What is security and adopting a reflexive approach

The security study is a difficult theory to define. The complexity of this term is that there is not a single definition that makes everyone agree. If the first idea that comes to our minds when we talk about security is to be safe from external danger, we must consider this term with a little more thought. The conception of the security study over the years has evolved but has also been criticized for developing this theory to other areas. From realism to neo-realism, from liberalism to neoliberalism, the study of security has never ceased to be called into question. The question that will guide us throughout this essay is: What is security and what does it mean to adopt a reflexive approach when thinking about security?  Security is a vital necessity for all of us. But if we return to its \”first definition\” we quickly realize that individual security was not the primary objective.  Indeed, according to the traditional approach to this concept of security, national security and military power were the two important themes. This reflection on security is based on realism, which tended to place power as the main theme. The strategic study therefore consisted in placing the State first and foremost. It was therefore the referent object to protect against external threats by using methods such as coercive diplomacy, which consisted in creating alliances with other States or using deterrence. Increasing its military power and having control over weapons also allowed the state to protect itself from threats. The one with the most weapons and military resources was the one who was the most secure. Power can be defined in material or military terms so that if the state feels threatened from the outside it will increase its power and this leads to the security dilemma.  When a State increases its military power for its security, another State may perceive this action as a threat, which will also increase its military power to ensure its security, which leads to a global insecurity because all States will therefore feel threatened. This security dilemma leads to an arms race, as we saw during the Cold War when nuclear weapons were highly coveted. This dilemma is present because the international system is characterized as anarchic in the face of external threats and therefore in the face of other states. There is a total absence of an international structure and
the limitless competition between the different states to acquire more power led them to the First World War. Moreover, the problem of the national security approach in strictly military terms is well identified in this sentence “causes states to concentrate on military threats and to ignore other and perhaps even more harmful dangers. Thus, it reduces their total security.” (Ullman, Richard H ,1963 ). We can link this quote to the terrorist attacks of 11 November 2001, for example, because there the danger was not military but from an external threat that no one had taken into account. Contrary to this approach, where conflict and military threats are the main theme, liberalism has a very different approach to security that contrasts with the realistic approach. For this theory through international cooperation and placing individuals as central actors, and not focusing only on the power of a state, sharing power can help states to overcome obstacles such as the security dilemma. By cooperating with each other there can be a win-win situation to cooperate on the international scene as we save money as avoiding war , by creating international cooperation it is possible to create common international agreements. From an ontological point of view the international system is anarchic and States are the main unit of analysis as in the realistic vision but what is different in ontology is that individuals are also important, and security is designed in such a way that States cooperate to create a collective security. From a liberal point of view, collective security is important. But what can it achieve? “The advantages of collective security fall into two categories: it provides for more effective balancing against aggressors, and it promotes trust and cooperation” (Charles A. Kupchan and Clifford A. Kupchan). By cooperating in the face of threats, States benefit from more force because being several to fight a threat is obviously more advantageous than if the threat were fought alone. The theory that takes up the ideas of liberalism is neoliberalism. This ideology is also based on individual interests, but in this approach the actors are no longer individuals as in liberalism, but national and transnational interest groups, which is therefore not the State. The UN is an example of actors in this neoliberal vision. This organization is involved in new wars where the fighting is no longer fought for geopolitical interests. Today the goal is no longer political, and it is ethnic and religious divisions that fuel new conflicts. Moreover, unlike the old wars, we now find in the conflicts of paramilitaries, private security contractors and non-governmental organizations. The main problem of neoliberals is “fail to consider the threat of war arising from international anarchy” (Baldwin, David A,1993). In the realistic approach, war was normalized, and the new political and economic realities put aside. However, with the different historical events over the years and especially at the end of the Cold War, new theories about the security approach have been developed and the military agenda of traditional security has been set aside. New reflections about what security is have begun to be seen with a new eye and criticism of the security study has begun. Many different theoretical perspectives have emerged and become more important. These new contemporary liberal approaches prefer democratic peace as well as human security. This human conceptualization: puts the human being as an object of reference, taking into account his or her individual well-being, which can be achieved by having collective security and an international community. Schools such as Copenhagen School, Aberystwyth School or Paris School are addressing new critical approaches in their security theories. In its analysis, the Copenhagen school challenges the realism and strategic hypothesis of the traditional approach. For them, security must also take into account human collectivities and not only States. So, from a strategic point of view, the military force should no longer be at the centre. Barry Buzan, a member of this school, has expanded the conceptualization of security to five other major areas, each with its own priorities and purpose. Among these five sectors we can find Military Security, Political Security, Economic Security, Societal Security, Environmental Security. This school\’s theory about security is based on how security problems are created. That is, to find the source of the problem. Their idea is inspired by constructivist thoughts, which is a theory of international relations defined around Kenneth Waltz\’s neo-realistic criticism. Anarchy in constructivism is a social constitution and not an essential feature of the international system, it only makes sense if States attribute it to it. The formation of the identities and interests of actors forms structures. The main ideas are that anarchy does not have to be a system where each state can only count on itself and where the priority is always given to national interests. Anarchy does not exist as long as states have not interacted with each other because otherwise they would have no knowledge on which to base considering the other as a friend or enemy. The conception of security therefore depends on how the \”self\” is defined in relation to the other. By extending security to other areas including non-military threats, the concept of security goes beyond the state and new referential objects such as societies and the environment will become important. In each of these five new categories, the actors and referring objects must be secured.  For example, in the case of migration, which is now at the centre of debate, the referring object is a group of migrants who can be secured by the government, the political elite, the military or civil society. They secure a problem by recognizing that there is a threat to the survival of migrants such as war or poverty. These security actors use the security language (Speech act) to convince an audience of the nature of the threat. Securisation only works if we have been convinced by the threat that reigns over the referent object. The art of language is an advantage that governments and elites have when they want to influence an audience. For example, in some speeches about immigration, migrants are seen as a threat to the security of countries, thus encouraging citizens\’ fear of \”new comers\”.  This constructivist theory contrasts with that of neo-realistic vision pioneer Kenneth Waltz. « Waltz had recast the tenets of classical realism in order to delineate more clearly the effects of the structure of the international system on the behaviour of nation-sates ». (Baldwin, David A ,1993). In this approach, the structure of the international system is the basis, and international politics is essentially a struggle for power, but they do not attribute it to human nature. On the contrary, neo-realists attribute security competition and inter-state conflicts to the absence of excessive authority in relation to states. John Mearsheimer, also considered a member of neo-realistic thinking, refers in his book The Tragedy great power politics published in 2001 to his theory on the threat between great powers, which has never ceased to exist. “The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way. Although the intensity of their competition waxes and wanes, great powers fear each other and always compete with each other for power” (John Mearsheimer). It is based on the premise that the world is anarchic, that all states have military capacity, which makes them potentially dangerous because it is impossible to predict their behaviour. The main objective of States is survival. All these points combined then lead to fear and aggressiveness, which then leads to a security dilemma, each state will try to tilt the balance in its favour to the detriment of the other states. This will therefore lead to permanent competition for security and a vicious circle that continues to increase tension between states. The objective of the great powers is therefore to achieve hegemony because a power will only feel secure when it is hegemonic. The structure of the international system pushes states to be aggressive towards each other.  How can we understand what security is with these different theories? To conclude, as we have seen in this essay, the security study is a divisive term. For realists, liberalists and neoliberalists, their theory about how we should understand security is not the same. When we talk about security there may be different reference objects, such as States or individuals. As new ideas emerge on how to understand security, thinkers have tried to correct the previous one by improving it to adapt to the realities of today\’s world. Adopting a reflective approach therefore means understanding what was wrong with the old approaches and then modifying them to meet today\’s security needs. People also need to be protected from poverty, disease and war. It is therefore essential to question the theories of the past.