P. 1
Fmhi BS 02 Politics of Security [ENG]

Fmhi BS 02 Politics of Security [ENG]

|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by Deden Habibi

More info:

Published by: Deden Habibi on Dec 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less






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

Dangers of Threat or Our own? Even so. Barry Buzan states that security at the level of the individual as a social problem has three element . These three elements owned by each individual and unfortunately. This danger is not present in reality as well as potential threats. Death is at the core of security philosophically. 1991). 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 . and a threat to the status / position (insult) . Dillon questioned whether the 'security' must be secured? This question was not only about how to secure political Modernity in International Relations.definition. What about now? All the more vague and without value. nihilism is not going to happen if we focus on the metaphysics that is to end: . and Fears (1991). how the definitions of each of the IR theory that I mentioned earlier ? Armed with a (small) knowledge of security theories. 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. Hannah Arendt. 'Security' must be secured? In the first chapter. according to Dillon. think about security will lead us to nihilism. the philosopher who greatly influenced by Heidegger. as if faint. according to Dillon are among the political and human metaphysics of mortality (death) as the limit where the political and security thinking begins. we are not aware that in the end there will always be differentiation between us and others. and directly and immediately lead to the understanding of relational security that was very influenced by neorealism. if we continue to think about the security of a number of 'anti-'. We often do not realize that Barry Buzan's conception of security directly skip the process of the formation of political philosophy itself. meaning struggle so clearly defined. but also how the political philosophy underlying formed first. However. Dillon’s is very basic philosophy. stating that 'There are no dangerous thoughts. State. lost civil liberties) . 1996: p. I tried reviewing the criticisms of Michael Dillon. furthermore. insecurity (insecurity) should be accepted. despite calls death as one example of a physical threat. but there is in how we think about it. According to Dillon. difficult access to resources). while Buzan’s tend to be relational. how is the relationship between politics and philosophy? Relationship. injury . According to Dillon. Security and insecurity would happen as humanity's shared. According to him. The threats that may be present in the form of physical threats ( wound . but. this is one of the dangers that must be examined closely. If we are in the totalitarian era. the threat of economic (poverty . If this trend continues. feel secure (subjective security). When juxtaposed with the political philosophy of mortality Dillon security. it does not mean that Dillon is not operational philosophy. the threat of the rights (prison . Thinking itself that dangerous' (Dillon. In the People. but rather to provide a more flexible foundation on not only how a security concept is formed. However. Buzan. when the clash. death ). and free from doubt. namely awake from danger (objective security). emphasizes the balance of freedom of action . will bring the threat to humans from each other .32).

but rather for more and more aware that before reaching thinking about security threats. I think. as well as our system of rule. With these two terms. Dillon stressed that security is not an attempt to name the things. thanks to this work . such as Diplomacy. Starting from the value. Amity as friends and Enmity as enemies in the regional security detainees.34 ) to keep pursuing the essence . • finding out about the creation and exploration of political strategies through the question: What is the political practice of death (mortality). International Law or Political Economy . and deconstruction (Dillon. we must first pass through the dangers of how we think about it. but rather to do things. We need to more carefully assess the existence of external parties often have excessive presence (Beings) of appearance through genealogy. 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 . hermeneutics. The goal is not to achieve earlier nihilism. the security policy can not be approached only by such a philosophical approach . However. However. security has been reached? As in the second point in the effort to think on metaphysics security for humans before. This recognition process is the first step that will determine all forms of security policy of a country. in the end . Unfortunately. we are required to actually do philosophy. . political practices. Verbs security. Perhaps one day. we will identify the subjects of the state in a security perspective. 2003). • because of security do things rather than just naming things. and imagination. we must ask questions about the safety of the active interrogative voice of genealogy and hermeneutics. if it is used as a destination? Does by anyone know who the friend and enemy. these essential steps are often not consistent with what Dillon assume that security is about doing something . 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.• warn us against the inevitable violence and dogmatic necessity in the practice of the most fundamental values in our (inter)national political thought. 1996: p. 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. origin. not Identity We know the terminology of amity and enmity in the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) (Buzan & Waever. 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.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->