Security and emancipation

Résumé du document

The 20th century has witnessed many struggles for emancipation, and a strong emphasis put on security agenda in many countries. Regarding emancipation, many examples come to our mind like the decolonization era, after World War II, the feminist struggles for equality between genders all over the century, all the movements of the 1970s that are associated, in France, with May 68 etc. Concerning security, one might think of protection of States borders, national defence or measures to ensure domestic order. Hence, the theoretical link between emancipation and security is not evident. In 1991, Ken Booth, a British international theorist, wrote an article titled 'Security and Emancipation'. In this article, he argues that 'it is appropriate to place emancipation at the centre of new security studies because it is in the spirit of our times', and he adds that 'our time refers to the whole of the twentieth century'. This presentation will refer mainly to the 'Welsh School', a branch of Critical Security Studies. Ken Booth, as well as Richard Wyn Jones, aim at re-conceptualizing security within a critical approach of the traditional security studies. Their conception enlarges the realm of security, which is no longer just a matter of State, and seeks to achieve what they call 'true security'. In his article, Ken Booth clearly defines the two main terms he uses. Security 'means the absence of threats'; emancipation is 'freeing people from the physical and human constraints, together with poverty, poor education, political oppression and so on'. From those definitions, Booth wants to prove that 'security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin'. Why should we consider security in terms of emancipation? Why does it imply, theoretically and empirically? First, I'll focus on Ken Booth's approach, that leads him to affirm that 'emancipation, theoretically, is security'. Then, I will develop the implications and the limits of his theory.

Extraits

[...] References BOOTH Ken & VALE Peter; “Security in Southern Africa: After Apartheid, beyond Realism”; In : International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol No (Apr., 1995), pp. 285-304. BOOTH Ken "Security and Emancipation", In : Review of International Studies, Vol No.4, April 1992 BOOTH Ken; “Security in Anarchy: Utopian Realism in Theory and Practice”, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol No (Jul., 1991), pp. 527-545. COLLINS Herbert, “Sociology of Emancipation”; In : Phylon Vol No (2nd Qtr., 1965), pp. [...]

[...] (edited Critical Security Studies, Concepts and Cases; UCL Press RUANE, Joseph, TODD, Jennifer, The dynamics of conflict in Northern Ireland : power, conflict and emancipation; Cambridge University Press TAURECK Rita ; ‘Positive and negative Securitisation - Bringing together securitisation theory and normative Critical Security Studies'; 2005 Booth Booth Wyn Jones, Richard (1995) “‘Message in a Bottle'? Theory and Praxis in Critical Security Studies. Contemporary Security Policy 16(3) pp Booth, Ken (2005) Critical Security Studies and the Study of World Politics London: Lynne Rienner Publisher P.23 Cf. Richard Rummel's thesis: political rights and civil liberties tend to eradicate violence. E.g.: Emancipatory approach for the resolutions of conflicts, like in Northern Ireland. [...]

[...] For example, one can think of the fostering of the development of civil society as an agent of security; an idea that reminds Tocqueville's thinking as well as the post-communist countries empirical example. ( To bring about deep political change . through a multilevel process of emancipation. It concerns individuals and social groups (for example, Booth emphasises on the womens' conditions in the post-apartheid South Africa) but it can be lead from many levels: the regional level (‘community-building'), the global level (for example, we can think of the role the UN specialized agencies to promote Human well-being. [...]

[...] Why should we consider security in terms of emancipation? Why does it imply, theoretically and empirically? First, I'll focus on Ken Booth's approach, that leads him to affirm that: Emancipation, theoretically, is security.[2] Then, I will develop the implications and the limits of his theory. I. ‘Emancipation theoretically, is security' (Ken Booth) A. A Critical and Contextual-based Approach of Security ( A Specific Context: the end of the 20th century Booth refers to an ‘interregnum', which is a period of tremendous changes and discontinuity in the social and political order. [...]

[...] The potential critics ( A normative point of view This approach could be criticized for its normative perspective. “Critical perspectives aim not only to understand the world, but also to change Booth said. He presents his theory as global moral science rather than an accumulation of knowledge'. He criticized the too large distinction between ‘facts' and ‘values' in the realist conception and defines himself as a ‘utopian realist'. ( When does Security stop? It needs a limitation in the fields of Security. [...]