19108486
International Masters Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies (IMSISS)
Week 1: Where and in what ways have you recently experienced ‘security’?
Williams, P.D. (2008) ‘Security Studies: An Introduction’ in P.D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An
Introduction (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 1-11.
Baldwin, D. (1997) ‘The Concept of Security’, Review of International Studies 23(1): 5-26.
Topline: Questions how the ontology has developed away from usable conceptualisations of security,
tries to make so that the concept itself is scrutinised, away from “normative and empirical concerns” rather
than looking at proponent of security under the traditional/overarching macro structure of the nation state:
a “new thinking” on security
● Not so much “essentially contested” as “insufficiently explicated”
● The semantics of security obfuscate what is at stake, so he tries to clarify a framework to think
about this as well as arguing why the concept of security needs to be refashioned describing it as
“neglected” (but rejects Buzan’s arguments for why they are neglected).
● Wolfers (1952) is used as a lens for viewing the argument in the light of national security
● What means, what costs, against what? Also looks at the temporal element, as well as
approaching it in terms of relativity (ie critiquing it using Midas and Hobbes; the more secuirty you
have the more you take it for granted “value of an increment of something depends on how much
of it one has”); therefore the desire for absolute security is not in question- urgency and
arguments for primacy negate the rational policy use of security
● Vouches for a new scientific method (Oppenheimer) to inject rigour into the system:
operationalisation, definitional and factual connections, Not precluding empirical investigation and
Ordinary language.
Booth, K. (1997) ‘Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist’, in K. Krause and M.Williams
(eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1997). E-book also available
● The self is the referent object, and history has been written wrong since the Cold War, as there
have been theorists lost by the wayside, in favour of arguments which err towards the braindead.
● IR sits within a larger sociological framework wherein personal identity is crucial; there are always
two sides to every coin (audience, receiver, nature, nuture etc.) therefore, a security crisis comes
from personal interests just as identity crises manifest (me vs I dichotomy)
● Ergo, realism is a manifestation of a time and place just the same ie. media outlets push out news
and academics must mine these amongst other sources to justify
● “Reality is in the eye of the beholder”: not just the macro that needs to be considered, but security
at an immediate level. The personal is political, coming from 1970s influence.
● The nature of critical security studies rejects traditional security theory in its methodologies,
referent objects, who should be securitised under it/people who it is applicable to etc.
● Booth believes that this is a move towards a nobler science, a “search for meaning” rather than
academia for the sake of knowledge: “Fundamentally, it is a struggle about the focus, direction,
and meaning of the study of `international relations' at the end of one era and the beginning of
another. To the extent that this branch of academic life has influence, it is literally a struggle over
the world views of Western opinion.”
Further Reading
Booth, K. (2005) (ed.). Critical Security Studies and World Politics (London: Lynne Rienner).
C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006) ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’, Security
Dialogue 37(4): 443-487
International Masters Security, Intelligence and Strategic Studies (IMSISS)
Week 1: Where and in what ways have you recently experienced ‘security’?
Williams, P.D. (2008) ‘Security Studies: An Introduction’ in P.D. Williams (ed.), Security Studies: An
Introduction (Oxford: Routledge), pp. 1-11.
Baldwin, D. (1997) ‘The Concept of Security’, Review of International Studies 23(1): 5-26.
Topline: Questions how the ontology has developed away from usable conceptualisations of security,
tries to make so that the concept itself is scrutinised, away from “normative and empirical concerns” rather
than looking at proponent of security under the traditional/overarching macro structure of the nation state:
a “new thinking” on security
● Not so much “essentially contested” as “insufficiently explicated”
● The semantics of security obfuscate what is at stake, so he tries to clarify a framework to think
about this as well as arguing why the concept of security needs to be refashioned describing it as
“neglected” (but rejects Buzan’s arguments for why they are neglected).
● Wolfers (1952) is used as a lens for viewing the argument in the light of national security
● What means, what costs, against what? Also looks at the temporal element, as well as
approaching it in terms of relativity (ie critiquing it using Midas and Hobbes; the more secuirty you
have the more you take it for granted “value of an increment of something depends on how much
of it one has”); therefore the desire for absolute security is not in question- urgency and
arguments for primacy negate the rational policy use of security
● Vouches for a new scientific method (Oppenheimer) to inject rigour into the system:
operationalisation, definitional and factual connections, Not precluding empirical investigation and
Ordinary language.
Booth, K. (1997) ‘Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist’, in K. Krause and M.Williams
(eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1997). E-book also available
● The self is the referent object, and history has been written wrong since the Cold War, as there
have been theorists lost by the wayside, in favour of arguments which err towards the braindead.
● IR sits within a larger sociological framework wherein personal identity is crucial; there are always
two sides to every coin (audience, receiver, nature, nuture etc.) therefore, a security crisis comes
from personal interests just as identity crises manifest (me vs I dichotomy)
● Ergo, realism is a manifestation of a time and place just the same ie. media outlets push out news
and academics must mine these amongst other sources to justify
● “Reality is in the eye of the beholder”: not just the macro that needs to be considered, but security
at an immediate level. The personal is political, coming from 1970s influence.
● The nature of critical security studies rejects traditional security theory in its methodologies,
referent objects, who should be securitised under it/people who it is applicable to etc.
● Booth believes that this is a move towards a nobler science, a “search for meaning” rather than
academia for the sake of knowledge: “Fundamentally, it is a struggle about the focus, direction,
and meaning of the study of `international relations' at the end of one era and the beginning of
another. To the extent that this branch of academic life has influence, it is literally a struggle over
the world views of Western opinion.”
Further Reading
Booth, K. (2005) (ed.). Critical Security Studies and World Politics (London: Lynne Rienner).
C.A.S.E. Collective. (2006) ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’, Security
Dialogue 37(4): 443-487
