Suchergebnisse

This reader brings together key contributions from many of the leading scholars in the field, offering students an informed overview of the most significant work in security studies.The editors chart the development of the key theoretical and empirical debates in security studies in the Cold War and post-Cold War periods, introducing the ideas of the most influential 'past masters' and contemporary thinkers on security in the UK, US and elsewhere. The book is divided into five areas: What is Security? Security Paradigms Security Dimensions and Issues Security Frameworks and Actors The Future o

Security studies has been slow to accept critical challenges to its problematic, and these have often been met with hostility and deliberately marginalized. This article responds to some of the critiques, and outlines the main elements of a critical engagement with security studies. It discusses the intellectual and `disciplining' power of rationalist and neorealist security studies scholarship, and highlights some of the practices that marginalize critical scholarship. It then overviews the rich and diverse threads of current research within `critical security studies', and emphasizes the central themes of its research agenda: how threats and appropriate responses are constructed; how the `objects' of security are constructed; and what the possibilities are for the transformation of `security dilemmas'. It summarizes the six central claims (concerning the constitution of the actors of world politics, its dynamic and constructed nature, the concomitant epistemological claims and methodological tools, and the purpose of theorizing) that are the hallmark of a critical approach to security studies. Finally, it clarifies what these claims do and do not entail for research and practice in international security studies.

A concluding chapter outlines a critical theory of security that has the potential to meet the challenges of today's complex world. The conceptual framework is based on the critical theory tradition established by the Frankfurt School & the radical tradition in international relations theory. Four themes that emerge from critical theory tradition are: 1) knowledge is a social process; 2) there are serious flaws in naturalism & reductionism; 3) critical theory provides a basis for political/social progress: 4) the test of theory is emancipation. Four themes that emerge from radical international relations tradition are: A) human society is its own invention; B) politics among nations has been dominated by regressive theories; C) the state & other institutions must be denaturalized; D) progressive world order values should inform an international politics committed to improving world security. An examination of the contending approaches of feminism, postmodernism/poststructuralism, securitization studies, & constructivism is followed by a look at the importance of pluralism & the policy-relevant nature of this framework of critical security theory. J. Lindroth

Security Studies: Critical Perspectives introduces the analysis of security from critical and interdisciplinary perspectives. Taking a student-centred approach to understanding contemporary security themes and cases, it provides an accessible set of analytic steps so that students develop the critical thinking skills and confidence to ask important questions about security and our worlds in contemporary politics. Common-sense security assumptions that reproduce forms of oppression and domination are revealed and their justifications decentred while perspectives inclusive of class, gender and sexualities, ethnicity and race, religion, disability, culture and ideology, political belonging, and the global south are introduced. In doing so, the authors combine critical analysis with concrete empirical issues that connect students to the social and political worlds around them.

 Yesterday, I participated in a roundtable on gender discrimination in security studies at the annual conference of the European Initiative on Security Studies [EISS].  EISS is a relatively new network of European security scholars.  This is, I believe, my third time attending, as I have been seeking to build connections between the CDSN and Europe.  It doesn't hurt, of course, that the EISS conferences have been in Paris, Berlin, and now Barcelona.  I presented my very preliminary work on the next project--variations in what Defense Agencies (DoD, MoD, etc) do, receiving lots of very helpful comments during that panel and the lunch that preceded it.  A couple of months ago, Hugo Meijer, the Director of EISS, asked me if I would be willing to join a panel on gender discrimination.  I had some hesistancy as I am not an expert--as I told the room yesterday, I am a feminist but my work does not take feminist approach to international relations and I don't study gender.  That last bit is not as true as it used to be, as I am involved in a project that has surveyed Canadian security scholars about their experiences, focusing on gender discrimination.  But I agreed to speak since I have seen a lot of problems over the years and was going to be the most experienced (oldest) person on the panel.  Plus I was the only one to give a North American perspective.  I was joined by fellow civ-mil scholar and super kind Chiara Ruffa of Science Po as well as two feminist scholars who were online: Annick Wibben of Swedish Defence University, and Vanessa Newby, Leiden University. We were asked two questions: when did we first notice gender problems in the field and what is some advice we have for handling this stuff?  The first question was pretty easy: almost immediately as there was a case of sexual harassment in my grad program.  I then discussed that two of the places that I worked had toxic environments thanks to male profs preying upon grad students, as well as citation patterns and hiring stuff.  That men have often reported that women get all of the jobs, which is strange since there are still plenty of men in the discipline.  I didn't have time to get into the love of old boys networks by some senior scholars or how some post-doc funders tended to only give to men back in the day.  In short, lots of problems which I have discussed here from time to time.  Chiara, Annick, and Vanessa had much more to say on this, alas.  For the second question, I cautioned that I can't really tell women how to behave--not my role--but I had some ideas for making some improvements--building from my CDSN experience--to be deliberate about panel organization--no manels, deny platforms to those who are known to be predators or otherwise assholes, find or found organizations that seek to elevate and mentor women and work with them, as we have with WIIS-Canada, WCAPS-Canada, as well as Out in National Security such as WIIS Europe.  In the following Q&A, folks raised questions about the pace of change and what can we do in the face of structural problems.  I mentioned this meme:  But then I noted an earlier presentation that day invoked structuration theory (something I wrote about in my very first IR theory class in grad school, taught be the gone too soon John Ruggie)--that agent and structure shape each other.   So, we need to act individually and collectively to change the norms, the institutions, and the social structures that, well, maintain patriarchy.  I pointed out that when I started, the room would have been almost entirely male, and that EISS and CDSN are efforts to foster more diverse defence/security communities.  These folks have a right to be impatient, but we ought not be too pessimistic or deterred--we can make a difference and improve things.   It was a good and important conversation to have, and I hope it spurs further conversations.  It was strange to be discussing this stuff on a day where the US Supreme Court made things worse for women, for LGBTQ2S+, and for other historically excluded groups... but definitely much needed.