We continue with our presentation of Critical Security Studies, a fruitful, contemporary approach to the analysis of nations, statehood and international relations. David Campbell’s book is a foundational text. “Identity, to Campbell, is a vital dimension of being, inescapable and necessary for the existence of any notion of the self. However, identity is not “fixed by nature, given by God, or planned by intentional behavior,” rather is “constituted in relation to difference.” Identity contains no foundations that are ‘prior to, or outside of, its operation,’ and therefore, the identity of every entity is “performatively” constituted.” “A related idea is the claim that boundaries define “an ‘inside’ from an ‘outside,’ a ‘self’ from an ‘other,’ and ‘domestic’ from ‘foreign.”  When connected to foreign policy, it is evident that the state’s identity is secured primarily through a ‘representation of danger’. The ability of the state to define its boundaries in relation to those defined as foreign is a measure of its capacity to exist as a state.” Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity For information on ordering through Amazon, PLEASE CLICK HERE. This book demonstrates how interpretations of danger work to establish the identity and foreign policy of the United States. Working within the problematic of identity/difference, foreign policy—the making things foreign—helps establish the boundaries of inside/outside, domestic/foreign, civilized/barbaric etc.

The Traditional Approach

Analyzing the relationship between the nation and the state is a vital component to better understanding the nature of the human security approach to international relations, as well as the way in which such views contrast with traditional and state-centric approaches to national security.

In accordance with the traditional approach to national security, the state is the ultimate referent and therefore, security is defined in terms of the ability of the state to defend itself against external threats.

The underlying implication of such a theory is that the demands ascribed to the state precede those regarding individuals within the state. Therefore, other interests ascribed to entities such as individuals, or sub-national groups, are subordinate to state-interests. Furthermore, the ‘other’ in traditional security terms, may pose a threat to a state’s boundaries, people, institutions, and values.

The most important aspect of traditional approaches to national security is rooted in the theoretical framework of state-centric realism. It is ultimately foreign aggressors that pose a security threat to the existence of the state. In U.S Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic, Walter Lippmann asserts that,

“[...] without the controlling principle that the nation must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its purposes within its means and its means equal to its purposes, its commitments related to its resources and its resources adequate to its commitments, it is impossible to think at all about foreign affairs.”

The state is, therefore, the sole actor. It is the means by which security is achieved, and the entity upon which security depends. The emphasis on the state primarily stems from the concept of the international system as anarchic, where the ‘other’ is a direct threat to the state’s stability and order.

A prime representation of the traditional approach to national security can be illustrated through acknowledging the extremely securitized foreign policy initiatives undertaken by the United States after the events of September 11, 2001. This example alone helps to highlight the “rhetoric of insecurity” emphasized within the work of David Campbell.

According to this rhetoric, the legitimizations of state policies are justified through the attempt to instill notions of insecurity. In turn, a strong sense of national identity is established, which ultimately allows the American public to feel secure and defended by the policies of the state.

The Unfixed Nature of Identity

Identity, to Campbell, is a vital dimension of being. It is both inescapable and necessary for the existence of any notion of the self. Nonetheless, the conceptualization of identity proposed in the work of Campbell is “constituted in relation to difference,” and “not fixed by nature, given by God, or planned by intentional behavior.” In other words, the problematic of identity contains “no foundations that are prior to, or outside of, its operation,” and therefore, the identity of every entity is “performatively” constituted.

In connection to this idea is the claim that boundaries define “an ‘inside’ from an ‘outside,’ a ‘self’ from an ‘other,’ and a ‘domestic’ from a ‘foreign,” thus further reinforcing the limiting nature of identity and the relationship between the self and the ‘other’. When connecting this theory to that of foreign policy, it is evident that the state’s identity is secured primarily through a “representation of danger.”

Thus, the ability of the state to define its boundaries on the basis of those entities which comprise the foreign is a definitive measure of its capacity to exist as a state. More importantly, Campbell stresses the significance of acknowledging the grounds for “an interpretation of danger.” The mere existence of an external entity or being is a sufficient representation of otherness needed to secure the conception of “the true identity.”

A “People-Centered” Approach To Security

Human security involves a people-centered approach to understanding the nature of international insecurity. It exists in stark contrast to traditional approaches to national security because the defense of the individual replaces concerns of protecting state-interests.

Human security approaches focus not only on protecting the state from external aggression, but more importantly, emphasize internal threats to security, such as “environmental pollution, infectious diseases, economic deprivation, and transnational terrorism,” which all play a significant role in fostering internal instability and, in turn, cultivate an environment of insecurity for nation-states.

According to the human security approach, the ‘other’ is not as defined and external as is proposed by traditional state-centric approaches to national security. Hence, the implication of this theoretical proposition is that the self and the ‘other’ are very much intermingled and interchangeable in an era of globalization and modernization. Therefore, the realization of human security involves a much broader participation of various actors, such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and civil society itself.

The Legitimization of State Identity

As Campbell writes, it is the identity of a ‘people’ that comprises and legitimates the identity of the state. Taking this into consideration, the human security approach is a step towards the integration of the individual into the definition of national security. Thus, the legitimization of state identity has become an integral part of the international security paradigm. In re-identifying the ‘other’ and creating a sense of communal identity, the parameters of security are redefined.

The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Report of 1994 can even be considered as the very origin of the recent debate on human security, which equated security with people rather than with territories, and with development rather than with arms. This report stated that:

“[...] the concept of security has for too long been interpreted narrowly: as security of territory from external aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global aggression, or as protection of national interests in foreign policy or as global security from the threat of nuclear holocaust…Forgotten were the legitimate concerns of ordinary people who sought security in their daily lives.”

The incorporation of the acknowledgment of the individual in defining the very nature of global security is a crucial factor in the determination of both state and interstate identity.

Conclusion

The ultimate objective of Campbell’s analysis is to present a viable and concise analysis of the representation of fear that is instilled in the creation of national security. The most intriguing aspect of Campbell’s argument is that the crisis of representation is at the root of modern-day dilemmas dealing with ideology and “crimes of belief.” Therefore, the ability of a community to exist as a state is possible “only by virtue of their ability to constitute themselves as imagined communities.”

What the human security approach to the security dilemma offers is a re-conceptualization of the “imagined community.” It is an attempt to redefine the parameters of ‘otherness’ that constitutes state identity, thus allowing for a more viable means towards the attainment of substantial security measures providing beneficial for both the individual and the state.

Campbell’s argument is well-articulated through the examination of the way in which “the (United States of) America” has developed its foreign policies under its very name, and offers a breakdown of the various components of identity, such as danger, fear, and ‘otherness’ that all play a part in the creation of state identity.

It is the ‘globalization of contingency’ that Campbell argues to be the most challenging and transformational development of modern times, since it invokes “the increasing tendency toward ambiguity, indeterminacy, and uncertainty on our horizon,” which thus require revolutionary modes of thinking.