Naively, you have two options when presented with an arbitrary yet enforceable rule. Do as required, or don't participate. This dichotomy answers the "why do we agree" question... If we want to stand on the other side of the security apparatus, we perform as requested. If we don't, we don't have to bother with that mode of travel.
Unfortunately, none of the participants in this process (on either side) are empowered or interested in discussing why the rule exists. Merely that it's followed.
Naively, you have two options when presented with an arbitrary yet enforceable rule. Do as required, or don't participate. This dichotomy answers the "why do we agree" question... If we want to stand on the other side of the security apparatus, we perform as requested. If we don't, we don't have to bother with that mode of travel.
Unfortunately, none of the participants in this process (on either side) are empowered or interested in discussing why the rule exists. Merely that it's followed.
While the anthropological perspective is admittedly interesting, there are two premises to this article that seem to be false:
1) You no longer have to remove shoes at the airport in the US.
2) There are plenty of people who reject this entire process and just stopped flying.