Cities, terrorism and development

This article interrogates the relationship between terrorism and development through the lens of cities, arguing that despite the post 9/11 hype in relation to cities of the global North, the impact of terrorism on cities of the global South should not be ignored. Defining terrorism in terms of acts of terror, it is suggested that cities are more susceptible to this form of political violence than rural areas because of the likelihood of greater impact and visibility and the incidence and impact of urban terror is greatest in cities of less developed countries. Eschewing a ‘developing’/’developed’ dichotomy it is nevertheless demonstrated that while terrorism has levelled risk across cities of the North and South, vulnerabilities in developing country cities are far greater. It is here that the link between terrorism and development can be most tightly drawn, providing a clear rationale for destabilising the vicious cycle of terrorism and counter-terrorism that destroys past and undermines future development

On the affective ambivalence of living with cultural diversity

Living with cultural diversity is characterized by a fundamental affective ambivalence. On the one hand, there is existential unease in the face of cultural strangeness, which is linked to our human dependence on `common sense' — the shared background of understanding from which we derive ontological security about the world and our place in it. Through cultural contact, common sense loses something of its self-evident character, and certainties about what is normal are put to the test. On the other hand, contact with unfamiliar practices and forms of expression can equally give rise to positive feelings of wonder and fascination, as in the urban context. This affective ambivalence stems from an existential paradox: the experience of both meaning and lack of meaning are dependent on contact with transcendent realities — in other words, realities that cannot be fully encompassed within our cognitive and manipulative horizons. This leads us to the question as to what the conditions are in which cultural diversity is experienced as a positive social given. The hypothesis is that cultural strangeness cannot in any event fascinate those who perceive the presence of this strangeness, rightly or wrongly, as an acute threat to their own psychological integrity, their vital integrity and/or to the national integrity