Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Critical Security Studies and Alternative Dialogues for Peace: Reconstructing ‘Language Barriers’ and ‘Talking Points’

  • Chapter
The Palgrave Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace

Abstract

On paper, it is easy to assume that critical peace studies1 and critical security studies share the same lexicon. Evidently, each discipline adopts various modes of immanent critique to expose and alleviate insecurities in different environments. They are equally similar insofar as their core concepts, peace and security, are easily recognizable and commonly deployed within academic and everyday grammars. Added to all of the above, these two words can be, and often are, used interchangeably. These interweavings are particularly visible in the United Nations’ thematic heading2 and the professed mission statements of its institutional arms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. K. Krause and M. C. Williams, ‘Preface: Toward Critical Securities’, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, eds K. Krause and M. C. Williams (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), vii–xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. Buzan, ‘Peace, Power, and Security: Contending Concepts in the Study of International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research 21, no. 2 (1984): 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. For further discussion, see J. George, ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (1989): 269–279;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. J. George and D. Campbell, ‘Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 269–293;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. P. T. Jackson, ‘Constructing Thinking Space: Alexander Wendt and the Virtues of Engagement’, Cooperation and Conflict 36, no. 1 (2001): 109–120;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. T. Jackson, The Conduct of International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics (London and New York: Routledge, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. B. Gallie, ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–1956): 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Among others, see B. Buzan, People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era, 2nd ed. (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991);

    Google Scholar 

  9. W. E. Connolly, The Terms of Political Discourse (Oxford: Robertson, 1983);

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Dalby, ‘Contesting an Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas of Contemporary Security Discourse’, in Critical Security Studies, eds Keith Krause and Michael Williams (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1997), 3–32;

    Google Scholar 

  11. K. Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  12. On the idea of peace as an ECC, see S. Guzzini and D. Jung, ‘Copenhagen Peace Research’, in Contemporary Security Analysis and Copenhagen Peace Research, eds S. Guzzini and D. Jung (London: Routledge, 2004);

    Google Scholar 

  13. R. Mac Ginty, No War, No Peace: The Rejuvenation of Stalled Peace Processes and Peace Accords (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006);

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. O. P. Richmond, ‘A Post-Liberal Peace: Eirenism and the Everyday’, The Review of International Studies 35, no. 3 (2009): 557–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. See H. Patomäki, ‘How to Tell Better Stories about World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 1 (1996): 105–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. O. Wæver used this phrasing in his 2004 paper ‘Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen: New “Schools” in Security Theory and Their Origins between Core and Periphery’, paper presented at 45th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Montreal, Canada, 17–20 March. Also see the C.A.S.E Collective, ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’, Security Dialogue 37, no. 4 (2006): 443–487;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. C. Peoples and N. Vaughan Williams, Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  18. For extensive overviews of the evolving fields of critical security studies, see C. Aradau, J. Huysmans, A. Neal and N. Voelkner, Critical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis (New International Relations) (London: Routledge, 2014);

    Google Scholar 

  19. B. Buzan and L. Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Peoples and Vaughan Williams, Critical Security Studies;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. K. Fierke, Critical Approaches to International Security (Cambridge: Polity, 2007); Krause and Williams, Critical Security Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Salter and C. E. Mutlu, Research Methods in Critical Security Studies: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Huysmans, Security Unbound: Enacting Democratic Limits (London and New York: Routledge, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. On the distinction between explanation and understanding, see M. Hollis and S. Smith, ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 17, no. 4 (1991): 393–410; Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990); ‘Two Stories about Structure and Agency’, Review of International Studies 20, no. 3 (1994): 241–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. For further discussion of the importance of ‘how possible questions’, see R. Doty, ‘Foreign Policy as a Social Construction’, International Studies Quarterly 37, no. 3 (1993): 297–320;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. M. McDonald and M. Merefield, ‘How Was Howard’s War Possible? Winning the War of Position over Iraq’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 64, no. 2 (2010): 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. R. Kapur, ‘Human Rights in the 21st Century: Take a Walk on the Dark Side’, Sydney Law Review 28 (2006): 685.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See K. M. Fierke, ‘Breaking the Silence: Language and Method in International Relations’, in Language, Agency and Politics in a Constructed World, ed. F. Debrix (Armonk and London: M.E. Sharpe, 2003);

    Google Scholar 

  28. K. M. Fierke and M. Nicholson, ‘Divided by a Common Language: Formal and Constructivist Approaches to Games’, Global Society 15, no. 1 (2001): 7–25;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. J. A. Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists’, International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1997): 611–632;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. L. Hansen ‘From Camps to Conversations in Critical Studies’, International Studies Review 10, no.3 (2008): 652–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Notable deviations to this trend are ‘realist constructivist’ and ‘constructivist realist’ approaches. See J. S. Barkin, ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review 5, no. 3 (2003): 325–342;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. P. T. Jackson and D. H. Nexon, ‘Constructivist Realism or Realist-Constructivism?’ International Studies Review 6, no. 2 (2004): 337–341.

    Google Scholar 

  33. A. Lefevere, ‘Discourses on Translation: Recent, Less Recent and to Come’, Target 5, no. 2 (1993): 299–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. The term ‘gate-keeping’ is also relevant here. See G. Sanghera and S. Thapar-Bjorkert, ‘Methodological Dilemmas: Gatekeepers and Positionality in Bradford’, Ethnic and Racial Studies 31, no. 3 (2008): 543–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. For further discussion on the power of writing histories and security, see D. Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998);

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. L. Doty, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  37. K. Booth, ‘The Human Faces of Terror: Reflections in a Cracked Looking Glass’, Critical Studies on Terrorism 1, no. 1 (2008): 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. See T. Balzacq and S. Guzzini, ‘Introduction: What kind of theory — if any — is securitization?’, International Relations 29, no.1 (2015): 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. For some connection points, see C. Burger and T. Villumsen, ‘Beyond the Gap: Relevance, Fields of Practice and the Securitizing Consequences of (Democratic Peace) Research’, Journal of International Relations and Development 10, no. 4 (2007): 417–448;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. J. Hayes, ‘Identity and Securitisation in the Democratic Peace: The United States and the Divergence of Responses to India and Iran’s Nuclear Programmes’, International Studies Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2009): 977–999;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. N. Tschirgi, ‘Securitisation and Peace Building’, in Routledge Handbook of Peacebuilding, ed. R. Mac Ginty (London: Routledge, 2013), 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  42. For a full description of this framework, see B. Buzan, O. Wæver and J. deWilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See N. G. Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  44. For this critique, see T. Barkawi, ‘From War to Security: Security Studies, the Wider Agenda and the Fate of the Study of War’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 701–716;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. O. N. Knudsen, ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritising Securitisation’, Security Dialogue 32, no. 3 (2001): 355–368. For rejoinders,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. see C. Aradau, ‘Security, War, Violence — The Politics of Critique: A Reply to Barkawi’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41, no. 1 (2012): 112–123;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. B. Buzan and O. Wæver, ‘Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically Untenable? The Copenhagen School Replies’, Review of International Studies 23, no. 2 (1997): 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. See O. Wæver, ‘Peace and Security: Two Evolving Concepts and Their Changing Relationship’, in Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century, eds Hans Günter Brauch, Úrsula Oswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz, John Grin, Pal Dunay, Navnita Chadha Behera, Béchir Chourou, Patricia Kameri-Mbote and P. H. Liotta, Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol. 3 (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Springer-Verlag, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. O. P. Richmond, Peace in International Relations (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), 133.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Also see V. Jabri, War and the Transformation of Global Politics (London: Palgrave, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. It is not possible to outline all of the critiques levelled against the Copenhagen School. For an excellent overview of the so-called second-generation debates, see T. Balzacq, ed., Securitisation Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve (London: Routledge, 2011); on the differences between the Copenhagen School and the Welsh School,

    Google Scholar 

  52. see R. Floyd, ‘Towards a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of Security Studies’, Review of International Studies 33, no. 2 (2007): 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. J. Milliken, ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods’, European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Among others, see T. Barkawi and M. Laffey, ‘The Post-Colonial Moment in Security Studies’, Review of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2006): 329–352;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. P. Biligin, ‘The “Western-Centrism” of Security Studies: “Blind Spot” or Constitutive Practice?’ Security Dialogue 41, no. 6 (2010): 615–622; ‘Thinking Past Western IR?’ Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. D. Chandler, Empire in Denial: The Politics of State Building (London: Pluto Press, 2006);

    Google Scholar 

  57. V. Jabri, ‘Peacebuilding, the Local and the International: A Colonial or Post-Colonial Rationality?’ Peacebuilding 1, no. 1 (2013): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Silencing is a very complex topic that cannot be fully addressed here. For an excellent overview, see G. K. Bhambra and R. Shilliam, Silencing Human Rights: Critical Engagements with a Contested Project (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009);

    Google Scholar 

  59. L. Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29, no. 2 (2000): 285–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. See, among others, Tickner, ‘You Just Don’t Understand’, 611–632; C. Enloe, ‘“Gender” Is Not Enough: The Need for Feminist Consciousness’, International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 95–97; Nimo’s War, Emma’s War: Making Feminist Sense of the Iraq War (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2010);

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. D. Pankhurst, Gendered Peace: Women’s Struggles for Post-War Justice and Reconciliation (New York, London: Routledge, 2008);

    Google Scholar 

  62. C. Cockburn, ‘Gender Relations as Causal in Militarization and War’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 12, no. 2 (2010): 139–157;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. M. Zalewski, ‘Do We Understand Each Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters with(in) International Relations’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 9, no. 2 (2007): 302–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. G. C. Spivak, ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 271–313.

    Google Scholar 

  65. On this point, see N. Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonisation and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  66. R. K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker, ‘Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissent Thought in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. For conceptions of the ‘local’ in peace studies, see O. P. Richmond, A Post-Liberal Peace (London and New York: Routledge, 2012);

    Google Scholar 

  68. R. Mac Ginty, ‘Indigenous Peace-Making versus the Liberal Peace’, Cooperation and Conflict 43, no. 2 (2008): 139–163. For an overview of ‘everyday’ security,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. see J. Huysmans, ‘What’s in an Act? On Security Speech Acts and Little Security Nothings’, Security Dialogue 42, no. 4–5 (2011): 371–383;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. X. Guillaume, ‘Resistance and the International: The Challenge of the Everyday’, International Political Sociology 5, no. 4 (2011): 459–462;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. X. Guillaume and O. Kessler, ‘Everyday Practices of International Relations: People in Organisations’, Journal of International Relations and Development, 15, no. 1 (2012): 110–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. O. P. Richmond, ‘De-Romanticising the Local, De-Mystifying the International: Hybridity in Timor Leste and the Solomon Islands’, The Pacific Review 24, no. 1 (2011): 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. V. Bajc, ‘Introduction: Security Meta-Framing: A Cultural Logic of an Ordering Practice’, in Security and Everyday Life, V. Bajc and W. de Lint (New York and Oxon: Routledge, 2011), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See E. Newman and O. P. Richmond, Challenges to Peace Building: Managing Spoilers during Conflict Resolution (New York: United Nations University Press, 2006).

    Google Scholar 

  75. On this point, it should be noted that many scholars have problematized the reliance on democratic and Western settings when it comes to the study of (de)securitization. See C. Wilkinson, ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable outside Europe?’ Security Dialogue 38, no. 1 (2007): 5–25;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. A. Collins, ‘Securitization, Frankenstein’s Monster and Malaysian Education’, The Pacific Review 18, no. 4 (2005): 567–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. E. M. Cousens, ‘Introduction’, in Peacebuilding as Politics: Cultivating Peace in Fragile Societies, E. M. Cousens and C. Kamur with K. Wermester (Boulder & London: Lynne Rienner, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  78. R. Christie, ‘Critical Voices and Human Security: To Endure, To Engage or To Critique’, Security Dialogue 41, no. 2 (2010): 171. For an overview of the promises and limitations of human security,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. see R. Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security 26, no. 2 (2001): 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. See L. Amoore and M. de Goede, Risk and the War on Terror (London: Routledge, 2008);

    Google Scholar 

  81. C. Aradau and R. Van Munster, Politics of Catastrophe: Genealogies of the Unknown (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  82. See A. Leander, ‘The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military Companies’, Millennium Journal of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2005): 803–826;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. P. W. Singer, Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Faye Donnelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, UK

    Oliver P. Richmond (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor), Sandra Pogodda (Lecturer) & Jasmin Ramović (Doctoral Candidate) (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor),  (Lecturer) &  (Doctoral Candidate)

  2. Kyung Hee University, Korea

    Oliver P. Richmond (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor) (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor)

  3. University of Tromso, Norway

    Oliver P. Richmond (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor) (Research Professor, International Professor, Visiting Professor)

Copyright information

© 2016 Faye Donnelly

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Donnelly, F. (2016). Critical Security Studies and Alternative Dialogues for Peace: Reconstructing ‘Language Barriers’ and ‘Talking Points’. In: Richmond, O.P., Pogodda, S., Ramović, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Disciplinary and Regional Approaches to Peace. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-40761-0_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation