Studies of protests against mobile phone masts typically concentrate on the potential health risks associated with mobile phones and their masts. Beck’s Risk Society has been particularly influential in informing this debate. This focus on health, however, has merely served to limit the discussion to those concerns legitimated by science conveniently ignoring other disputed issues. In contrast, this article contends that it is necessary to use a wider notion of risk to understand fully how the current political emphasis on active citizenship may have contributed to the protests. It examines how neoliberal governmentality and the move to empower people are in contention with one another. The study draws upon case material from a small village protest group in United Kingdom and argues that much of the tension arises from the encouragement of the public on one hand to become active citizens but on the other to be passive consumers.
Abram, S., J. Murdoch, and T. Marsden.1996. The social construction of ‘Middle England:’ The politics of participation in forward planning. Journal of Rural Studies12:353-64.
2.
Akhurst, M.1995. Interpreting countryside recreation: The urban-rural dichotomy . The Environmentalist15:58-64.
3.
Armstrong, N.2005. Resistance through risk: Women and cervical cancer screening . Health, Risk & Society7:161-76.
4.
Askew, J.2004. Mobile phone masts: Report of an inquiry by the all party mobile group. Bristol: University of the West of England.
5.
Balzano, Q., and A.R. Sheppard.2002. The influence of the precautionary principle on science-based decision-making: Questionable applications to risks of radiofrequency fields. Journal of Risk Research5:351-69.
6.
Beck, U.1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: SAGE.
7.
Brunsdon, C.1996. Satellite dishes and the landscape of taste. In The audience and its landscape, ed. J. Hay, L. Grossberg. and E. Wartella.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
Budden, R.2002. Teething problems bring growing pains for industry’s new baby. Review Financial Times, May 13.
9.
Burgess, A.2002. Comparing national responses to perceived health risks from mobile phone masts. Health, Risk & Society4:175-88.
10.
Burgess, A.2004. Cellular phones, public fears, and a culture of precaution . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Burningham, K.1998. A noisy road or noisy resident? A demonstration of the utility of social constructionism for analysing environmental problems . The Sociological Review46:536-63.
12.
Castree, N.2008. Neoliberalising nature: The logics of deregulation and reregulation. Environment and Planning A40:131-52.
13.
Cooper, D.1993. The citizen’s charter and radical democracy: Empowerment and exclusion within citizen discourse. Social & Legal Studies2:149-71.
14.
Country Guardian.2004. Country guardian: The National campaign to oppose wind turbines in Britain’s precious landscapes and promote energy conservation. http://www.countryguardian.net/index.htm (accessed June 21, 2004).
15.
Countryside Agency.2003. The state of the countryside 2003. Author. Wetherby, West Yorkshire, UK.
16.
Cowell, R.2004. Market regulation and planning action: burying the impact of electricity networks? Planning Theory and Practice5:307-25.
17.
Cox, D.R.2003. Communication of risk: Health hazards from mobile phones . Journal of the Royal Statistical Society166:241-46.
18.
Dean, M.1999. Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society . London: SAGE.
19.
Dean, M., and B. Hindess.1998. Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Detr.1999. Planning for Telecommunications Circular 4/99. ed. Department of the Environment : Transport and the Regions. London : The Stationery Office.
21.
Eema.2001. EEMA critical of UK Government over 3G License Auction. Available from http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=66396 (accessed June 4, 2004).
22.
Forbes, I.2004. Making a crisis out of a drama: The political analysis of BSE policymaking in the UK. Political Studies52:342-57.
23.
Frewer, L., S. Hunt, M. Brennan, S. Kuznesof, M. Ness, and C. Ritson.2003. The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualise uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research6:75-85.
24.
Gahan, C., and M. Hannibal.1998. Doing qualitative research using Qsr Nud*Ist. London: SAGE.
25.
Giddens, A.1991. Modernity and self identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press .
26.
Goven, J.2006. Processes of inclusion, cultures of calculation, structures of power: Scientific citizenship and the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification . Science, Technology, & Human Values31:565-98.
27.
Grimes, S.2000. Rural areas in the information society: Diminishing distance or increasing learning capacity? Journal of Rural Studies16:13-21.
28.
Hajer, M.2003. A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In Delibrative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, ed. M. A. Hajer and H. Wagennaar, 88-110. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Hall, D., and I. Hall.1996. Practical social research: Project work in the community. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan Press.
30.
Hamann, T.H.2009. Neoliberalism, governmentality and ethics. Foucault Studies6:37-59.
31.
Hannah, L.1979. Electricity before nationalisation. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan Press.
32.
Hardill, I., and A. Green.2003. Remote Working-Altering the spatial contours of work and home in the economy. New Technology, Work and Employment18:212-22.
33.
Hardy, C.2008. Eastbury villagers call for mobile phone mast. Review. Newbury Today. September 18.
34.
Harvey, D.2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Herbert, S.2005. The trapdoor of community. Annals of the Association of American Geographers95:850-65.
36.
Holifield, R.2004. Neoliberalism and environmental justice in the United States Environmental Protection Agency: Translating policy into managerial practice in hazardous waste remediation. Geoforum35:285-97.
37.
Hopkins, J.1998. Signs of the post-rural: Marketing myths of a symbolic countryside. Geografiska Annaler80B:65-81.
38.
Horlick-Jones, T.2005. On ‘risk work:’ Professional discourse, accountability, and everyday action. Health, Risk & Society7:293-307.
39.
Horst, M.2007. Public expectations of gene therapy: Scientific futures and their performative effects on scientific citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values32:150-71.
40.
House of Commons.2001. Mobile phones masts tenth report. ed. House of Commons.The Stationery Office.
41.
Hubbard, P.2005. ‘Inappropriate and incongruous:’ Opposition to Asylum Centres in the English Countryside. Journal of Rural Studies21:3-17.
42.
Iegmp.2000. Mobile phones and health. ed. W. C. Stewart.Chilton, UK: Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, National Radiological Protection Board.
43.
Irwin, A.2001. Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science10:1-18.
44.
Irwin, A.2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science36:299-320.
45.
Irwin, A., and M. Michael.2003. Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK andPhiladelphia: Open University Press.
46.
Jacob, M., and T. Hellström .2000. policy understanding of science, public trust and the BSE-CJD crisis. Journal of Hazardous Materials78:303-17.
47.
Jay, S.2004. The forces shaping local planning policy on high voltage electricity installations. Journal of Environmental Planning and Policy6:207-26.
48.
Joseph, J.2007. Neo-liberalism, governmentality and social regulation . In SAID Workshop 17 April 2007. www.said-workshop.org/joseph.paper.doc (accessed March 26, 2009).
49.
Kearns, A.J.1992. Active citizenship and urban governance. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers17:20-34.
50.
Kraemer, K.L., and J. Dedrick.2000. European E-Commerce report. Irvine: University of California, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations.
51.
Lash, S., B. Szersynski , and B. Wynne, eds. 1996. Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology . London: SAGE.
52.
Lemke, T.2000. Foucault, governmentality and critique. In Rethinking Marxism conference. Massachusetts : University of Amherst.
53.
Maxey, L.J.2004. Moving beyond from within: reflexive activism and critical geographies. In Radical theory, critical praxis: Making a difference beyond the academy? ed. D. Fuller and R. Kitchen.Vernon and Victoria, BC, Canadaf.
54.
Mitchell, K.2006. Neoliberal governmentality in the European Union: Education, training, and technologies of citizenship. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space24:389-407.
55.
Murdoch, J., and T. Marsden.1994. Reconstituting rurality: Class, community and power in the development process. London: UCL Press Limited.
56.
Murdoch, J., and T. Marsden.1995. The spatialization of politics: Local and national actor-spaces in environmental conflict. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers20:368-80.
57.
Mythen, G., and S. Walklate.2006. Criminology and terrorism: Which thesis? Risk society or governmentality? British Journal of Criminology46:379-98.
58.
Nairn, G.2002. Formidable Challenges. Review Financial Times, May 13.
59.
O’Riordan, T.1995. Environmental science on the move. In Environmental science for environmental management, ed. T. O’Riordan, 1-11. Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific & Technical.
60.
Odpm.2000. Indices of deprivation 2000. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_urbanpolicy/documents/page/odpm_urbpol_608140.hcsp#P3703%20%0D%0D%5 (accessed June 4, 2004 ).
61.
Oels, A.2005. Rendering climate change governable: From biopower to advanced liberal government? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning7:185-207.
62.
Ofcom.2007. The communications market 2007 (August). London: Ofcom .
63.
PPG2.1995. Planning policy guidance 2: Green belts. Communities and local government . London: HM Stationery Office .
64.
PPG8.2001. Planning policy guidance 8: Telecommunications. Communities and local government . London: HM Stationery Office .
65.
PPS7.2004. Planning policy statement 7: Sustainable development in rural areas. Communities and Local Government. London: HM Stationery Office.
66.
Pyykkonen, M.2007. Integrating governmentality. Administrative expectations for immigrant associations in the integration of immigrants in Finland. Alternatives32:197-224.
67.
Reece, D.2004. Mobile phone operators still waiting for the third generation . Review. The Independent , 18 May.
68.
Rose, N.1996. Governing ‘‘Advanced’’ liberal democracies. In Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government, ed. A. Barry, T. Osborne, and N. Rose.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
69.
Rose, N., and C. Novas.2005. Biological citizenship. In Global assemblages: Technology, politics and ethics as anthropological problems , ed. A. Ong and S. Collier, 439-63. Oxford: Blackwell.
70.
Schofield Clark, L., C. Demont-Heinrich, and S.A. Webber.2004. Ethnographic Interviews on the Digital Divide. New Media & Society6:529-47.
71.
Simpson, L., L. Daws, B. Pini, and W. Leanne.2003. Rural telework: Case studies from theAustralian outback. New Technology, Work and Employment18:115-26.
72.
Soneryd, L.2007. Deliberations on the unknown, the unsensed and the unsayable? Public protests and the development of third-generation mobile phones in Sweden . Science, Technology, & Human Values32:287-314.
73.
Stilgoe, J.2007. The (Co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific evidence on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science16:45-61.
74.
Timotijevic, L., and J. Barnett.2006. Managing the possible health risks of mobile telecommunications: Public understandings of precautionary action and advice. Health, Risk & Society8:143-64.
75.
Tutton, R.2007. Constructing participation in genetic databases: Citizenship, governance, and ambivalence. Science, Technology, & Human Values32:172-95.
76.
Tytler, R., S. Duggan, and R. Gott.2001. Public participation in an environmental dispute: Implications for science education. Public Understanding of Science10: 343-64.
77.
Walton, W.2002. The changing regulation of mobile-phone mast development in a devolved United Kingdom. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design29:687-705.
78.
Ward, N., and P. Lowe.1999. Insecurities in contemporary country life. In Insecure Times, ed. J. Vail, 155-70. London: Routledge.
79.
White, M.P., J.R. Eiser, P.R. Harris, and S. Pahl.2007. Who reaps the benefits, who bears the risk? Comparative optimism, comparative utility and regulatory preferences for mobile phone technology. Risk Analysis27:741-53.
80.
Woods, M.2003a. Conflicting environmental visions of the rural: Windfarm development in Mid Wales. Sociologia Ruralis43:271-88.
81.
Woods, M.2003b. Deconstructing rural protest: The emergence of a new social movement. Journal of Rural Studies19:309-25.
