Security as a concept is essentially contested. Different perception stems from its ambiguity; for Thomas Hobbes, it "is a precondition for civil and law-governed life, and requires political institutions to provide that which individuals in the state of nature cannot obtain" (Krause & Williams, 2018). However, when I hear the word security, I cannot resist linking it with protection from becoming a victim of sexual violence. An individual from a third world would prioritize getting nutritious food over considering preserving their state's hegemony as pivotal for protection against external threats. Robert Cox urges us to view the world critically and question the prevailing order. He advocates that when confronted with an issue, one should not choose between critical theory or problem-solving theory; both perspectives should be equipped. Problem-solving theory guides us to proceed in specific circumstances, making it practical and essential. It accepts the world as it is and fixes boundaries and parameters to a problem domain, enforcing it to derive great precision to the solution. On the other hand, critical theory questions the structural condition by historicizing the world order. It expands the scope of inquiry by analyzing the endorsing and resisting forces that alter behavior patterns. From the critical theory perspective, Keith Krause and Michael Williams argue for the broadening of threat objects and deepening of referent objects. The broadening of threat objects implies that we need to look beyond the insecurity caused by military security, which safeguards the state's territory; the issues of transnational migration, global health, food, etc., should also be in the limelight. The deepening of the referent object is moving the loci from the narrow and traditional actor, the state, prone to security threats in the realm of international relations. Referent objects could also be individuals, NGOs, regional and global systems, and the biosphere.
By broadening the scope of security studies, I am not undermining the traditional perspective of protecting the state from organized violence. However, unveiling the threats perpetuated by the states makes its citizens and other actors the referent object. The states do not guarantee protection to all its citizens from various threats. In today's intertwined world, where information, ideas, and people can quickly commute, the state's position to ensure everyone's safety gets compromised. States tend to announce one section or values as the referent object, which must be shielded from another section deemed as the threat object. For instance, last year, the government of French President Emmanuel Macron announced the prohibition of abaya and qamis in schools, which are long and loose garments worn by some individuals of the Muslim religion. The rationale behind this decision was the violation of secular rules within the educational system. Additionally, Muslim headscarves had already been banned due to their perceived demonstration of religious affiliation.
This case highlights the disadvantages of securitization theory, which enshrines that citizens vest the ultimate authority in the state to play a crucial role in addressing security corners. Ole Weaver advocates the speech act, which was equipped by the state to securitise mundane issues (Weaver, 2007). He argues that if individuals begin expressing their insecurities, it will result in an increased demand for security, which is not advisable and favourable. Securitization theory bestows too much privilege to the powerful elites and eliminates the state as a threat object. Actions such as inflicting violence or making decisions for the rest of the citizens tend to masculinize the state, positioning it closer to the ideal of hegemonic masculinity, which is perceived as more effective in the realm of security. Marion Young explains that within this patriarchal framework, the role of the masculine protector places those being protected, primarily women and children, in a subordinate position of dependency and obedience. When citizens in a democratic state allow their leaders to assume the role of protectors, they take a subordinate status akin to the position of women in a patriarchal household. Despite infringing on the Muslim people's choice to represent themselves through religious attire, the French State Council gave reassurance and expected the citizens' acceptance by announcing that the government's ban did not intrude on their fundamental rights such as personal privacy, freedom of religion, the right to education, the welfare of children, or the principle of non-discrimination.
To keep the nation's values, states with the same nationalism ignore their citizens: Almost 300 schoolgirls chose to defy the ban and resisted removing their abayas on the initial day of the French school year this week. While the majority eventually agreed to change their attire, 67 refused and were subsequently sent home (Jazeera, 2023). Hence, citizens undergo significant threats their state perpetuates, necessitating a shift from the narrow and traditional ways of viewing security. The broadening and deepening approach is required to grasp the complexity of contemporary security dynamics and address the political and ethical considerations inherent in studying and practicing security.
Apart from the contemporary case, "In Algeria, French administrators saw removing the veil from women as part of France's civilizing mission" (Enloe, 2014). The colonialist promoted the anti-veil movement in the name of their Western civilizing mission, as they saw themselves as superior to the Orient. This made it hard for Muslim women in colonized or neocolonial countries to control the argument. The critical lens empowers us to historise contemporary cases, which brings forth the state's main agenda. Under the guise of 'state security,' the French state had frequently put its Muslim citizens or subjects well being in jeopardy.
Reference
Enloe, C. (2014). Chapter three. Nationalism and Masculinity: The Nationalist Story Is Not Over—and It Is Not a Simple Story. In Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (pp. 83-124). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Buzan, B., & Hansen, L. (2007b). International Security: The transition to the post-Cold War security agenda.
Jazeera, A. (2023, September 8). France’s top court rejects appeal against ban on wearing abaya in schools. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/8/frances-top-court-rejects-appeal-against-ban-on-wearing-abaya-in-schools
Krause, K., & Williams, M. C. (2018e). Security and “Security Studies.” The Oxford School of International Security, 13–28.
Hey, Harshita. Thank you for this exciting blog. States must balance safeguarding individual liberties and rights and maintaining national security, especially in multicultural cultures where different groups may see distinct dangers to national security. Furthermore, how can critical theories successfully address security problems and guide policy and action without compromising the authority and legitimacy of state institutions?
As it has been established, it is imperative to take into consideration problem-solving theory and critical theory for a more encompassing approach to different contexts. Securitization theory, does in fact uphold the powerful sections, and this eliminates any possibility of the state being perceived as the threat object. Consequently, the less powerful are excluded, and as part of this, women face a kind of double domination - by the state and by the men in society. To break down the current operation of securitization, would you say that it must be tackled from the root-level?