Although it seems that everyone has a basic similar notion of what the term security means and implicates, scholars have struggled to find a coherent definition and disagree on how far the concept can or should be expanded. This essay will show that security is indeed a highly contested concept, but that it has been questioned whether security can also be classified as an “essentially contested concept” in the way Walter Bryce Gallie introduced this term. The criticism of the classification of security as a contested concept as formulated by David Baldwin will be drawn into account as well as Arnold Wolfers' conclusion that security is a highly subjective matter. Furthermore, Ken Booth's suggestion for an interpretation of security in terms of emancipation in the Post-Cold War Era will be considered.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the concept of security
2. Wolfers' perspective on subjective security and state policy
3. Booth's interpretation of emancipation and human-centric security
4. Baldwin's critique of the "essentially contested concept" classification
5. Conclusion and synthesis of security definitions
Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this essay is to critically examine whether "security" can be classified as an "essentially contested concept" as defined by Walter Bryce Gallie, while exploring how various scholars have attempted to narrow down and define the term.
- Subjectivity and the ambiguity of security in political discourse.
- The evolution of security from inter-state war to human emancipation.
- Critique of the classification of security as an "essentially contested concept."
- Methodological challenges in defining security: "for whom" and "for which values."
- The role of non-core values and risk management in security studies.
Excerpt from the book
Why is security an “essentially contested concept” and what ways are there to overcome this?
Although it seems that everyone has a basic similar notion of what the term security means and implicates, scholars have struggled to find a coherent definition and disagree on how far the concept can or should be expanded. This essay will show that security is indeed a highly contested concept, but that it has been questioned whether security can also be classified as an “essentially contested concept” in the way Walter Bryce Gallie introduced this term. The criticism of the classification of security as a contested concept as formulated by David Baldwin will be drawn into account as well as Arnold Wolfers' conclusion that security is a highly subjective matter. Furthermore, Ken Booth's suggestion for an interpretation of security in terms of emancipation in the Post-Cold War Era will be considered.
Starting with Wolfers essay gives the answer why there is even a need to narrow the concept of security down. For academic and political usage there would be too many misunderstandings if the term would not clearly specified. For Wolfers, security can be equalised – from an objective perspective – with the “absence of threats to acquired values” and – from a subjective perspective – with the “absence of fear that such values will be attacked.” Moreover, he sees security as a value from which a state can have or aim to have more or less. Baldwin and Booth overall agree with this view though Baldwin suggests that security would be better defined as the “low probability of damage to acquired values.”
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction to the concept of security: This section introduces the debate surrounding the definition of security and frames the core research question regarding its status as an "essentially contested concept."
2. Wolfers' perspective on subjective security and state policy: This chapter analyzes Wolfers' view of security as a subjective matter and explains how states determine their security policies based on perceived threats and resource constraints.
3. Booth's interpretation of emancipation and human-centric security: This part discusses Ken Booth's transition toward an emancipatory view of security, prioritizing individual human needs over state power accumulation.
4. Baldwin's critique of the "essentially contested concept" classification: This chapter outlines David Baldwin’s critical arguments against applying Gallie's criteria to security, arguing instead for a more precise, multi-dimensional definition.
5. Conclusion and synthesis of security definitions: The final section summarizes the findings, emphasizing the necessity for researchers to provide clear, context-specific definitions rather than relying on abstract categorizations.
Keywords
Security, Essentially Contested Concept, Walter Bryce Gallie, David Baldwin, Arnold Wolfers, Ken Booth, Emancipation, Subjectivity, Acquired Values, Political Science, Conceptual Analysis, Post-Cold War, Threat Perception, International Relations, Definitions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this essay?
The essay explores the conceptual difficulties in defining "security" and investigates whether it fits the academic criteria of an "essentially contested concept."
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Key themes include the subjectivity of security, the shift from state-centric to human-centric security, and the methodological challenges of achieving conceptual clarity.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The objective is to synthesize different scholarly views (specifically those of Wolfers, Booth, and Baldwin) to understand if the label "essentially contested concept" is appropriate for security.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The paper employs a qualitative analysis of academic literature, critiquing and comparing the theoretical frameworks provided by major scholars in security studies.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the specific definitions proposed by Wolfers, the emancipatory perspective of Booth, and the detailed critiques and analytical questions suggested by Baldwin.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as security, emancipation, subjectivity, essentially contested concept, and conceptual analysis.
Why does Baldwin suggest that security is not an "essentially contested concept"?
Baldwin argues that security lacks the specific, deep conceptual debate required by Gallie’s definition and suggests that the term is better described as "confused" or "inadequately defined" rather than essentially contested.
How does Ken Booth's perspective differ from traditional security views?
Booth moves away from the idea of security as state-power accumulation and suggests interpreting it as "emancipation," focusing on the freedom of individuals as the ultimate reference point.
What questions should a researcher ask to define security, according to Baldwin?
To avoid confusion, Baldwin suggests asking "security for whom," "security for which values," "how much security," "from what threats," "by what means," "at what cost," and "in what time period."
What is the main takeaway for students of security studies?
The author concludes that regardless of the classification, researchers must not use these labels as an excuse to avoid defining their own specific conceptual framework for their research.
- Quote paper
- Nora Görne (Author), 2012, Why is security an “essentially contested concept” and what ways are there to overcome this?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/189174
