I, Booth, and Security.

 

My family runs a security firm. Our services range from contracting watchmen for residential buildings, to providing security to film stars and other influential personalities. Upon reading Ken Booth’s paper titled “Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist” and learning about his theory of understanding security as emancipation, I shifted my focus from inspecting the world outside, to introspecting[1]. So here I set out on a quest to become the most influential writer of the 21^st century in the field of Security Studies redefining the very meaning of security!

I never thought how we, as a security firm, came to a particular definition of security. Was it thought of from our perspective, that is, from the providers perspective, or the receiver’s perspective? Does being secure mean protection from physical harm; or freedom to do what one wishes to do, when one wishes to do and develop/grow in a way one wants to? Did the receiver want to be ‘protected’ or was the protection forced upon them? Often times, celebrities hire our firm to protect their wards even when they do not want a security detail. In a way, protection is forced upon them. It becomes much more difficult to protect/secure an entity in such a scenario, as they tend to rebel. Thus, being secure is not always a positive phenomenon. Is it still security if it limits one’s choices and options instead of increasing them? Does being secure always entail giving up on something? Furthermore, if it is mental security, job security, or food security that one needs, why can’t it be provided by our ‘security firm?’. Since ancient times, ‘security’ has been mostly synonymous with ‘protection’. It is a protection firm that we run, and not a security firm.

Klossner , John. “Security Approach .” Technology Cartoons, John Klossner , Jan. 2020, jklossner.com. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.

Security for the individual, from the perspective of an individual is what has been discussed above. But to a certain extent, the above-mentioned deliberations can be juxtaposed in a multilateral setting. For example, the Budapest Memorandum perhaps did not boost Ukraine’s sense of security as much as it did for the Americas, Britain, and Russia. Or when India intervened in the Sri Lankan Civil war, it went in to provide security to the Sri Lankan people and to conduct peacekeeping operations. With an aim to end the civil war, the Indian military fought numerous wars against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), helping the Sri Lankan military. Depending on the individual, India’s intervention meant better security, or increased threat. If you were a Sri Lankan Tamil, you wouldn’t consider this action as bolstering security, but rather a threat. What I am coming at is, security is relative. When understanding security as emancipation[2], and thus placing supreme importance upon the individual, the different notions of security can be seen clearly. It is the individual- embedded in a particular setting (a Sri Lankan Tamil, a Ukrainian, a Russian, etc) that defines what security means for them. In my previous blog I talked about how a particular phenomenon (food security) is deemed to be a security issue. This kind of meaning making is done by the state and never the individual. However, what security means for different bodies is in the hands of the individual.

Klossner , John. “Security Responsibility .” Technology Cartoons, John Klossner , Jun. 2020, jklossner.com. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.

If our minds are the accumulation of all the experiences we have encountered till date, we are all bound to have different thought processes. Consequently, we will all arrive at different meanings for a common phenomenon. Are economic policies that benefit only a few sections of society a source of insecurity for the people that are affected negatively by the policy? Is a person’s security threatened if he/she is not able to educate themselves? Is it threatening to a fisherman if they are gradually catching smaller numbers of fish? When one focuses on the embedded individual as the ultimate referent object, the meaning of security can be wide-ranging. Thus, Booth arrives at a definition that one is secure when one is not hampered by physical or human constraints which would stop them from what they would freely choose to do[3].

Back to the question of how security is understood by the individual and how it is understood by the state. The Russian Federation invaded Ukraine with the aim to bolster its ‘national security’. But an individual citizen from Russia will perhaps feel less secure due to the nation’s actions as he/she is now at an increased risk of attack from rival nations. Feminist scholars have pointed out that national security and the individual’s security do not always go hand in hand. Those Russian citizens who had assets and money overseas, are facing a seizure of their accounts. In retaliation, Russia has announced to seize foreigners’ funds inside Russian territory.[4] Positivist and Realist theorizers will not focus on this individualistic aspect of the war. They would be more interested in the overall economic, military, and diplomatic effects of the war, taking the nations as referent objects. Less than 45% of Russian citizens are in favour of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These individuals cumulatively form the nation. It is in the hands of the theorizer how the theory is theorized. An informed feminist scholar or a critical studies scholar will allot most importance to the individual, while not disregarding the state-centric view at the same time. Furthermore, mainstream scholars fail to pay due attention to the often-violent time-periods between so called spells of ‘war’ and ‘peace’[5].  

International relations as a discipline, narrowly conceived, is largely unconcerned with activities that occur within the state, and within the ‘self’[6]. Minimally, feminist, and other critical approaches to IR seek to correct such disciplinary myopia[7]. Theories are never perfect, and neither are theorizers. One could argue that it is so because theorizers seldom self-introspect. Just the way I chose a football team at the age of 12 and decided to support it all my life, sometimes theorizers are exposed to one school of thought at the perfect time and end up looking at the world just through that peephole (Booth and Realism for a while). The field of Security studies will undoubtedly benefit if its veteran scholars were to delve into the reasons behind why they think a certain way. I end my musings with this utopian vision.

---

[1] Booth, Ken. “Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist.” YorkSpace Library, YCISS Occasional Paper Paper 26, 1994, https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/1414/YCI0073.pdf?sequence=1.  

[2] Nunes, João. “Reclaiming the Political: Emancipation and Critique in Security Studies.” Security Dialogue, vol. 43, no. 4, 2012, pp. 345–361., https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010612450747.  

[3] Ibid.

[4] Al Arabiya English. “Russia to Seize Foreigners' Funds in Retaliation: RIA.” \26 Feb. 2022, https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/02/26/Russia-to-seize-foreigners-funds-in-retaliation-RIA.  

[5] Shepherd, Laura J. “Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies.” Political Studies Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 2009, pp. 208–219., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2009.00180.x.  

[6] Booth, Ken. “Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist.” YorkSpace Library, YCISS Occasional Paper Paper 26, 1994, https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/1414/YCI0073.pdf?sequence=1.  

[7] Shepherd, Laura J. “Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies.” Political Studies Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 2009, pp. 208–219., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2009.00180.x.