foucault would call progressive animalization of man,
implemented by means of the most sophisticated technologies. Agamben, argues that
what is at stake here is none other than the new and normal biopolitical relation
between citizens and the State, and that security measures have noting to do with it.

Agamben compares this to the tattooing at the Auschwitz concentration camps that
became the most routine and economical means of regulation and registration of peoples
arrival. He points out that the biopolitical tattooing that the US is now imposing in order
to enter its territory could very well be the forerunner of future demands an accept to a
routine the inscription of the good citizen into the gears and mechanism of the State.
The United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) broadcasts the
following warning in airports around the country: Making jokes or statements regarding
bombs and/or threats during the screening process may be grounds for both civil and
criminal penalties and could cause you to miss your flight. Despite the warning, people
continue to be arrested for making jokes about bombs, anthrax, and security policy
(Martin, Lauren. L. 2010). Few days ago, a 14-year old Dutch girl was arrested after she
tweeted following terror threat to American Airlines, under the name of
Sarah@QueenDemetriax_, @AmericanAir hello my names Ibrahim and Im from
Afghanistan. Im part of Al Quida and on June 1st Im gonna do something really big bye.
Her IP number tracked down the girl, but at this point it remains unclear if she will be
prosecuted. American airlines spokesperson gave out a statement following the incident:
"At American, the safety of our passengers and crew is our top priority. We take security
matters very seriously and work with authorities on a case-by-case basis," (Abdelaziz,
Salma, 2014)
Someone might argue that this is the way we catch the bad guys. By treating
every traveler as a potential terrorist, we think we are defending airplanes against certain
terrorist tactics: liquid bombs, shoe bombs and underwear bombs. Taking of our shoes,
removing paper clips, pens, wire bits and even my 88 year old grandmothers crochet
needle, to make sure she can not kill time on her way to visit relatives abroad. This
security cautions create a pattern that resembles a prison routine. Total submission is
required as we move through security. In Goffmans total institutions people are under
the administrative control. In airports we are too (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.90). An
Icelandic family friend in his seventies was traveling with his wife Adalheidur (who goes
by the common Icelandic nickname Alla) from Baltimore to Iceland. As he stood by the
bar ordering two glasses of wine, his wife drifted away to a near by sunglasses stand. Our

man, starts yelling her name Alla Alla (pronounced Allah) and before he can catch a
breath, he is on the floor with guns pointed to his head. In my opinion, little overdramatic, for a retired Icelandic auditor, with arthritis, but not seen in the light of the big
gorilla in security or the Arab, regardless of what authorities might say (Molotch,
Harvey, 2012 p.104).
For what is known, the airport apparatus has not stopped a single incident of
potential bombing or other threat actions on board (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.106). The
two most dramatic efforts to blow up U.S. aircraft post-9/11 both involved failures to
detect (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.108). The first one was the Shoe bomber, with a
PETN (plastic compound) bomb in his hollowed out soles, some years later the
Underwear bomber, who had strapped PETN explosives into his underwear. The PETN
incendiary does not show up in the scanning machines, yet they were strong enough to
blow a whole in the aircraft (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.109). In both cases it was through
an observation from a passenger and a flight attendant that foiled both these bombers.
All the sophisticated airport devices, including the ban on liquids, sharp objects, and
contraband metal, had failed to detect the bad guy or bad stuff (Molotch, Harvey, 2012
p.115). Never the less, these incidents have resulted in new security rules to be brought
on, like having anything on ones lap in the last hour of travel. This was done because the
underwear bomber had waited until the last hour of his flight before trying to explode his
device. This would be problematic on the two-hour direct flight between my native
Iceland and Dublin, as the zero object condition would be on most of the flight (Molotch,
Harvey, 2012 p.117).

Ambiguous danger and Actual Threat

Molotch (2012) has pointed out that more people have died in car crashes since
9/11 because they were afraid to fly or because they did not want to deal with airport
security than died during the terrorist attacks. The danger is therefore ambiguous, as we
dont really know what sort of threats we are being defended against. Molotch asks if all
this security makes sense, just to get terrorists to switch tactics, or drive to a different
target. A Cornell University study estimated, for 2002, that extra airline costs due to

security issues were over $4 billion. In 2005 that price tag was at $5 billion. The head of
Airports Council International in Europe, which is the official organization of European
airports, has said it is: clear that most of the recent developments in aviation security
have been driven by the US, he has urged that there be an end, among other practices, to
useless duplications. (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.118). Other airline companies have
echoed his opinion and asked for more intelligent processes, than the inconvenience
passengers are put through now.

Theater of domination?
U.S. domination over security regimens reflect the strange need and
predominance in setting standards for world market by making its own fear of terror
policies into global policies. The identical recitations from flight attendants we hear when
we fly internationally are American protocols that are centralized and coordinated
through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Agency. Gangways,
luggage handling, equipment and even the no-knife policy in the onboard catering also
follow US standards (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.118).
As all these policies and regulations called airport security seems to make so little sense,
it is appropriate to use the term Molotch calls security theater as the purpose seems to
be making people anxious. Everyone is forced to join the performance you have no
other choice, although I managed to bend the flexibility of the airport security at
Heathrow. That is the exception of the rule and was indeed quite of a theater
performance. Radicalized people are very often denied this flexibility. Each Western
country engages in this racist excessive legality with their own cultural particularity.
(Hage, Ghassan. 2014). It is the development of governmentality, which uses laws as
rules in the game of security that is at issue in Foucaults 1978/79 Collge de France
lecture series Security, Territory, Population. As opposed to traditional sovereignty,
which is exercised on a territory and the subjects who live on it, governmentality here
extends to things that is to say to men in their relationships, bonds, and complex
involvements with things like wealth, resources, means of subsistence, and, of course, the
territory with its borders, qualities, climate, dryness, fertility, and so on (Foucault,

2007/19771978). Foucault described the rise of both enclosed disciplinary institutions

(Foucault, 1977/1975) and a series of security apparatuses for the control of confused
multiplicities in open spaces (Foucault, 2007/19771978).

What to do?
We must admit that our fear of terrorism may be blown out of proportion to the
actual threat. Airports are places of threat ambiguity. Those in charge do not know what
to do and neither do most of their critics. Something must be done to make air traveling
easier and more comfortable.
Molotch however has come up with solutions, which makes a strong case for
instead of treating every air traveler as a potential terrorist, they should be treated with
optimism and kindness. His solutions starts at easing up on command and move toward
facilitation, empathy and amusement (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.119). Molotch breaks his
solutions down to six suggestions. I will mention them briefly:
1. Help.
Molotch argues that we can learn a lot about what is going on by helping
others an intelligence feature of kindness.
2. Design it, damn it.
Suggestion: all bins and trays should be translucent, and there should be
well designed platforms for putting our bags and untie shoelaces.
3. Calm the line.
Suggestion: Music, art, gentle guard, reduce the lines.
4. OK with the funny.
Suggestion: Allow laughter so people can feel human when they travel
as it becomes another source of intelligence; who is thinking what,
needing what, threatening what etc.
5. End profiles.

Suggestion: As profiling has proven to be inaccurate in detecting terrorist

it should be ended. The capacity of profiling should be aimed at
discovering those who need help as it can give leads to who could be a
threat.
6. Make profile awards.
For official mistakes peoples should be rewarded. It could be with a free
meal or a treat, or in bigger cases a free flight or an upgrade.
The points of many of these suggestions are to create remedies to break with the social
sterility of security and to allow the outside world in. Humor and interpersonal caring and
compassion ease the situation. Enforced exclusions are only there to design tension,
which ironically decreases security in the process (Molotch, Harvey, 2012 p.127).
While the message of this essay may please skeptics of authority, there must be a
way for the government to have a role in easing the airport security as well. Discipline is
a manipulative force of power that crates docile bodies in order to maintain order and
perhaps the conclusion is that the large part of us humans are just a flock of animals who
like order and discipline. At least I dont experience many people protesting against the
theater of domination airport security is.

References
Abdelaziz, Salma, Teen arrested for tweeting airline terror threat. CNN. April 14, 2014.
Retrived 20 April, 2014 from http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/14/travel/dutch-teen-arrestamerican-airlines-terror-threat-tweet/
Adler, Peter. 2004. Secured and Sorted Mobilities: Examples from the Airport.
Surveillance & Society 1(4):500-519. Retrieved 20 April, 2014 from
http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(4)/sorted.pdf
Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. Of Mimicry and Man: The Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse.
The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. pp. 85-92.
Bauman, Zygmundt. 1993. Postmodern Ethics. London: Routledge.
Cresswell, Tim. 1993. Mobility as resistance - a geographical reading of Kerouac on the
road. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 18 (2): 249-262.
M. Foucault. 2009. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collge de France,
19771978 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. P.96.
Hage, Ghassan. 2014. Racism of rigid legalism greets asylum seekers and their kind. The
Conversation. Retrieved 20 April, 2014 from http://theconversation.com/racism-of-rigidlegalism-greets-asylum-seekers-and-their-kind-22951
Martin, Lauren. L. 2010. Bombs, bodies, and biopolitics: securitizing the subject at the
airport security checkpoint. Social & Cultural Geography, Vol. 11, No. 1,
Molotch, Harvey. 2012. Against Security: How we go wrong at airports, subways, and
other sites of ambiguous danger. Princeton and Oxford. Princeton University Press pp. 4119
Sibley, David. 1995. Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West.
London: Routledge.
Murray, Stuart. J. 2008. No to Biopolitac Tattooing. Georgio Agamben: translated from
the French by Stuart J. Murray. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. Vol. 5, No.
2, pp.201-202. London. Routhledge.