Critical Security Studies Theory

The critical theory of security studies emerged in the early 1990s, marking a revolutionary shift in post-positivist thought about conceptual frameworks. This approach focused on the individual as the primary referent in the study of security. Critical social theory aimed to establish a new reality, largely influenced by the Frankfurt School, particularly through figures such as Robert Cox and Jürgen Habermas. This school of thought introduced new concepts and approaches that touched on epistemological aspects and contributed to the development of the security concept. At the turn of the millennium, security studies entered a revolutionary phase characterized by a diversity of theories and schools of thought. Despite sharing a common background in critical security studies, these schools differed in their approaches to the concept of security. Critical theory in security studies provided insightful interpretations of security issues and kept pace with international transformations following the Cold War.

Historical Development of Critical Theory:

Critical theory emerged from the works of the Frankfurt School, although its contributions to international politics trace back to the mid-1980s. Robert Cox is often seen as the most prominent figure associated with this theory. Among the key thinkers in this movement are Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas.

When examining the intellectual context in which critical theory evolved, it is evident that it drew from numerous intellectual and philosophical streams, reflecting its rich epistemological background. Marxist philosophy was a pivotal stage in shaping its critical contribution, leading some to argue that critical social theory is merely an advanced or neo-Marxist framework. This is because it presents its theoretical constructs as social and cultural critiques, following a Marxist orientation.

Some even refer to critical theory as a “renewed Gramscianism,” named after the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci’s idea of hegemony describes the imposition of control over the majority, ensuring their acceptance of a status quo dominated by the ruling class.

Regarding the intellectual foundation of critical theory, Jürgen Habermas is considered one of its leading interpreters in the post-Cold War period. One of his most influential ideas was the concept of “ideal speech situations,” where individuals exhibit communicative competence, leading to rational consensus in political discourse. This, in turn, could develop liberating policies, often referred to as the “ethics of communication.”

When it comes to its approach to global politics, Robert Cox’s work is indispensable. His 1976 piece On the Thinking about the Future of World Order discussed the absence of critical dimensions in positivist contributions to international relations. In 1981, Cox refined this idea in Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, where he posited that theory always serves someone or some specific purpose. His 1987 book Power, Production, and World Order is regarded as the foundational text of this new critical approach.

Contributions of Critical Theory to Security Studies:

1. The Concept of Security in Critical Theory:

Realists tend to approach security by asking “Why?” as they seek reasons behind specific actions, such as security policies or events like arms races or wars. In contrast, critical approaches prioritize “How?” questions—how do actors form and modify their identities? How do they define their interests in the realm of security? How do threats emerge? For critical security scholars, the starting point is understanding how threats are constructed and defined. Unlike traditional realists, who see security as an objective reality, critical theorists argue that security is a social construct created through discursive practices.

As security policies result from contingent political choices and social measures, they can be changed. As Ken Booth stated, “Security is not objective or subjective; it is what we make of it.” Security, in this view, is an emergent phenomenon, shaped by various discourses, policies, and perspectives. Changes in the identity of actors influence their interests, which in turn affects national security policies.

The core principles of critical theory regarding international security include:

• The international system is socially constructed, not materially determined. The structure of this system dictates whether states behave cooperatively or competitively. This behavior depends on how states think, making it a variable shaped by perception. Knowledge, experience, and interaction between states also shape this system, with factors like ideas, law, institutions, and knowledge playing a significant role in shaping the international system and its interactions. Alexander Wendt introduced the concept of a “security community” as an institutional alternative to international anarchy, suggesting that reassurance policies can build a knowledge framework that guides states towards forming a “security community” characterized by greater peace.
• Unlike realists, who focus on the state as the primary referent of security, critical theory views the individual as the fundamental referent. The goal is to safeguard humanity or broader communities, making global security and human security the primary objectives of this approach. These are the key concepts proposed by critical social theory within security studies.
• Critical theory adopts a new analytical framework for security, centering on the individual as a key player in international politics. Human liberation from threats, both locally and globally, is its central focus. The state is secondary to the individual, as the state’s existence is not an end in itself but rather serves the purpose of protecting human dignity. Thus, critical theory integrates three main schools:

1. The Copenhagen School of Security Studies.
2. The Aberystwyth (or Welsh) School of Security Studies.
3. The Paris School of Security Studies.

2. The Individual as the Referent for Security:

The systematic flaw in security analysis, characterized by an emphasis on the state’s role as the primary analytical tool and the glorification of its existence as the exclusive actor, has led critical theory to shift the question from “security for what?” to “security for whom?” This reorientation raises the issue of who needs to be secured. It suggests that one should not confuse means and ends, as well as tools and objectives. The state appears to prioritize external security concerns, positioning itself as the means, while individuals are viewed as the ultimate goal and purpose. In this view, security becomes a form of rescue for individuals exposed to systems of oppression and coercion. According to this radical perspective, the state is seen as outdated, even posing a danger itself.

Keith Krause and Michael Williams argue that individual security can be examined on three different levels: as individuals, as citizens, and as members of humanity as a whole. At the first level, as individuals, the state fails to respect their basic rights or guarantee their essential needs. Regarding the second level, citizen security, the state and its institutions can pose a fundamental threat to individual safety. For the third level, concerning individuals as members of the human community, the state is unable to protect them from overarching forces such as environmental and economic degradation, especially since it has also been a threat to the environment through its polluting weapons, whether biological or nuclear. Proponents of critical theory argue that the reference unit for security should be the individual or human being, rather than an abstract philosophical entity like the state. The concept of human security is grounded in the individual as the basic unit of analysis, particularly in light of the long list of threats to individual security that the state is no longer the sole responsible party for, nor capable of addressing alone.

The Concept of Emancipation in Critical Theory

The derivative nature of the security concept, imbued with political meanings, aids in exploring what Booth refers to as the “realities of security.” He views security as an “essential value” that liberates people to a certain extent from the threats they face to their existence. Unlike the claims of neorealism, which links security to survival—suggesting that if a state can survive, it can pursue other goals like tranquility, profit, or power—Booth argues that security, as a relative concept, can be understood both subjectively and objectively. This includes those who feel secure despite actual threats they are unaware of (a “false sense of security”) and those who feel insecure because they recognize threats that may not be real (a “false sense of insecurity”). Thus, Booth suggests that security should be sought through emancipatory policies that help individuals or groups transcend both incidental and structural oppression, such as war or poverty. Emancipation, as a political discourse, aims to protect individuals from constraints that limit their ability to freely pursue their choices, in harmony with the freedoms of others. It provides a tripartite framework for politics: a philosophical anchor for knowledge, a theory for societal development, and a practice for resisting injustice. Emancipation is a foundation, a theory, and a philosophy for discovering humanity.

From this perspective, critical theorists present the concept of “emancipation” as the heart of the critical theory of global security, synonymous with the concept of security. Booth writes, “Security means the absence of threats, while emancipation is the liberation of people—individuals and groups—from constraints that prevent them from acting freely. War and the threat of war are among these constraints, alongside poverty, poor education, and political oppression. Security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin; emancipation produces true security, not power or order.”

References

1. The book “Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases” edited by Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (1997) is considered a foundational text in critical security studies. It brings together key scholars to explore critical approaches to security.
2. The article “Critical Theory and Security Studies” by Keith Krause (1996) provides an overview of critical approaches to security studies and their intellectual foundations.
3. The journal “Critical Studies on Security” is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to critical approaches to security. It publishes cutting-edge research in the field.
4. The book chapter “Critical Security Studies” by Columba Peoples and Nick Vaughan-Williams in “Critical Security Studies: An Introduction” offers an overview of critical security studies approaches.
5. The Wikipedia page on “Critical security studies” provides a general introduction to the field and its key concepts.
6. The book “Security: A New Framework for Analysis” by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde (1998) is an important text that outlines the Copenhagen School’s critical approach to security.
7. Works by scholars like Ken Booth, Richard Wyn Jones, and Ole Wæver are considered seminal in developing critical security studies theory.
8. The Oxford Research Encyclopedia entry on “Critical Approaches to Security in Europe” provides a comprehensive overview of European critical security studies.