📖
Week 2: The Concept and Study
of Security (Reading Notes)
Created By
Last Edited
C
Cecilia Cain
@Jan 19, 2020 2:25 PM
Tags
Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? by Roland Paris
Summary: Literature review comparing the scholarly and practical field literature
surrounding the concept of "human security."
Paris does actually have an argument here, though that is not always present or clearly
stated in a lit review: "Human security does not offer a particularly useful framework of
analysis for scholars and policymakers."
Basically, Paris' point is that the existing literature on human security does not define
it very concisely at all. Most definitions, by scholars and the UN, are so broad that they
could count basically any problem, from a minor inconvenience (like a minor traffic
accident) up to an entire genocide as a threat to human security. The ambiguity of the
existing definitions of human security is helpful, in a way, because it has allowed a
coalition of actors to form in the name of protecting human security that would
normally not necessarily find their goals in alignment. By defining this concept more
narrowly, we could break up this coalition and turn the actors against each other.
We could try and focus on specific aspects of all these broad, vague definitions for the
sake of forming a more concise, uniform definition of human security, but that would
be a problematic endeavor. As mentioned above, it could alienate members of groups
that have been forming to protect human security, in that if we define certain aspects
of human security (say, economic security, or social, or psychological, etc.), we could
prioritize the interests of certain actors above others, and therefore break the unity of
the group. They are able to work together now specifically because the definition of
Week 2 The Concept and Study of Security Reading Notes)
1
human security is so broad that it allows them to all throw their interests together
under the same, wide umbrella.
Paris' suggestion is to define human security as a separate branch of security studies
defined by military and nonmilitary threats to subgroups within a state. Traditional
security scholarship has focused on the state as the primary recipient of security, but
with IR and security studies specifically becoming more complex and expansive as
technology develops and new security threats arise, it is time to think about security
on a different level.
Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier by Jef
Huysmans
Argument: "Although the debate on expanding the security agenda to non-military
sectors and non-state [actors] launched an interesting discussion about the security
(studies) agenda, it has not really dealt with the meaning of security." It has added
adjectives like "societal" and "environmental" without addressing the meaning of the
noun, "security," itself. Huysmans advocates for a "thick signifier" approach (which will
be explained later on in the article) as a way to address the "double security
problematic," or the ability to address both daily security and ontological security.
Introduction: Looking for the meaning of security, IR seems like the place to go.
Huysmans points out that that isn't necessarily true. There are multiple definitions of
security across the literature, and there continues to be a lack of consensus among
those definitions. In the past few decades, there has been a debate among IR scholars
of whether the concept of security should be expanded from it's traditional state- and
military-centric conceptualization. The question is whether the study of security
should be expanded across new sectors (environmental, economic, societal) and new
actors (states, sub-state groups, individuals).
Huysmans seems to be arguing that the conception of security within this debate is too
narrow. That's interesting, because Paris seems to be arguing the opposite: that it is
too vague and ambiguous to be a useful definition. Huysmans' argument is that the
current debate has not addressed the question of what security means; we are just
adding modifiers to it (environmental, global, human, etc.) to the word without
addressing what that core concept actually means. The solution here is to move away
Week 2 The Concept and Study of Security Reading Notes)
2
from security as a concept or definition, and move towards security as a "thick
signifier."
What the hell does "thick signifier" mean? According to Google, a signifier is "a sign's
physical form (such as a sound, printed word, or image) as distinct from its meaning."
Huysmans' explanation confuses me a little, to be honest (begins page 228). He says
"the signifier receives its meaning through its differences from other signifiers." What?
The Concept of Security by David A. Baldwin
Argument: Goal of the article is to create a conceptualization of security as separate
from "the normative and empirical concerns" that have lately overwhelmed it. Baldwin
is attempting to "identify common conceptual distinctions underlying various
conceptions of security."
Identifying these common elements is useful for three reasons:
1. Facilitates the asking of the most basic question of social science, which is "Of what
is this an instance?"
2. Promotes rational policy analysis by facilitating comparison of one type of security
with another.
3. Facilitates scholarly communication by establishing common ground with those of
different views.
Conceptual analysis: Conceptual analysis is concerned with clarifying the meaning of
concepts. It is not concerned with constructing or testing hypotheses, though it can be
useful to both of those practices. Clear concepts are important for establishing a
common point of reference for policymakers and scholars who might otherwise debate
over the definition of a concept, as opposed to discussing an actual issue.
The "explication" of concepts is confined to a set of criteria as defined by Oppenheim:
1. Concepts should be operational in the broadest sense, though not necessarily
requiring quantification.
2. Concepts that establish "definitional" connections with other terms are preferred.
3. Concepts that draw attention to potentially-overlooked theoretical aspects of
subject matter are preferred.
Week 2 The Concept and Study of Security Reading Notes)
3
4. Concepts should not hinder empirical investigation by making true "by definition"
that which should be open to empirical inquiry.
5. Concepts should use ordinary language when possible.
Security as a neglected concept: Scholars have been lamenting the lack of a
conceptual analysis of security since the 50s. Considering there have been many
attempts to "redefine" security since the end of the Cold War, some question whether
security is truly a neglected concept. Firstly, security is a concept that has been used to
justify suspending civil liberties, making war, and massively reallocating resources in
the last half a century. Even though there have been many scholarly works addressing
it, it is safe to argue that security as a concept received far less attention than it
deserved in the last years. Secondly, the most recent works of scholarship on security
would not really count as a conceptual analysis as defined in the last section.
Security as a contested concept: Contested concepts are said to be so value-laden
that no amount of argument or evidence can ever lead to agreement on a single version
as "correct or standard use." It is hard to determine if security really is one such
concept. Is it an appraisive concept? Neorealists would think so, with security being
the goal of all states, and the state that has the most security being the one that "wins"
at the game of international politics, according to neorealists. Others, like Wolfers,
would view security not as the end goal of all states, but something that different
states assign different values to. As such, saying that one state has more security than
another does not make that state "better" than others. Does the term security generate
vigorous disputes as to its nature and its applicability to various cases? That's another
key requirement for a contested concept. Baldwin claims that the current security
studies literature is lacking serious conceptual debate. Different schools of thought
might have different conceptualizations of security, but they do not necessarily debate
it; according to Baldwin, they merely ignore other conceptualizations. Many writers do
not even offer a description of the concept, or if they do, they do not offer their
reasoning for applying that specific definition. Baldwin claims that security is likely
not an essentially contested concept, but more a "confused" or "inadequately
explicated" one.
The value of security:
1. Prime value approach - One way to determine the value of security is to ask what
life would be like without it. Many scholars would argue that security is a
prerequisite for the enjoyment of other values such as freedom, prosperity, or
Week 2 The Concept and Study of Security Reading Notes)
4
equality. This argument falls apart when you ask that Hobbesian question with
regard to other necessities such as clean air, water, food, shelter, etc. The answer is
pretty much the same for each of these as it is for security, and as such, an
argument for the "primacy" of each of these things can be made. The prime value
approach, then is both logically and empirically indefensible. It is flawed logically
because it provides no justification for limiting the allocation of resources to
security in a world where absolute security is unattainable. Empirically it is flawed
because it does not match the way people actually behave. People have been
willing to sacrifice some amount of security in pursuit of other necessities since
prehistoric times.
2. Core value approach - The core values approach makes room for other values by
asserting that security is one of several important "core" values. This approach
doesn't totally mitigate the logical and empirical issues of the prime value
approach, because there is still some justification needed as to the classification of
some values as core values and others as non-core values. And if core values are
always more important than non-core values, then this approach cannot justify
allocating any resources to non-core values at all.
3. Marginal value approach - This approach is rooted in the assumption that the law
of diminishing marginal utility is as applicable to security as it is to other values.
The value of an increment of something is determinant on how much of that
something someone already has. According to this approach, security is one of
many policy objectives competing for scare resources and subject to the law of
diminishing returns. The value of an increment of national security to a country
will vary from one country to another depending on context. Rational
policymakers will allocate resources to security only as long as the marginal return
is greater for security than for the other uses of resources.
Week 2 The Concept and Study of Security Reading Notes)
5