In sociolinguistics, the notion of (in)securitization has recently been proposed as a heuristic lens through which to better understand how everyday practices of surveillance and lived experiences of vulnerability are mediated through linguistic means (Rampton and Charalambous 2020). While sociolinguistic research informed by (in)securitization has offered nuanced analyses of the complex ways in which language(s) produce (in)security, this body of work has largely neglected to consider how more intimate domains such as sexual and romantic relations may also become charged spaces of (in)securitization. Against this backdrop, the aim of this talk is twofold. Firstly, I will give empirical examples of the role played by multilingualism in the (in)securitization of sexual and romantic intimacy in the context of the ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Palestine. Secondly, on a more conceptual level, I draw upon work in geography (Ritchie 2010) to advance the notion of the checkpoint as an analytical tool through which to theorize more precisely the discursive accomplishment of (self-)surveillance. The point I want to make is that checkpoints are not only external barriers that determine the kinetic regulation of people and goods; they can also be internalized “technologies of the Self” (Foucault 1988) and “structures of feeling” (Williams 1977) that regiment how people police themselves, their identities and their emotional attachments to others in everyday interactions. And, as I will show, multilingualism can play a key function in regulating the interactional push-and-pull of desire in relation to (in)securitization. 

Tommaso M. Milani is George C. and Jane G. Greer Professor of Applied Linguistics, Jewish Studies, African Studies, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at The Pennsylvania State University. His research aims to understand how power (in)balances are reproduced and contested through meaning-making resources (language, visuality, the body etc.). While identifying strongly with the intellectual tradition of critical discourse analysis, he is not committed to a single theoretical paradigm. In his analyses of language and power he has drawn upon different theoretical frameworks, which include language ideology, intersectionality, queer theory, southern/decolonial perspectives and theories of affect.

THIS IS AN IN-PERSON ONLY EVENT.