This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
At first, the title of the book Politics of Security brings Me to the memory of Ole Waever securitization concept in his book with Barry Buzan Security: A New Framework of Analysis (1998). Securitization is a concept in the Copenhagen School of security thinking is strongly influenced by social-constructivist perspective and has been present since 1995. Securitization basically conceive of a process of reviewing a security issue that needs to be addressed with power as well as the threat to the country through the process of securitizing act by politicians. However, all the estimates I have not gone even once mentioning the author's concept of securitization, the name of a Waever, or even social-constructivism. Indeed, the names of the philosophers who dominated the discussion of this book: Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Levinas and Arendt. Finally I realized, this is the time to see security is far more philosophical. Discussion of Michael Dillon all the more surprising when it turned out I was, in fact, the philosophy is much more focused to examine first, even especially, the political aspect, then the security aspect.
Motivated by the existence of a crisis in consciousness between philosophy and politics, and with the conviction that there is an intimate relationship between two of the most rugged and exhibited globally visible in politics (inter) national, the purpose of this book is to contribute to rethink some of the basics International Relations through what I call the political philosophy of contemporary continental thought. Its main intention is, therefore, to contribute to the reconstruction of International Relations as a site of political thought, by departing from the very commitment to political subjectivity upon which international relations are based. (Dillon, 1996: p.2) Contribution (Dillon) derived from the initial entry point into crisis and political philosophy - namely security ... (Dillon, 1996: p.9)
In this critique of security studies , with insights into the thinking of Heidegger , Foucault , Derrida , Levinas and Arendt , Michael Dillon (1996 ) contribute to a rethinking of some of the fundamentals of international politics . Inspired by the work of Martin Heidegger , Politics of Security establishes the relationship between radical hermeneutic phenomenology of Heidegger and Politics . The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic expressions and non - linguistic (Bjørn , 2013) . But through his book , Sein und Zeit (1927) , Heidegger actually change the discipline of hermeneutics (Bjørn , 2013) . In view of Heidegger , hermeneutics is not a matter of understanding linguistic communication , not about the methodological basis for the human sciences (Bjørn , 2013) . Hermeneutics is ontology : about the most fundamental conditions of human existence in the world . From that relationship , Michael Dillon trace the roots of desire for security to the metaphysical desire for certitude. Dillon purpose that I wrote above is just a part of what is discussed in the Politics of Security . So this book makes a profound discussion I restrict the study to the existing material. I am interested in the discussion of the first chapter, "Security , philosophy and politics" . Discourses on security, which until now I get it mostly departed from the perspectives of International Relations, especially Realism (and all its variants), Neoliberalism, Social - constructivism , and some post - post thoughts in Critical Security Studies (CSS) such as feminism , critical theory , and others. Philosophical side of security as security or security as security on its own tends to be only available in the form of a simplification of the "free from threat" . The meaning of " free " ( free / freedom) , " from " ( from / against ? ) , And the " threat " (threats / vurnerabilities ) is actually very debatable . That's just basic
this is one of the dangers that must be examined closely. we are not aware that in the end there will always be differentiation between us and others. However. these threats converging on a great dilemma underlying many political philosophies about how to balance between the freedom of action of an individual with potential or real threats presented when these freedoms affect others (Buzan . We often do not realize that Barry Buzan's conception of security directly skip the process of the formation of political philosophy itself. according to Dillon. Dillon questioned whether the 'security' must be secured? This question was not only about how to secure political Modernity in International Relations. Barry Buzan has aligned understanding of neighbor relationships security / insecurity that the impact of social threats had led to a causality: if freedom (freedom) dikehendari. namely awake from danger (objective security). the philosopher who greatly influenced by Heidegger. According to Dillon. as if faint. stating that 'There are no dangerous thoughts. death ). feel secure (subjective security). while Buzan’s tend to be relational. However. and directly and immediately lead to the understanding of relational security that was very influenced by neorealism. What about now? All the more vague and without value. emphasizes the balance of freedom of action . difficult access to resources). according to Dillon are among the political and human metaphysics of mortality (death) as the limit where the political and security thinking begins. and Fears (1991). despite calls death as one example of a physical threat. Death is at the core of security philosophically. lost civil liberties) . State. when the clash. If we are in the totalitarian era. When juxtaposed with the political philosophy of mortality Dillon security. Buzan. 'Security' must be secured? In the first chapter. Dillon’s is very basic philosophy. furthermore. Security and insecurity would happen as humanity's shared. 1996: p. Hannah Arendt. injury . If this trend continues. but also how the political philosophy underlying formed first. but. it does not mean that Dillon is not operational philosophy.32). how is the relationship between politics and philosophy? Relationship. I tried reviewing the criticisms of Michael Dillon. if we continue to think about the security of a number of 'anti-'. will bring the threat to humans from each other . and a threat to the status / position (insult) . think about security will lead us to nihilism. meaning struggle so clearly defined. These three elements owned by each individual and unfortunately. insecurity (insecurity) should be accepted. the threat of the rights (prison . the threat of economic (poverty . The threats that may be present in the form of physical threats ( wound . but rather to provide a more flexible foundation on not only how a security concept is formed. nihilism is not going to happen if we focus on the metaphysics that is to end: . In the People. 1991). Thinking itself that dangerous' (Dillon. This danger is not present in reality as well as potential threats. how the definitions of each of the IR theory that I mentioned earlier ? Armed with a (small) knowledge of security theories. According to him.definition. Barry Buzan states that security at the level of the individual as a social problem has three element . Dangers of Threat or Our own? Even so. and free from doubt. According to Dillon. but there is in how we think about it.
The goal is not to achieve earlier nihilism. we are required to actually do philosophy. Verbs security. and imagination. such as Diplomacy. as well as our system of rule. the security policy can not be approached only by such a philosophical approach . We need to more carefully assess the existence of external parties often have excessive presence (Beings) of appearance through genealogy.• warn us against the inevitable violence and dogmatic necessity in the practice of the most fundamental values in our (inter)national political thought. Amity as friends and Enmity as enemies in the regional security detainees. we will identify the subjects of the state in a security perspective. I think. With these two terms. Perhaps one day. 2003). However. a major contribution Dillon about forming a political philosophy that security is a very valuable insight for assessing security deeper and more stand alone again . now globally threatened themselves by political (inter) national security of those who might? • questioned the claims about the affecting international security upon our political imagination. if it is used as a destination? Does by anyone know who the friend and enemy. • because of security do things rather than just naming things. in the end . However. . but rather for more and more aware that before reaching thinking about security threats.34 ) to keep pursuing the essence . Dillon stressed that security is not an attempt to name the things. political practices. International Law or Political Economy . • finding out about the creation and exploration of political strategies through the question: What is the political practice of death (mortality). we must first pass through the dangers of how we think about it. we must ask questions about the safety of the active interrogative voice of genealogy and hermeneutics. origin. Unfortunately. This recognition process is the first step that will determine all forms of security policy of a country. 1996: p. but rather to do things. Starting from the value. hermeneutics. thanks to this work . and deconstruction (Dillon. we still need art or skill on a practical level that can answer the security challenges that are immediate and unique in all of space and time because of the restrictions which Dillon himself revealed mortality so difficult to measure. these essential steps are often not consistent with what Dillon assume that security is about doing something . the security may be one of the core subjects in the study of international relations. All these questions will drive the move to the realm of metaphysical kitauntuk influenced by constraints (limits) as Dillon got from Heidegger. not Identity We know the terminology of amity and enmity in the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) (Buzan & Waever. security has been reached? As in the second point in the effort to think on metaphysics security for humans before.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?