Security is one of the most challenging concepts to analyze scientifically. It stands as a crucial yet ambiguous concept in international relations, often lacking a precise and definitive definition. This complexity necessitates an understanding of various aspects, leading to the emergence of numerous theories and schools of thought attempting to explain security in its many dimensions. Among these is the Wales Aberystwyth School, which will be discussed below.
Origins and Development of the Wales Aberystwyth School of Security Studies
It is important to note that Aberystwyth is a small town located on the west coast of Wales, home to the world’s first chair in international politics, established in 1919 under the name of Woodrow Wilson. By the early 1990s, it became a hub for critical security studies, led by scholars like Ken Booth and Richard Wyn Jones. The intellectual movement, or theoretical current, of the English School traces its roots back to the early 1950s, specifically through what is known as the British Committee on International Theory. Roy Jones was the first to reference the school in an article published in the International Studies journal in 1981, titled “The English School of International Relations.” Founding members of this school include Charles Manning and Martin Wight. The development of this school can be summarized in four key phases:
Phase One (1959-1966): This phase began with the establishment of the British Committee and culminated in 1966 with the publication of the book “Diplomatic Investigations” by Butterfield and Wight.
Phase Two (1966-1977): Characterized by significant contributions from Wight in “Systems of States,” Hedley Bull in “The Anarchical Society,” and Vincent in his work on “Non-Intervention.”
Phase Three (1977-1992): Marked by contributions from Paul Wight in “Expansion of the International Society,” and Vincent in “Foreign Policy and Human Rights.”
Phase Four (1992-present): This phase witnesses the emergence of a new generation of thinkers and experts who are not tied to the British Committee. Their approaches align with the various contexts and developments in international relations theory through the “British International Studies” and the “International Studies Association.” These institutions aim to reorganize the English School through a new group of scholars such as Jackson Preece, Richard Little, Nicholas Rengger, and others, forming what is known as the New English School.
Contributions of the Wales Aberystwyth School of Security Studies
The Wales School’s expansive conception of security critiques prominent ideas rooted in realism and the Copenhagen School, particularly regarding national security and societal security. Booth writes, “Critical studies begin with the rejection of classical security theory, particularly the definition of politics that centers on the state and its sovereignty.” If security is defined as the absence of security threats, then human rights violations, political oppression, resource scarcity, ethnic conflicts, immigration and integration issues, terrorism, and crime present more immediate and tangible threats. Thus, the Welsh school transcends the idea of merely expanding the security concept by proposing a new ontology that includes security references beyond the state, encompassing individuals, groups, and humanity as a whole. The key contributions of the Wales School can be summarized as follows:
Human Liberation as a Fundamental Objective of Security Studies: Ken Booth first introduced this concept in his 1991 article titled “Security and Liberation,” where he called for a rethinking of security to be defined as liberation alongside Richard Wyn Jones, drawing on Frankfurt School ideas that focus on liberation in three forms:
- Liberation as a philosophical foundation for assessing the validity of normative proposals.
- Liberation as a developmental process requiring significant critique, thus making it impossible to fully manifest.
- Liberation as a tactical guide to achieve goals.
The Wales School posits that liberation is a normative commitment that drives ordinary policies. Moreover, true security-generating liberation does not rely on power and order; rather, theoretically, liberation represents security as a normative political concept that mobilizes public opinion and material forces, thereby leading to a collective mobilization for liberation goals. This redefines security by focusing on individuals and groups that have been marginalized and excluded from traditional security frameworks.
Booth and Horkheimer argue for broadening the concept of security to encompass threats that limit human freedom and liberation, not just those that affect state security. Non-military threats like poverty, environmental degradation, human rights violations, and inequalities—both among and within states—pose dangers that transcend national borders and threaten humanity as a whole. Booth defines security as liberation, describing it as “a political discourse aimed at protecting people from injustices and constraints that hinder their ability to freely pursue their choices in harmony with the freedoms of others.” This framework provides a triadic approach to politics, serving as a philosophical anchor for knowledge, a theory for societal development, and a practice for resisting oppression. Liberation, according to Booth, is at the heart of critical security theory, referring broadly to freedom from all constraints that hinder individuals and peoples from realizing their choices. It seeks to achieve material well-being, dignified living, and freedom from the constraints of nature, scarcity, ignorance, and superstitions, aspiring to justice and liberation from various forms of political oppression and economic exploitation.
The Individual as the Reference Subject for Security
According to the Wales School, the reference subject for security should be the individual, rather than the state or even the group. The security of the individual cannot be studied within the context of broader reference subjects such as state security or group security. A state or group can be secure while an individual suffers from the tragedies of insecurity. In fact, the state or group may, in itself, be a source of the individual’s insecurity. Thus, the Wales School places the individual at the center of the security landscape, expanding the list of threats to encompass all forms of risks, dangers, and vulnerabilities that a person faces in daily life. Consequently, individual security becomes the liberation from these circumstances, leading proponents of the Aberystwyth School to argue that the subject of security knowledge is not the individual within the context of the state, but rather the insecure individual in their subjective dimension.
This focus on individuals in security analysis gives rise to a variety of threats and risks that are inherently diverse and constantly evolving. Alongside the threat posed by the state, individuals encounter a changing array of challenges, ranging from physical violence and persecution to deteriorating health conditions, ignorance, declining living standards, unemployment, and other threats closely tied to the daily lives of individuals. In this way, individual security is characterized as a struggle against such conditions, representing an ongoing fight against insecurity.
The Role of the Academic Institution in Producing Security Knowledge and Truth
Proponents of the Aberystwyth School assert that moving beyond the traditional perspective on security requires more than merely critiquing the background of conventional security studies; it also necessitates a critique of the institutional framework within which this knowledge is produced. This means investigating how the field of security knowledge is formed within institutional contexts, such as universities, research institutes, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. According to the Aberystwyth perspective, security knowledge and truth do not emerge from a vacuum; they are not merely scientific statements or judgments based on the observation of specific phenomena. Instead, they reflect a struggle of ideas, values, traditions, and diverse interests within the institutional framework from which they arise. Therefore, defining a security issue is always the result of a dialectical and negotiative process among theorists within the academic institution.
Rita Turak, in her analysis of the Aberystwyth School’s work, noted that consensus within academia around the definition of security as liberation is a fundamental condition for the school’s proponents to apply these concepts in the real world. This process must begin within the academic sphere, where two sources of security knowledge exist: first, the scientific framing, which sees most students emulating their professors or following prevailing trends—echoing Booth’s assertion that “as security graduates, we are largely what our professors make us.” Second, funding and financial support play a critical role in shaping the landscape of security knowledge.
References
- The book “Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases” edited by Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (1997) is considered a foundational text that includes contributions from key Aberystwyth School scholars like Ken Booth.
- The article “Towards a Critical Securitization Theory: The Copenhagen and Aberystwyth Schools of Security Studies” provides a comprehensive overview of the Aberystwyth School’s approach and its relationship to other critical security studies approaches.
- Ken Booth’s book “Theory of World Security” (2007) is a seminal work outlining the Aberystwyth School’s perspective on security studies.
- Richard Wyn Jones’ chapter “On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity, and Concrete Utopias” in the book “Critical Security Studies and World Politics” (2005) is an important text explaining key concepts of the Aberystwyth approach.
- The Wikipedia page on the “Welsh School (security studies)” provides a brief overview of the school’s main ideas and key scholars.
- The academic paper “Origins of Differentiation in Critical Security Schools” offers an in-depth analysis of the Aberystwyth School’s theoretical foundations and development.
- Works by other prominent Aberystwyth School scholars like Andrew Linklater, João Nunes, and Ali Bilgiç are also important for understanding this approach.
- The journal “Critical Studies on Security” often publishes articles related to the Aberystwyth School’s perspective on security studies.
