This essay deals about the approaches of Critical Security Studies (CSS) to the `the War on Terrorism´ (WoT). To understand the approaches of CSS it is important to know, that this view has its origin in the critique of the traditional approaches realism and liberalism. A consequence of this is CSS do not see the state as most important referent object. In contrast to realism and liberalism it is the approach of CSS to look for alternative referent objects beside the state.
But CSS are not just one approach. It is divided into different schools or drifts. This essay wants to research, how these schools and drifts analyse the WoT. Central to this are the paragraphs 2 and 3, which deal about ´Welsh School´ and `Copenhagen School´. These two are most important drifts inside CSS. The other drifts will be discussed in paragraph 4. Afterwards in paragraph 5 it will be pointed out where the failures and critic points of CSS in general as well as in its drifts are.
Even if the impacts in its drifts differ, CSS is based on the Critical Theory/ `Frankfurt School (Habermas) and on Poststructualism (Foucault). This means on the one hand that CSS does not take the state as the most important referent object, but thinks more broadly about the reasons for (in-)security. And on the other hand CSS researchers according to Critical Theory claim reality to be socially constructed and want to look behind the empiricist world. In context of WoT we will see later that this means a critic on official or governmental standpoints.
The debates between CSS and governmental or traditional approaches start at the definition of terrorism. Definitions of terrorism are broadly discussed in practical politics and in International Relations (IR). Because this is such a high-class topic, an own definition will be used in this essay. So `terrorism´ shall be defined as `an act of political motivated non-state violence for achieving a declared aim´. Of course this definition will be discussed in contrast to the definition CSS researches made.
From the debates in the public and the media one has of course a general understanding of WoT. It can be stated here that WoT is mostly understood as fight of the `Western´ world against the global militant Islamist movement known as Al-Qaeda. This situation will be important for the further analysis but also a more abstract definition of WoT is necessary here.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
2. `WELSH SCHOOL´
3. `COPENHAGEN SCHOOL´
3.1. SECURITIZATION
3.2. DESECURITIZATION
4. OTHER CSS APPROACHES
5. CRITIC ON THE CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES APPROACHES
6. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
This essay explores how different theoretical schools within Critical Security Studies (CSS) analyze the War on Terrorism (WoT), moving beyond traditional state-centric realism and liberalism to examine social construction and alternative referent objects.
- The theoretical foundations and critiques of the Welsh School.
- The Copenhagen School's concepts of securitization and desecuritization.
- The role of feminism and emancipation in critical security analysis.
- A critical evaluation of the normative core of CSS approaches.
- An examination of social identity and threat construction in post-9/11 politics.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1. Securitization
This word means security issues become security issues because they are called security issues. Securitization is a `speech act´ and the process of successful securitization depends on several factors. At first only people with some kind of power are able to securitize an issue. Secondly adequate conditions for securitization are needed. For this point it is important to have an audience as large as possible. And further important are the consequences of securitization, but not for the securitization process itself but for its analyses.
This scheme can be successfully demonstrated on the WoT. After 9/11 George W. Bush made terrorism a security issue by announcing the WoT. Bush was as US president in a powerful position for securitization. His audience was not only his nation, but also most other countries in the world and the attacks of 9/11 created the adequate conditions. Bush’s concrete speech act of the `Global WoT´ has been to say not only the US but also freedom and democracy were under attack.
Additionally the war on terrorism led to securitization of other policy fields. Migration became securitized just after 9/11 but integration policy in Europe became securitized after the attacks of Madrid and London. Politicians securitize issues because that creates the “importance and urgency that legitimises the use of special measures outside of the usual political process to deal with it”.
Waever names a problem of securitization, which could become even relevant for the WoT. Elites, not only political but also economical, military or other, could try to you use the WoT to “present their interests in “national security” dress”.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: Outlines the shift from traditional realism and liberalism to CSS perspectives regarding the War on Terrorism and defines the scope of the analysis.
2. `WELSH SCHOOL´: Discusses the Welsh School's critique of neorealist foundational claims and examines the social construction of terrorist threats through the lens of scholars like Ken Booth.
3. `COPENHAGEN SCHOOL´: Focuses on the Copenhagen School's societal approach to security and introduces the mechanisms of securitization and desecuritization.
3.1. SECURITIZATION: Details the process of securitization as a speech act, using the post-9/11 rhetoric of the Bush administration as a primary case study.
3.2. DESECURITIZATION: Examines the theoretical call to remove issues from the security agenda and the potential consequences of such a move in the context of the War on Terrorism.
4. OTHER CSS APPROACHES: Explores the influence of Feminism and Emancipation within CSS and the emergence of Critical Terrorism Studies.
5. CRITIC ON THE CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES APPROACHES: Critically evaluates the normative predispositions of CSS and argues that its political alignment may limit its scientific objectivity.
6. CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings, noting the utility of CSS in broadening security discourse while identifying its inherent predeterminism as a significant challenge.
Keywords
Critical Security Studies, War on Terrorism, Securitization, Desecuritization, Welsh School, Copenhagen School, Social Construction, Emancipation, Post-structuralism, Security Agenda, Political Acts, Referent Objects, Critical Terrorism Studies, Normative Core, Political Identity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this essay?
The essay explores how various branches of Critical Security Studies (CSS) interpret the War on Terrorism by challenging conventional realist and liberal security narratives.
Which theoretical schools are primarily analyzed?
The central analysis focuses on the 'Welsh School' and the 'Copenhagen School', while also discussing feminism, emancipation, and Critical Terrorism Studies.
What is the core research objective of this work?
The aim is to investigate how these critical theories deconstruct the motivations behind the War on Terrorism and how they perceive the role of political elites in shaping security threats.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a qualitative analysis approach, contrasting traditional security perspectives with critical theory, post-structuralism, and constructivism to assess their impact on international relations.
What does the main body of the text cover?
The main body covers the theoretical frameworks of the major CSS schools, the mechanics of securitization, the critique of the normative bias within these schools, and their specific application to post-9/11 global policies.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Critical Security Studies, securitization, social construction, War on Terrorism, and referent objects.
How does the Copenhagen School define securitization?
It is defined as a 'speech act' by which an issue is transformed into a security problem, thereby legitimizing special measures that fall outside normal political procedures.
Why does the author critique the 'normative core' of CSS?
The author argues that the inherent left-leaning political bias in CSS can lead to pre-determined conclusions, potentially undermining the neutrality required for scientific academic research.
- Quote paper
- Felix Seidler (Author), 2009, How can Critical Security Studies approaches be applied to the `the war on terrorism´?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/137857
