The ‘I’ in Security

 

Security, at the basest of its providence, has the individual at its centre. Sure, there are other issues, entities and non-physical objects that might need to be securitized, but it all begins with the self. This is exactly what Ken Booth roughly propounds in his rendition of locating the self in security in the book ‘Reflections Of A Fallen Realist’. Booth deals with the issue of formation of the self through social interactions and inherited personality traits, which eventually leads to making one’s identity. He further mixes the idea of one’s identity with one’s role integrated into the bigger picture of society and superposes the need to have the representation of the non-state identities in the workings of international relations. Booth’s post-positivist attitudes provokes to look at security issues through the impact they have on the individual, who has a certain unique identity and role, that may not be shared by the socio-political actors (or those few who have a voice in IR and International Security). To Booth, matters of security and the theories used to study them have the notion of individuality at its core, since it can only be completely understood and theorized from that perspective. For this, he uses tools of ethnicity, socio-cultural and gendered narratives as inescapable aspects while theorizing security, moving far beyond the traditional military and state-centric senses of it. I will use this understanding and integration of the self and identity into issues of security and link it with the theories studied. Many of the issues of security we face today are plainly analysed through the view of securitization theory, under broad consensus of political and economic ramifications. Thus, this purview was largely ignorant of socio-cultural aspects of the impact of security issues. The issue of identity, belonging and individuality has been associated with very statist roots, often being politicized and asserted into a majority and minority. This has seen a widespread lack of securitization of certain groups, the Jews in Europe, Muslims in Israel, China and Myanmar and Native Americans in the United States. The institutional practice of marginalizing certain peoples based on their identities and societal grouping is one of the foremost security concerns. The concept of including their interests, beyond the political and economic sense, has been talked about by Øberg and Galtung (Wæver 2), where positive human needs including freedom, survival and development are discussed. The talk about the Muslim communities of China and Myanmar, namely the Uighurs and Rohingyas respectively, is one of the foremost regarding their position as citizens of their countries. Ethnic cleansing and other inhumane practices have raised human right violations against the nations they reside in. Furthermore, extreme measures taken to demean their presence is observed, and this resulted in widespread exodus into neighbouring nations. At a broad level, it can be viewed as a humanitarian issue, and securitizing them would mean to do so in respect to their community or group. Individual security is not discussed, or at the least even considered since it is not part of the status quo-ist study of international relations. Through Booth’s perspective, it is the victim, the referent object, whose view is the most important. At what level has the subjugation by the Chinese Communist Party affected ‘a’ Uighur Muslim and ‘the’ Uighur Muslims. His reflection on the meaning of the self, and the individual’s use of personal pronouns places themselves as the reference point to theorize security. Thinking through the lens of the individual Uighur, we understand the level of insecurity they are subjected to, and their place in the social structure to better know how to securitize them and their identity. Knowing their position and inter-relations removed from economic-political backdrops and giving meaning through the alternate security concept. According to Booth, placing the self in the situation to emancipate themselves would allow them to reflect on the choices they make to form their identity and role, not only in My own understanding has evolved through the path that scholars such as Booth, Hansen and Wæver formulated. Beyond thinking of it only through military means, and its political and economic rooting, it becomes clear that looking at security needs much revision. Securitization theory has faltered in many scenarios it has been applied to, and the misidentification of the referent objects and the threats has placed much weight on its inability to be inclusive and representative. Much of the wider socio-cultural, ethnic, environmental concerns require a revised allocation of resources to securitize themselves. Security has had obvious and deep political connotations, and the promotion of non-state actors into the definition would make it a less state-dependent one. Security has wide potential to be less divisive and focused, and incredibly helpful realm to those who need a reformed idea of their relation to the international framework. 

Bibliography 

1. Wæver, Ole. “Securitization and Desecuritization.”. On Security. Columbia University Press. 1995. 2. Booth, Ken. “Security and Self Reflections of a Fallen Realist”. York University. October 1994.