Maria Stupakova (4928646)
Critical Reflection Report
Goldstein’s main premise of the article “Toward a Critical Anthropology of Security”, is to offer the
reader with ethnographical, yet contemporary explorations of themes such as connections between
security discourse and practice, human and civil rights, and the entailments of neoliberalism.
Goldstein points out, that after 9/11, people, especially in America, started to be more aware of
security threats, the homeland defence became crucial and it triggered various global events such as
extensive surveillance of potential threats, investigations of security breaches and interventions to
“terrorist fostering” regions. The 9/11 is identified as a “post-liberal” moment, when the security
reached new, prominent position in the society. Therefore, the need to explore Security and
Neoliberalism from ethnographical point is important to get an overview on how these terms got redefined through the history.
What is security? International scholars perceive security as interplay between state as securitymaking entity, and security, as a means to legitimate the state. “Traditionalists” define security with
the means of military affairs, highlighting the elite position of defence with the state. However, what
if the nation itself poses a threat to itself? “Wideners” present an opposition to traditionalists,
claiming that threats in various areas are worthy of “security designs”. Security is viewed as a
response to anything and everything that can be perceived as a threat to society or a state. Copenhagen
scholars explain security as a “process of constructing a collective understanding of something as a
particular kind of danger, an existential threat to state” (Goldsten, 2010, p. 492).
However, the themes of security were not developed after the 9/11 events. The history of security is
extensive and important, so we can have a broader perspective to understanding contemporary
meaning of these terms. Goldberg argues that security was in fact central concept of nations and
states, since the very beginning of these concepts. One of the most famous and well-known definitions
of security of that of Thomas Hobbes, as defined in the book The Leviathan. Hobbes viewed security
as a basic function of a state, where people of the state surrender certain freedoms to be protected by
set state. However, fear was used as a political idea, that through fear, state could manipulate its
citizens. Montesquieu, reacting on Louis XIV’s regime (17th century France) proposed, that power
of the state can be limited, if mediation organisations would be created, that would compete with one
another for power. The fear of despotism should inspire people to choose a more liberal state that
would prevent absolutism. However, as Goldstein points out, liberal state, similarly to absolutist state,
is capable of using fear to manipulate people in order to maintain state’s legitimacy. Marx, on the
other hand, perceived fear and conflict as byproducts of capitalism, where state derives its power
from the conflict created by competition fot wealth and property.
Goldstein argues the understanding of the ethnographic development of security is crucial to
understand human rights in today’s neoliberal society, After WW2, security, or more-less national
security started to appeal to various state regimes. After Cold War, dictatorships turned to
democracies and state-led business model was replaced by free-trade. Applying this to Latin America,
neoliberal state model brought “greater income inequality, expanding poverty, diminution of the state
and social services, rising unemployment and mounting crime and violence” (Goldsten, 2010, p. 491).
Goldberg’s research in Bolivia and Latin America suggests decline in neoliberalism and rise of
security paradigm. This is because the current “right to security” is misused by the states in Latin
America, where states often abuse the term “security” to violate human rights.
Second article by Hönke and Müller (2012) explores the (in)security in postcolonial world. They
focus on Westernism and explain, that “Western” perspective assumes that methods and concepts
(including Security Studies) that were empirically developed on the basis of Western experiences can
be universally applied on the governance of security abroad. This is in line with the Golstein’s article
Maria Stupakova (4928646)
(2010), addressing shortcomings of contemporary neoliberalism applied in non-western (in this case
Latin America and Bolivia) states.
Postcoloniality refers to unequal power relations that stemmed from colonialism, but are present long
after as well. It represents an “us” vs. “inferior” constructs. This taxonomy is used to explain,
understand and “improve” the rest of the world. The “improve” is based on polarised and hierarchical
representation of the knowledge production - known as Occidentalism. Actions of Western actors in
colonies are shaped and transformed via various interactions. For example, Latin American security
apparatuses (in this case Argentina) remodelled US and French doctrines for their own practical
needs. It is implied, that colonising countries are not in fact interested in the improvement and
betterment of colonies through implications of own security systems, they rather interested in
economic and political importance of colonies and maintenance of colonial rule and power.
With regards to Erika Robb Larkins and book The Spectacular Favela (2015), author demonstrates
how violence is produced via spectacle in Rio’s largest favela (low-income settlement). Practices
concerning land and slave ownership of the elite class in the past continue to influence class and racial
hierarchy in modern Brazil. Favelas are an example of marginalisation of Brazilian society, where
people living in these settlements represent as a hindrance to urban development. They are
characteristic with the lack of governance, which creates alienated youth that turns to drug trafficking
as a means to obtain capital and financial solvency. Author’s information Beto provides a valuable
insight into this topic. As a former member of Special Forces, he joined drug trafficking organisation
to resolve “hunger” (as he claimed), obtain financial security and honor (as Larkins claimed). In the
Rocinha favela, drug traffickers maintain order through “socially acceptable” punishments. Residents
repay this with their silence about drug traffickers. This way, however, drug traffickers reinforce
structural violence.
Reading Questions
1) Can you describe the effects of 9/11 on the perceptions of Security and on the Neoliberalism?
2) How do you understand the Occidentalism, or the “improvement” movements of West towards
colonies?
References
Goldstein, Daniel. 2010. “Toward a Critical Anthropology of Security.” Current
Anthropology 51, no. 4: 487-517.
Hӧnke, Jana, and Markus-Michael Muller. 2012. “Governing (in)security in a postcolonial world:
Transnational entanglements and the worldliness of ‘local ’practice.” Security Dialogue 43,
no. 5: 383-401.
Robb Larkins, Introduction and chapter 1 (pg. 1-54).