Security mauters. Ic is impossible to make sense of world politics without reference to it. Every day, people somewhere inthe world are killed, starved, tortured, raped, impoverished, imprisoned, displaced, or denied education and healthcare in the name of security. The concept saturates contemporary societies all around the world: i liters the speeches of politicians and pundits newspaper columns and radio waves ae fall oft; and images of security and insecurity ash across our television screns and the internet almost constant All this makes security a fascinating, often deadly, but always imporeant topic: But what does this word mean, what political effec does ic generate and hhow should ie be studied? Some analysts chink security is like beauty: a subjective and elastic term, meaning exactly what the subject in question says ic means neither mote nor les. In the more technical language of socal sience, security is often rofered to as an ‘essentially contested concept” (see Galle 1956), one for which, by definition, there can be no consensus as to its ‘meaning. While in one sense thsi certainly rue ~ scutity undoubtedly means different things to different people —aran abstract level, most scholars within International Relations (IR) work with a definition of security that involves the alleviation of threats to cherished values Defined in chs way, security is unavoidably political, thats it plays a vital role in deciding who gets what, when, and how in world politics (Lasswell 1936). Security studies can thus never be solely an intellectual pursuit beeause icis stimulated in large par bythe impulse to achieve security for real people in real places (see Booth 2007). This involves interpreting the pase (specifically hhow different groups thought about and practised security), understanding the present, and tying to influence the future. Indeed, perceptions of the vey short Defiring a of ri four funaamental How tose is bofavure are arguably the key terrain on which competing approaches to security compete. As such, the concept of security has been likened ro a trump-card in the seruggle over the allocation of resources, Think, for example, of the dften huge discrepancies inthe sizeof budgets that many governments devote to ministties engaged in ‘security’ as opposed to say ‘development’ or “heath” ot ‘education’ or ‘justice [An extteme example of ptioritizing regime secutiry would be the case of Zaire during President Mobut Sese Seko's rule (1965-1997). For much of ‘his period the only thing thac the Zairean state provided its people with was fan illdisciplined and predatory military. In contrast, Mobutw’s government Spent almost nothing on public heath and education services, In similar fashion, many of the procesters who formed the core of the Arab awakening in early 2011 were incensed by their government's decisions to invest more ses designed to stifle dissenc and retain power than in the Future prosperity and education of their people Security can therefore be thought of as ‘a powerful political too! in claiming antention for priority items in the competition for government attention’ (Buzan 1991: 370). Consequently, it matters a great deal who gets to decide what securiey means, what issues make it onto security agendas, how those issues should be deale with, and, crucially, what happens when different visions of security collide. This isthe stuf of security studies and the subject matter ofthis book, Before moving tothe substantiv chapters in this volume, this introductory chapter docs three things, First, i provides 2 brief overview of how the field of secutity studies has developed. Second, ic discusses four central questions which help delineate the concours of the field as it exists today. Finally, it explains what follows in the rest of this book. erviow [As you will sce throughout this book, there are many different ways to think hour security; and hence security studies. Rather than adopt and defend one “of these positions, che aim of this textbook isto provide you with an overview of the different perspectives, concepts, insticutions and challenges thar exercise the contemporary field of security studies. Consequently, not everyone agrees thatall ofthe issues discussed in this book should be classified as part of security Studies. The approach adopted bere, however, isnot to place rigid boundaries round the field, Instead, security studies is understood as an area of inquity loosely focused around a set of basic but Fundamental questions; the answers te which have changed, and will continue to change over time. Indeed, the first major attempt to provide an intellectual history of how intemational sceuriny as been studied argued thatthe interplay of five forces is ‘particularly central’ to understanding how the field has evolved: great power politics, technology, key events, the internal dynamies of academic debates, and institusionalization (the process through which networks form and resourcesPAUL 0, WILLIAMS ced) (Buzan and Hansen 2009), These five forces roughly equate to ras about ma wer, Knowledge, history, prevail structions, and wealth and organizational dynamics respective and Fou shere have been human societies, As any study of ¢ show, security has meant very dif time and place in human history professional ‘Not surprisingly, security has been studio ght over for as long as things to people depending on thei wothschild 1995). But as the subject of ademic inquiry, sccurity studies is usually though of and largely European and American invention that cam Pare 1, Buzan and Hansen 2009). In this version — and it is just one, albeit popular version ~ of the field's histo security studies is understood as one IR. (The other core areas of IR are usually defined as international history, international theory, international law, international political economy and area studies.) Although different labels in differenc places (Nasional Security Studies was p the US while Strategic Studies was a common epithet in the UK), there was general agreement that IR was the subfield’s rightful disciplinary home. This resulted in che immediate exclusion of some key areas of study, notably domestic policing and issues related to the welfare of populations. According ro some analysts, the field enjoyed its ‘golden age’ during the 1950s and 1960s ~a time when some civilians began to attain credibility as experts on military ste ly close connections with Wester sutity policies (see Gar nan (1998: 51) noted found chat they could rely on academic institutions of the most imp nt subfields of acad and enjoyed rela governmenes and their foreign and 1970). ‘During this golden age’, as Lawrence Fi ‘Western governmen ictical proposals, and, eventually willing recruits for the bureaucracy. i influence that would prove difficult to sustain’ In particular, security analysts busied themselves devising theories of nuclear deterrence (and nuclear wa fighcn seems analysis related co the structure of armed forces and resource allocation, and with refining the tols of crisis manager Particularly a it appeared during the Cold War, the dominane approach within security studies can be crudely summarized as advocating. politica realism and being preoccupied with the four ‘S's of sates, strate and the (omerrhat tautologically) to be both the most important dards were set for relevance and tus quo. [¢was focused on states inasmuch as they were consi agents and of security in international politics, It was about saategy inasmuch as the core intellectual and practical concerns revolved around devising the best me. of employi the threat and use of military fozce. It aspired to be scientific inasmuch as to count as authentic, objective knowledge, as opposed to m opinion, analysts were expected ro adope methods that aped the natural, hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Only by approaching the seudy of ‘ould analysts hope to build a reliable bank of knowledge about international politics on which co base specifc policies. Finally, traditional securiey studies reflected an implicit and conservativeunity STUDIES __ oncemn to preserve the satus quo inasmuch as the great pont? and the “ino worked within them understood security policies al society while ajorigy of acade revolutionary change to internations $f own staces within it re always present during the Cold War, they ical headway with respect 0 powers. Arguably che most ts preventing radical and maintaining the position of thei "Athough dissenting voices We did not make a great deal of ineellecrual oF P “hanging the foreign policies of the major Fronnanedseners were scholar engaged in Peas ret and dhose who Ce emote pious eat meme ean bird {oct dor more detail see Barash 2011, Thomas 1987s Buran and Hansen 2009: ch. ‘A key development in theorizing about suzan’s book People, S andermined at least cwo of t ‘about states but related ro Jherently inadequate? sued thatthe security x security occurred in 1983 with the publication of Barry B ates and Fear (see also Ullman 1983). This book fundamentally the four ‘S's of ity studies: security was nor just ities; nor could it be confined ro an “i ns alternative approach arg ) was affected by factors in five major traditional secu! all human colle focus on military force. Buza of human collectvities (nor just states naa Geof whieh had its own focal poine and way of ordering Pe cexplay between the armed offensive erceptions of each other's itary security should Milizary security concerned with and defensive eapabilves of stares and stats ps srentions, Buzan's preference was thar the study of mi ian er aubuc of secur studies and refered 0 a tee sues in order to avoid unnecessiry confi 987). Political security focus on (see Buzan ‘on the organizational stability of stares, systems tment and the ideologies that give them their legitimacy revolved around access to the prable levels of welfae and state power. of go" Economic security esources, finance and markers necessaty t0 sustain 2cce fry and evolution of tradicional Socienal security, centsed on the sustainabil national identity and patterns of language, culture, and religious and ned with maintenance of the loca and the al support system on which all other Environmental security: conc planetary biosphere as the essent hhuman enterprises depend, dered dimensions of security fention to the gen its dominant BBuzan’s framework pat ile at ari philosophical foundations of the Geld, parciculaly spistemology. Asa consequence his book did fir ess to disrupt the traditional Prone gn scientific methods or concerns o preserve the international status Guo. Nevertheless, the considerably revised and expanded second edition of People, States and Fear, published in 1991, provided» timely way of thinking Fee ee Cold War that effectively challenged the field's ly attempted to place such issues abour security af preoccupation with military force and righ -kin their political, social, economic and environmental context. gecad the policies sp while 2, they se who third wiuans Despite such changes, there are several problems with continuing to think secutity studies as a subfield of IR ~ even a vastly broadened one. First of itis clear chat inter-state relations are just one, albeit an important, aspect the security dynamics that characterize contemporary world politics. States ‘not the only important actors, nor are they the only important referent jects for security. Second, there are some good i security studies can no longer afford to live in IR’s disciplinary shadow. Not least isthe fact thae IR remains an enterprise dominated by Anglo-American men where the orthodoxy remains wedded to the tradition of political realism (see Hoffmann 1977, Smith 2000). More specifically, and not surprisingly given its origins, traditional securiey studies stands accused of being written largely by West crnments (Barkawi and Laffey 2006). What this means is that the questions, issues and ways of thinking craditionally considered most important within the field were neither neutral nor natural but were, as Robert Cox famously pur it, always ‘for someone and for some purpose’ (Cox 1981). In addition, studying the traditional cannons of IR may not be the best preparation for a student whose primary interest is understanding secutity dynamics in eontem are so complex and interdependent that they that IR cannot provide alone, Students should therefore look for insights across lectual reasons why orary world polities. Many of today’s security problems uire analysis and solutions a variety of disciplines, and not only those within the humanities or social sciences, For example, analysing isues related to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) requires a degree of scientific and technical knowledges understanding the causcs of rerrorism wil involve a psychological dimension; assessing heal tishs requires some access to medical expertise; understanding environmental degradation involves engaging with biology and environmental history combacing transnational crime will necessarily involve a close relationship with :minology: while providing eyber security clemands knowledge of many areas from computer programming to robotics, All cis raises big questions about who ate the ral ‘security’ experts in world politics and where we might find thom In sum, while sscurity studies has its professional roots inthe dscipine of| IR, today’s world poses challenges that require seudents vo engage with topics and sources of knowledge traditionally considered well beyond the IR pale. Ics therefore unhelpful to think of security seadies as just a subfield of IR Instead, this book begins from the assumption that security studies is beter understood as an area of inquiry revolving loosely around a set of core questions, If ve think about security studies as afield oF inguiry, arguably four basic yee fundamental questions stand out as forming its incllectual coreCURITY STUDIES What is securiey? Whose security are we talking abour? ‘What counts as a security issue? OF course, depending on one's theoretical orientation and priorities, other foundational questions could be added to the lis. For some feminists, for instance, ‘where are the women and what are they doin 1 theorist emain guiding ‘who benefits from existing security policies? is a fundamental issue; while for political sociologists, che research agenda should revolve around investigating the question ‘what practices does “security” enable”. But all cheoretical approaches must grapple ~ cither implicitly or explicitly ~ with these four core questions. So let us briefly examine what is entailed by posing each of chem. Asking what security means rss issues about the philosophy of knowledge, especialy those concerning epistemology (how do we know things), oncology (shar phenomena do we chink make up the social world?) and method (how should we study the social world?) IFwe accept the notion that security is an essentially contested concept then, by definition, such debates cannot be definitively resolved in the abstract. Instead, some postions will become dominant and be enforced because of the application of power. ‘With this in mind, security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values, especially those which, left unchecked, threaten the survival of 2 particular referent object in the near future. To be clea; although sceurity and survival are often related, they ate not synonymous. Whereas survival is an existential condition, security involves the ability to Pursue cherished political and social ambitions. Security is therefore bese understood as what Ken Booth (2007) has called, ‘survival-plus, ‘the “plus” being some freedom from life-determining chreats, and therefore some life arin rather stark tetms, itis possible to identify two prevalent philosophies of security, each emerging from fundamentally different starting points. The first philosophy sees security as being vireually synonymous with the accumulation of power. From this perspective, security is un stood a8 & commodity (i... to be secure, actors must possess certain things such as Property, money, weapons, armies, territory, etc.). In particular, power is ‘thought tobe the route ro securicy: the more power (especially military power) actors can accumulate, the more secure they will be The second philosophy challenges the idea that security ows from power Instead, ie ses security as being based on emancipation, that is, a concer with justice andthe provision of human eights, From this perspective, security is understood as a relationship berween different actors rather than a eg a he ee