Emancipation and the reality of security: A reconstructive agenda

TY - CHAP

T1 - Emancipation and the reality of security

T2 - A reconstructive agenda

AU - Nunes, João

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2015 selection and editorial material, Thierry Balzacq. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2014/11/28

Y1 - 2014/11/28

N2 - Introduction: contestation and critique The idea that security should be rendered problematic is one of the commitments of critical security studies (krause and Williams 1997; Peoples and VaughanWilliams 2010).1 Since its inception, this body of literature has questioned commonsensical meanings of ‘security’ and ‘threat’. Indeed, one of the assumptions of the critical literature is that the knowledge about security is the result of social and political processes. Securitization theory, one of the foremost critical approaches, took this insight further by arguing that the very reality of security should be placed under scrutiny (Wæver 1995). Securitization scholars refused to see security as an objective reality, arguing instead that ‘security’ should be approached as an intersubjective process between a securitizing actor and an audience that results in a specific modality for dealing with issues. This insight led many authors to investigate what the security modality does or entails, that is, the consequences of using a security perspective to frame and deal with issues. This proved to be a very popular line of enquiry; in some places, it has arguably become mainstream (Croft 2007, 508).2 It signalled the shift from a concern with security towards an analysis of securitization moves. By differentiating security (as a condition of absence of threats) and securitization (the processes through which issues emerge as threats), securitization theory has impacted upon critical security studies in profound ways.

AB - Introduction: contestation and critique The idea that security should be rendered problematic is one of the commitments of critical security studies (krause and Williams 1997; Peoples and VaughanWilliams 2010).1 Since its inception, this body of literature has questioned commonsensical meanings of ‘security’ and ‘threat’. Indeed, one of the assumptions of the critical literature is that the knowledge about security is the result of social and political processes. Securitization theory, one of the foremost critical approaches, took this insight further by arguing that the very reality of security should be placed under scrutiny (Wæver 1995). Securitization scholars refused to see security as an objective reality, arguing instead that ‘security’ should be approached as an intersubjective process between a securitizing actor and an audience that results in a specific modality for dealing with issues. This insight led many authors to investigate what the security modality does or entails, that is, the consequences of using a security perspective to frame and deal with issues. This proved to be a very popular line of enquiry; in some places, it has arguably become mainstream (Croft 2007, 508).2 It signalled the shift from a concern with security towards an analysis of securitization moves. By differentiating security (as a condition of absence of threats) and securitization (the processes through which issues emerge as threats), securitization theory has impacted upon critical security studies in profound ways.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85052668447&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4324/9780203079850-18

DO - 10.4324/9780203079850-18

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85052668447

SN - 9780415643863

T3 - PRIO New Security Studies

SP - 141

EP - 153

BT - Contesting Security

PB - Taylor & Francis

ER -