1

De-Westernizing Critical Security Studies1

The field of social science is often seen as inherently a reflection or a disciplinary attempt to reflect and explain the world order. If accepted as true, it would explain trend throughout this discipline in the post-Cold War era to re-evaluate some of its basic assumptions and theoretical frameworks. The field of Security Studies saw the creation of a niche of security studies theorists under its auspices that claimed to represent what is now termed as Critical Security Studies. They challenged the traditional frameworks of the field and introduced factors that attempted to broaden its conceptual scope. One of the major strands of critical security studies theorists, that include the likes of Mohammed Ayoob2, has levied the particular claim that traditional security studies lacks the adequate theoretical tools to analyze the Third World and that it requires an alternative frame of analysis that takes into account its (Third Worlds) particular historical, political, social and cultural context. Others like Claire Wilkinson3 have questioned the Westphalian straightjacket as not only having plagued the theoretical applicability of traditional security studies but also certain strands of critical security studies, namely the Copenhagen School. What this study attempts to claim is that while it is true that there is a requirement for a theoretical frame within Security Studies that is applicable to a context beyond the west, it is overly simplistic to claim the presence of a clear distinction between the western and the non-western social, political and cultural reality. It further posits that the complexity lies in the fact that aspects of the west and the non-west are present within the context of the non-Western state/country. So, the alternative theoretical framework, instead of attempting structure a framework around the notion of the western/non-western dichotomy, should rather attempt to reflect the struggle that exists between these, supposedly, opposing features (i.e. of the west and non-west) within the non-Western context.

In this paper Third World states and non-Western countries are referred to as being synonymous. While being a non-Western country does not necessary mean that such state could be characterized as a Third World country, this study works on the assumption that most non-Western countries, owing to a variety of reasons, can be categorized as being part of the Third World. 2 see Ayoob, Mohammed, The Third World Security Predicament (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995) 3 see Wilkinson, Claire, The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe? Security Dialogue 38.5 (2007)

2 Critical Security Studies, Third World and the non-Western While the critical security studies theorists are dealing with the Third World and the non-Western, and are responding to the supposedly western-oriented frameworks of traditional security studies, they could also be seen as caught within the struggle between the notions of representation and resistance. Post-colonial studies see this as an arena within which much of the drama of colonialist relations and post-colonial examination and subversion of those relations has taken place4. According to Lings analysis it could be seen as a response to cultural chauvinism5, one that encourages the mimicry of what is considered Western, modern, urban, industrialized, upwardly mobile and masculine [with] nonmimicry [leaving] behind the so-called traditional sectors and natives who are backward, rural, agricultural, socially stagnant, and feminine6. In lieu of this struggle of representation and resistance as articulated by Postcolonial studies, the notion of Third World Security could be seen as a manifestation of this within the field of critical security studies. Mohammed Ayoob in The Third World Security Predicament defines the term Third World as describing the underdeveloped, poor, weak states of Asia, Africa, and Latin America that together make up a substantial numerical majority among the members of the international system7. In the context of this definition, Ayoob cites Robert Gilpin in claiming that what characterizes the Third World is its weakness towards the two organizing principles of international social life the sovereign state and the international market8. This classification of the Third Worlds weakness is key as it is manifested at both of the levels at which the Third World interacts with the international system: as a group, and as individual sovereign states9.

Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffith and Helen Tiffin, Introduction: Representation and Resistance in The post-colonial studies reader ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffith and Helen Tiffin. (London: Routledge, 1995): 85 5 Ling, L.H.M. Cultural Chauvinism And The Liberal International Order: West versus Rest in Asias financial crisis in Power in a postcolonial world: race, gender, and class in International Relations ed. Geeta Chowdhury and Sheila Nair (London: Routledge, 2002): 115 6 Ling, 121 7 Ayoob, Mohammed, The Third World Security Predicament (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995): 12 8 Ayoob, 1 9 Ibid, 1

3 Drawing an analysis similar to that of Ayoob, Amitav Acharya in The Periphery as the Core: The Third World and Security Studies, sees the emergence of the Third World as [challenging] the dominant understanding of security in three important respects10:
1. 2. 3. Its focus on the interstate level as the point of origin of security threats. Its exclusion of non-military phenomena from the security studies agenda. Its belief in the global balance of power as the legitimate and effective instrument of international order.11

Caroline Thomas in, In Search of Security, sees this challenge as rooted in the fact that security in the context of the Third World states does not simply refer to the military dimensions, as is often assumed in the Western discussions of the concept, but to the whole range of dimensions of a states existence which are already taken care of in the more-developed states, especially those of the West12. Thomas further lists search for the internal security of the state through nation-building, [and] the search for secure systems of food, health, money and trade13 as some key examples. While food, health, money and trade seem obvious factors that draw a correlation between social well-being and security, the notion of nation-building and internal state security provides for a complex problematique. Thomas claims that unlike the West where society is often seen as coherently structured to be compatible with the boundaries of the state, in the Third World context this process has been particularly problematic. The author notes that owing to arbitrary creation of state boundaries by European colonizers the resulting [t]erritorial boundaries pay insufficient attention to ethnicity, indigenous historical divisions or even at times geography14. What this has meant for the Third World is the need for a process of nation-building among a greatly heterogeneous population. According to Thomas it is then this heterogeneity that has been the major cause of

10

Acharya, Amitav, The Periphery as the Core: The Third World and Security Studies in Critical Security Studies ed. Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (London: UCL Press, 1997): 301 11 Acharya, 301 12 Thomas, Caroline, In Search of Security (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987): 1 13 Thomas, 1 14 Thomas, 10

4 domestic, regional and international instability, as well as being a source of massive human suffering through repression and displacement of persons15. Ayoob, elaborating on the notion of nation-building in the Third World concept, representing what he terms as subaltern realism and, in a way, alluding to Lings notion of cultural chauvinism, sees the international normative framework on state making and nation building16 to have had a particular impact on the Third World. According to the author, what this has meant is the Third World states insistence on maintaining the essential norms of the Westphalian system to protect themselves from unwanted external intervention17. This insistence has, of course, often manifested into extreme levels of suffering and repression at the hands of the political elite. While Third World Security theorists have critiqued the foundations of traditional security studies as western-centric, similar criticisms have been levied on critical security studies as well. The Copenhagen School has, within critical security studies, been particularly targeted by those theorists that see it as having an incomplete theoretical framework. Holger Stritzel in Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond claims that while theorists within the Copenhagen School have adequately defined securitization as a successful speech act18, which allows one to characterize something as an existential threat thus permitting urgent and exceptional measures to deal with the threat19, they have failed to transform this notion into a coherent theoretical framework20. The author further posits that within the Copenhagen School, the primacy of the speech act renders it inadequate and vague21. Instead, according to Stritzel, the focus should be on the dynamics of causality involved within the trilogy of speech act, actor and audience22. As further criticism of the Copenhagen School, Stritzel posits the need to

15 16

Ibid, 10 Ayoob, Mohammed. Inequalities and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism International Studies Review 4.3 (Autumn, 2002): 48 17 Ayoob, 48 18 Stritzel, Holger. Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond European Journal of International Relations 13.3 (2007): 358 19 Stritzel, 358 20 Ibid, 358 21 Ibid, 358 22 Stritzel, 364

5
conceptualize securitizing speech acts and securitizing actors as embedded in broader social and linguistic structures. [This would further mean] that the actor cannot be as significant as a social actor and a speech act cannot have an impact on social relations without a situation that constitutes them as significant23.

A similar argument is made by Thierry Balzacq in The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. He claims that since securitization is not a self-contained process24 we could make three assumptions (i) that an effective securitization is that an effective securitization is audience-centered; (ii) that securitization is context-dependent; (iii) that an effective securitization is power-laden25. Like Stritzel, Balzacq too can be seen as positing the primacy of the particular social context as a key factor in determining the success of the speech act. What both Stritzel and Balzacq have engaged in is a critical analysis of the Copenhagen School that attempts to take it beyond its conceptual inadequacies in order to move it towards becoming a more comprehensive theory. While not specifically delving into the western-centric assumptions of security studies, one could claim that both these authors analyses reflect a perspective that marginalizes the non-western and Third World context, especially that of non-democratic societies. If one claims the primacy of the social context in determining the success of a speech act, an untoward level of power and political significance is accorded to the society in question. While this could be seen as reflective of democratic societies where the population plays a key role in political decision-making, and often in the act of securitization, it could also be subsequently perceived as incompatible with the non-democratic. In such societies it is often the securitizing actor, namely, the political elite, that plays a key role in determining the social and political context that would make the a particular brand of speech act successful. Here, unlike in democratic societies, it is the securitizing actor that could be seen as demanding primacy than the context. What this would further mean is that while being critical of a particular brand of critical studies, both Stritzel and Balzacq have effectively marginalized the political reality (non-democratic societies) of significant

23 24

Stritzel, 367 Balzacq, Thierry The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context European Journal of International Relations 11.2 (2007): 171 25 Balzacq, 171

6 sections of the non-western world, thus failing to make their response to the Copenhagen School as effectively comprehensive. A more explicit criticism of the Copenhagen Schools western-based analytical frameworks is made by Claire Wilkinson in The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe? While criticizing the universal applicability of the speech act, through the analysis of the case of Kyrgyzstan, Wilkison claims that inherent to the Copenhagen School is what Buzan and Little defined as the Westphalian straitjacket [which is] the strong tendency to assume that the model established in seventeenth century Europe should define what the international system is for all times and places26. Drawing from this, the author further claims that the Euro-American assumptions about concepts such as society, identity and the state, combined with the presumption of Western democracy and primacy of the speech-act, mean that, particularly in a non-Western setting, security dynamics are edited and Westernized through the application of the theoretical framework27. This, for Wilkinson, remains the primary hindrance of the Copenhagen School that impedes its attempt to create a universal and multilevel framework for empirical analyses of security28. Having thus discussed some of major criticisms of both traditional security studies and critical security studies as being western-oriented we can articulate the following as some of the major claims of this particular perspective: 1. From the perspective of Third World theorists, traditional security studies are rooted in a Western-based understanding of societies, states, and the international system. A study of Third World states would thus demonstrate the need for an alternative theoretical framework that truly reflects the institutional, societal and political realities of Third World states. 2. While Stritzel and Balzacq criticized the theoretical inadequacies of the Copenhagen School and proposed the primacy of the imbedded context in determining the success of a particular speech act, this analysis could also be seen as drawing from a particular understanding of the interaction between the state
26

Wilkinson, Claire, The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe? Security Dialogue 38.5 (2007): 7 27 Wilkinson, 22 28 Ibid, 22

7 and society. This, being orientated to a Western notion of democratic society where it often has the power to determine the compatibility of a certain speech act, marginalizes a large section of the non-western, non-democratic world where the society cannot be accorded such a level of primacy 3. Finally, Wilkinson explicitly critiques the Westphalian straitjacket, that is at a core aspect of the Copenhagen School, as limiting its analysis to a Western understanding of the society, state and the international system. De-Westernizing Critical Security Studies What critical security studies have attempted to do is challenge our traditional understanding of the dynamics of societies, states and the international system. Those challenging the Western-centric notions of (critical) security studies can be broadly divided (for the purpose of this study) into two groups. The first proposes an alternative theoretical framework that solely engages in the non-Western perspective (e.g. Third World Security). The second group of theorists (namely, Wilkinson and to an extent Stritzel and Balzacq) propose a critical engagement within the frameworks of critical security studies attempting to disentangle it from the remnants of the traditional westerncentric assumptions of security studies. While both perspectives attempt to provide a comprehensive solution in significantly different manners, they can be seen as drawing from a common empirical assumption, i.e. the presence of a clear dichotomy between the western and non-western, where the western is seen as encroaching from beyond the borders of Third World/non-Western states while the non-Western reality remains an internal force against this external/incompatible threat. I would claim that the weakness of these perspectives lays solely on the acceptance of this assumption. While it is true that the dynamics of non-Western societies are vastly different from that of the West, it would be nave to assume that institutionally and structurally they are completely incompatible with Western notions of society, state and the international system. One must first realize the creation of Third World states was primarily a Western/colonial project. Whether it was the Sykes-Picot Agreement for the Middle East, the carving of the continent of Africa among the European colonial powers or the partition of the Indian subcontinent, the arbitrariness of this colonial project transcended the particular needs of any particular

8 social, cultural, political and geographical context. Instead what it has left behind was a institutional structure that, whether compatible or not, remains till today the primary configuration around which the Third World interacts with the international system. The problem remains in the fact that while a Third World country remains officially committed to this structure (of the Westphalian straitjacket), its underlying society remains incompatible to the institutional structures. So, what we have is a dichotomy but not between the external and the internal but one that is within the Third World/nonWestern state. It is a struggle between the institutional constrains imposed by the west and the societal context that is often inherently incompatible to it. The complexity lies in the fact that both these contexts remain and struggle within the boundaries of the Third World state. What this internal dichotomy and struggle further manifests is the creation of a societal division between those that are committed to the institutional constraint and those see them incompatible to the societal structure of the particular state in question. Two extreme examples of the presence of this struggle have been Yemen and Pakistan. Both countries have had to contend with a western-imposed state structure while also having to accommodate a significant tradition of tribalism on its territorial boundaries. What this has meant is a continuous struggle between the centre and periphery within the non-western context and demonstrates that, more than a clear division between the western and the non-western sphere, what exists is a complex struggle among these spheres within non-Western states. While one can claim the Western roots of the institutional constraints forced on the Third World, it cannot be ignored that these structures have seen a deep commitment from these countries. The problem rather lays in the incompatibility of it to the societal context. This is where I would claim that any attempt to de-westernize critical security studies should start. Rather than focusing on the difference between the West and the non-Western, this perspective would inherently provide for a reflection of the social reality of Third World states and the societies they encompass. Providing this frame would in fact be the only way one can reflect the nonWestern perspective. Failure to do so would only see the theoretical perspectives of critical security studies as still drawing on some of the traditional conceptual assumptions rooted solely in the West.

9 Conclusion While the process of decolonization ended the territorial control of the west over the Third World, it is clear that this control has remained within the analytical frameworks that have been used to comprehend the dynamics of the non-Western. Drawing from the post-colonial notion of cultural chauvinism, Critical Security Studies through the likes of Ayoob, Thomas, Acharya and Wilkinson, has attempted to break away from the constraints of the western paradigms in order to truly understand the security concerns and their manifestations outside the West. Unfortunately, the outcome of this attempt has been a flawed understanding of the problematique. Notions of Third World security and Wilkinsons critique of the Copenhagen Schools Westphalian straitjacket have created a conception based on the assumption that there exists a clear dichotomy between the nonwestern reality and the Western institutional/structural assumptions. This could be seen as essentially flawed as it fails to recognize that in the post-colonial context, where Third World institutional/structural realities have strong western roots, the relationship with non-western societal reality is far more complex. Moreover, often owing to its societal incompatibility these structural realities are frequently engaged in a struggle within nonWestern countries. This is where this paper claims lies the security problematique, i.e. in the struggle between the Western institutional constraints implemented by the colonial west and the often incompatibility of it with the society it encompasses. Furthermore, it is the reflection of this struggle that can truly incorporate the non-western within the theoretical frameworks of the critical security studies, thus paving the way towards comprehensively de-westernizing the discipline.

10 Works Cited List 1) Acharya, Amitav, The Periphery as the Core: The Third World and Security Studies in Critical Security Studies ed. Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams (London: UCL Press, 1997) 2) Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffith and Helen Tiffin, Introduction: Representation and Resistance in The post-colonial studies reader ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffith and Helen Tiffin. (London: Routledge, 1995) 3) Ayoob, Mohammed, The Third World Security Predicament (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1995) 4) Ayoob, Mohammed. Inequalities and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism International Studies Review 4.3 (Autumn, 2002): 27-48 5) Balzacq, Thierry The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context European Journal of International Relations 11.2 (2007): 171-201 6) Ling, L.H.M. Cultural Chauvinism And The Liberal International Order: West versus Rest in Asias financial crisis in Power in a postcolonial world: race, gender, and class in International Relations ed. Geeta Chowdhury and Sheila Nair (London: Routledge, 2002) 7) Stritzel, Holger. Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond European Journal of International Relations 13.3 (2007): 357-383 8) Thomas, Caroline, In Search of Security (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987) 9) Wilkinson, Claire, The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe? Security Dialogue 38.5 (2007): 5-25