Sense of 'self' & ‘security’ as Epistemological & ontological Darwinism

 

My self-understanding (shaped by worldly experiences) interprets & constitutes the reality out there. Humans through a different understanding of self, make sense of reality. It is also true for the understanding of security. Previously, due to exposure to dominant views (dominant knowledge production), I had limited & less inclusive understanding. The course structure first introduced us to realist theories focusing on state, military & war. It viewed security in a negative sense (absence of threats). But with time, exposure to critical theories talking about inequality, bias & hierarchy I gained an inclusive understanding of security which is much more positive.

Hailing from a village (in Lakhimpur Kheri) in the Terai region of the Indo-Gangetic plain, I have witnessed deprivation among the people around me (tribes/ Banjaras & Dalit community in my village) as part of my childhood experiences. I thought these hardships were normal. But when I moved to Lucknow to study in a residential school & eventually as I currently pursue my under-graduation studies, I have come to realize my privileges. Exposure to critical thinking & my personal experiences has come to shape my views. Now, I realize my self-understanding does define my vantage point and the theories I associate with and use to understand the world (seen as objective reality out there but isn’t). Our experiences form perception that in turn shape our interaction & the way we constitute & understand the objective reality. So, through the meaning assigning we shape & socially construct reality. So, language/ideas aren’t a mirror to reflect objective reality out there but it does shape reality.

When my Dalit friends in my village (especially girls) stopped going to school I experienced the multi-layered inequality/discrimination in the social structures of caste and gender. Encountering such experiences both theoretically & practically I have realized that individuals are embedded in socio-political structures & relations that are hierarchal/unequal.

‘Security as emancipation approach (SAEA) highlights how time & space along with power structures/relations (in culture, gender & identity) shape “objective reality” & define the impact & capability that a particular individual will have while facing the brunt of climate change. A young tribe of the Amazon rainforest, women of DE-notified tribe (DNT) in India, an indigenous individual from Tuvalu will have different impact levels compared to an individual in U.S, U.K or West Europe. SAEA not only includes basic minimum needs (for physical survival) but also the conducive conditions that enable an individual to explore its potential. So, along with access to land & thus, livelihood (for survival) right to tribe practices/ culture/identity/language is an integral part of security needs. Encroachment into their land by the government, foreign enterprises (mining & business groups) to exploit resources & displaces them (depriving them access to resources/ livelihood) make them insecure. But, so does the forceful civilizing mission (historically colonialism or now, carried by governments) disallowing them access to forest areas to worship, forcing them to give up their culture & study in the non-native language. It impinges on their right/ freedom/ dignity which is integral to security as advocated by SAEA. However, from a different viewpoint, the government also has to ensure the development of these areas. It might lead to conflicting objectives but that’s where SAEA comes in. SAEA will advocate the government’s role to ensure food, water, and health needed for survival but simultaneously it demands the government to abstain itself & other entities from imposing constraints to their practice of culture & livelihood. Rather provide choice to education in the native language to help people explore their potential.

Earlier, I viewed climate change simply as a threat to the physical environment that threatens the survival of humans & other species. But I failed to see the structures of hierarchy inherent in the threatened world. Refugees, younger population, tribes, local & poor people, women & children are more vulnerable owing to their position in the hierarchy (in given political relations where they are embedded) that keeps them at the receiving end without any agency. People in small island nation-states, nations without technical & financial capabilities to fight climate change, LDCs are embedded in the power hierarchy. Feminist security studies help us see gendered relations in the world threatened by climate change. SAEA will make international & domestic power structures & relations visible. SAEA uncovers how climate change exacerbates hierarchy/inequality in these structures. Its impact is universal but it affects certain people more than others because of various reasons- scientific, geographical (proximity to oceans), lack of economic & material capacity to mitigate the crisis/disaster.

Critical & feminist security studies insecurities caused by climate change like-food insecurity, clean water & scarcity, displacement, lack of opportunities in their own country because of underdevelopment caused by resource exploitation by major powers, refugees who fail to get basic amenities in host countries because of discrimination, people (without citizenship) in refugee camps living without necessities, minority population alienated in their own country, ignoring marginal voices i.e., tribal people. They view security in a holistic sense. They point out nuances like- when West transferred its industries to Asia & Africa it wasn’t just industries that came but also pollution. It wasn’t just resources that were exploited but also the means of survival of a large part of the population by them.

Therefore, Cynthia Enloe & feminist security studies slogan ‘personal is international' & Ken Booth & critical security studies with SAEA (focus on embedded & embodied individual) emphasizes the importance of self & individual in the theoretical & practical aspects of international affairs. Both give an intersectional approach and views security in a much more positive, inclusive, critical sense, unlike the dominant view. They uncover the power structures and relations among different individuals positioned in different contexts.

Booth, Ken.“Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist,” YCISS Occasional Paper Paper 26: October 1994.

IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press

 Shepherd, Laura J. ‘Gender, Violence and Global Politics: Contemporary Debates in Feminist Security Studies’. Political Studies Review 7. 2009. (2): 208–19.

Hansen, Lene. ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’. 2000. Millennium 29 (2): 285–306.