In 2006, Jennifer Mitzen famously argued that states don’t solely search bodily safety but additionally ontological safety, or safety of the self.[1] Drawing on components from psychology and psychoanalysis, she proposed a novel strategy to the examine of safety that focuses on the connection between anxiousness and id.[2] Since then, the idea of ontological safety has been more and more used within the examine of worldwide relations because it presents various explanations, for instance, to the replica of safety dilemmas by way of states’ attachment to routinized social relations.[3] Essentially the most extensively referenced authors on this area are Mitzen, Steele and extra not too long ago Rumelili.
One other faculty of safety research that equally tries to combine different disciplines within the examine of safety and battle is the Paris College, with Didier Bigo as its most outstanding consultant.[4] The Paris College goals to analyse safety points through the use of conceptual and operational instruments from the realms of IR, sociology, and criminology.[5] Recognizing the work of Barry Buzan and Ole Wӕver, the Paris College’s predominant contribution is by including to the evaluation of securitization processes based mostly on speech acts and on the importance of safety practices, whereas constructing on the sociological approaches of Bourdieu and Foucault.[6]
This essay doesn’t deny the truth that the 2 ideas of safety originate from very totally different mental fields. Moreover, Mitzen’s work is criticized of being affiliated with conventional and neo-realist approaches to safety fairly than important safety research.[7] Mitzen herself admits that by assuming that people in addition to states act rationally, she desires to interact realist IR idea.[8] Nevertheless, Mitzen’s core argument is that state id is socially constructed and that sources of battle usually are not exogenous to interplay however positioned in between states. That is very totally different to realist idea which assumes {that a} state’s kind is self-organized and never depending on different states. Likewise, Steele emphasizes {that a} state’s curiosity is a product of id development, which is similar to constructivist and demanding constructivist analyses.[9] With reference to the Paris College, which primarily builds on Bourdieu’s work, one ought to observe that the latter understands its personal work as positioned in ‘constructivist structuralism’ or ‘structuralist constructivism’, aiming to hyperlink company and construction in a complete conception of apply.[10]
Contemplating that each the Paris College and the ontological safety strategy might be understood as a part of a broad vary of constructivist views in IR idea, this essay seeks to match the 2 approaches by asking if they’re in the end extra comparable or totally different? Within the context of a broader try and reconcile important and ontological safety approaches, this essay goals to focus on the potential for widespread floor between the students linked to Bigo’s analysis and those associated to Mitzen’s understanding of safety. Evaluating the similarities between the idea of id proposed by Anthony Giddens and the idea of habitus by Pierre Bourdieu, it’s going to first be argued that they each are perceived as having an analogous affect on the securitization course of. Moreover, it will likely be proven that Bigo and Mitzen not solely share the analytical deal with insecurity but additionally the affiliation with the idea of practices. Lastly, it will likely be argued that additionally they empirically share a standard understanding of EU migration governance.
Id and Habitus
The ontological safety perspective’s deal with the actors’ have to really feel as if they’ve secure identities is impressed by the psychoanalysis of Ronald Laing in ‘Self and Others’ (Laing 1960) and the sociology of Anthony Giddens in ‘Modernity and Self-Id’ (Giddens 1991).[11] By conflating self with id, the idea of ontological security-seeking is usually diminished to considerations of id preservation, arguing that “people have to really feel safe in who they’re, as identities or selves.[12]” In response to Mitzen, the flexibility to expertise oneself as an entire, steady particular person in time is essential with a view to understand a way of company.[13] Actually, it is necessary that people have assured expectations concerning the means-ends relationships to know how you can act as a result of they know what to anticipate in return.[14] Briefly, id is each sustained by motion and essential for motion. An necessary element for id stability is what Giddens has referred to as a “fundamental belief system.[15]” Fundamental belief is taken into account as essential for ontological safety because it refers to a sure sense of confidence within the nature of the world and thereby additionally to 1’s personal actions. What’s necessary to notice right here, is that this fundamental belief system in addition to the person’s sense of its capability for company occurs exterior the extent of acutely aware alternative.[16]
In distinction, adopting a Bourdieusian strategy, the Paris College argues that company is influenced by a person’s “habitus”. Nevertheless, much like the id and fundamental belief component of the ontological safety strategy, the habitus refers to a semi-conscious orientation that people must the world, which kinds a foundation for apply.[17] Furthermore, as Bourdieu describes it himself, the habitus is “a system of sturdy, transposable inclinations, which integrates previous experiences and features at each second as a matrix of notion, appreciation, and motion […].[18]” Tendencies might embody bodily orientations, for instance methods of standing or talking but additionally a set of moral precepts or behavioural inclinations. Bourdieu typically refers to it as a “really feel for the sport,[19]” that somebody “simply is aware of” what to do in a sure type of state of affairs.
As shall be proven, there are a number of overlaps between the idea of the habitus and the idea of id. Each Mitzen and the Paris College respectively spotlight the relational character of id and habitus. The inclinations of the habitus are embodied traces of intersubjective interactions.[20] Mitzen additionally factors out the significance of recognition for id and ontological safety. In response to her, identity-building is all the time an intersubjective course of. As such, id is fashioned and sustained by way of relationships.[21] Apparently, Giddens and Bourdieu additionally each take into account early childhood experiences as essential for id and habitus. Giddens argues that fundamental belief is “fostered by way of the emergence of behavior and routines within the relationships between the toddler and its caregivers, with such routines changing into an important bulwark in opposition to threatening anxieties.[22]” For Bourdieu, inclinations equally turn out to be ‘second nature’ by way of early processes of coaching and studying.[23]
Though Bourdieu by no means explicitly elaborated on the idea of id, Schäfer proposes in his examine on the sector of id politics that id might be outlined as one of many inclinations of the habitus.[24] Bourdieu himself argues that motion shouldn’t be solely formed by somebody’s habitus but additionally by its cultural capital.[25] Cultural capital implies the gathering of symbolic components similar to expertise, tastes, clothes and so forth. In that sense, sharing comparable types of cultural capital with different individuals creates a way of collective id. Contemplating the hyperlink between Giddens’ id and Bourdieu’s habitus, one can argue that the ontological safety perceptive and the Paris College could possibly be reconciled on the truth that id is related to Bourdieu’s habitus.
The Function of the State
Respectively making use of the ideas of id and habitus to the state’s degree, the Paris College and the ontological safety approaches each take into account id and habitus as essential for securitization processes. Whereas Mitzen adopts a fairly exogenous strategy, stating how states, equally to people, are involved with sustaining a constant notion of their self-identity to boost their ontological safety in relations with different states, Steele is understood for his intra-subjective or endogenous understanding of ontological safety, by emphasising the function of the state as a supplier of ontological safety for its residents.[26] However, each agree on the truth that states are ontological security-seekers, both in relation with different states or for their very own residents. Moreover, Steele and Mitzen additionally agree that actions to safe the self-identity of a state might compromise their bodily safety.[27]
In distinction to that, the Paris College has a barely totally different understanding of the function of the state, arguing that these days the state doesn’t have the identical authority as earlier than. The Paris College argues that that is as a result of ‘de-differentiation’ of inner and exterior realms of safety that has led to a basic tendency in the direction of shut cooperation between inner and exterior safety businesses, ensuing within the emergence of a transnational community of safety professionals.[28] Bigo identifies a area of (in)securitization processes that’s dominated by professionals or consultants of safety.[29] He claims that this area follows particular “guidelines of the sport,” that presuppose a specific mode of socialization or habitus on the elements of those professionals. The habitus, much like Giddens’ id, additionally performs a central function in shaping securitization processes however shouldn’t be strongly outlined alongside the strains of nationwide borders.
Nevertheless, Bigo admits that the realm of safety professionals is dominated by professionals from public establishments, similar to police and the navy.[30] It could subsequently be flawed to say that the Paris College doesn’t attribute any function to the state of their idea of safety. Bigo would possibly argue that it’s not tenable to keep up the classical notion of the state due to the transnationalization of police and navy bureaucracies, nonetheless, by adopting a Foucauldian strategy of governmentality, the Paris College nonetheless highlights the facility of the state and the top-down strategy of securitization that’s much like the top-down strategy of Mitzen’s and Steele’s ontological security-seeking of the state. Moreover, in one among Bigo’s earlier texts printed in Tradition & Conflit, he acknowledged the function that state id has performed for the American coverage response to 9/11 and worldwide terrorism extra usually.[31] He said that in that context, the self-representation of the US as a mannequin of democracy has not solely performed an important function within the development of the enemy after 9/11 but additionally of their safety technique after the assaults, in addition to of their seek for allies within the struggle in opposition to terrorism.
The priority concerning the function of id can be noticed within the Paris College’s concern concerning the meshing of the habitus of the safety professionals with new transnational fields of safety. Contemplating, for instance, the skilled habitus of a police officer who’s used to deal with each particular person as a possible legal.[32] In response to Bigo, the rising worldwide ambitions of Ministries of Inside and Justice signifies that this habitus of the police officer is now merging with the sector of the monitoring of the border-crossing of ‘regular’ individuals, in distinction to potential criminals that the police officer is often involved with. At this level, one may argue that his self-identification as a police officer in addition to his ‘policing habitus’ can probably form its actions and subsequently extra usually the method of (in)securitization.
On this account, one may argue that regardless of a unique understanding of the notion of the state, the Paris College is, equally to the ontological safety strategy, involved with how id in addition to the habitus can each form securitization processes.
Anxiousness and Unease in World Politics
Aside from the overlap close to the affect of id and habitus on securitization processes, the 2 approaches to safety present one other similarity which considerations their deal with insecurity in addition to their assumption of a basic feeling of hysteria and unease in world politics.
Mitzen and Bigo’s world of hysteria and unease shouldn’t be the primary formulation of the necessity to assume safety by way of insecurity and/or uncertainty. Reviewing the monographs of Mary Kaldor, Mark Duffield and Frank Furedi from 2007,[33] Chandler observes a theoretic shift of the safety problematic from safety – “the inter-state menace of struggle” – to insecurity “the everlasting danger of instability.[34]” On the identical time, Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase observe that there was a semantic shift after the top of the Chilly Warfare of the type of hazard that safety coverage addresses. It isn’t extra concerning the avoidance of threats, however the administration of dangers that dominate the safety agenda.[35] This in flip contributes to a previous, multidisciplinary debate on ‘danger society’ that first emerged within the area of sociology within the late Eighties with Ulrich Beck as a outstanding consultant of the idea. Beck claimed that we now dwell in a “danger society, a society through which there are uncontrollable and unpredictable risks in opposition to which insurance coverage is inconceivable.[36]”
Despite the fact that Beck’s idea of ‘danger society’ has been contested by a number of mental fields, it has been utilized by many authors within the area of safety research to explain the character of the up to date worldwide system. This consists of Bigo who adopted the idea of ‘danger society’ and linked it to the politics of unease.[37] Moreover, representatives of the Paris College declare that the label ‘safety’ in reality works as a slogan or a technique by way of which sure teams are in a position to justify and impose a political program by assessing what might be designated as an object of worry or danger. They argue that thereby any try and acquire most safety all the time provokes most insecurity.[38] Bigo demonstrates this with the instance of the rise in variety of policemen in a road:[39] This may occasionally diminish the danger of aggression, however not the worry of the individuals on the street. Quite the opposite, noticing the numerous policemen on the street, individuals might turn out to be conscious that one thing goes flawed and should really feel much more insecure. Claiming that safety is all the time additionally insecurity, the Paris College prefers utilizing the terminology of (in)securitization.
With reference to the ontological safety strategy, Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen additionally acknowledge the contribution of the work of Ulrich Beck along with Anthony Giddens within the Eighties and Nineteen Nineties by linking the ideas of ontological safety with the examine of danger society.[40] The underlying assumption of the idea of ontological safety is a basic worry of uncertainty, which is perceived as a menace to id.[41] Mitzen additionally refers to it as “existential anxiousness.” Uncertainty makes it troublesome to behave, which impedes the action-identity dynamic and makes it troublesome to maintain self-conception.[42] Making use of this argument to the state degree, from an ontological safety perspective, states’ intentions are sometimes laborious to know and simply misperceived. In that sense, states, much like individuals, are additionally anticipated to expertise existential anxiousness in a world of uncertainty.
Lastly, the ontological safety strategy adopts the (in)safety terminology just like the Paris College, though this could solely be present in more moderen works on the European Union (EU).[43] Moreover, Browning and Joenniemi state that authors like Mitzen in addition to Rumelili have all the time empirically focussed on ontological insecurity fairly than ontological safety by firstly analysing instances the place actors leak a wholesome sense of fundamental belief.[44] One can subsequently conclude that each colleges are analytically focussing on the query, “What does insecurity do?”, in distinction to, “What’s safety?” Moreover, each Giddens and Mitzen, in addition to Bourdieu and the Paris College, acknowledge the significance of stability for a person in addition to for states in a an increasing number of insecure world.
The Administration of Anxiousness and Unease by way of Routinized Practices
In response to the Paris College in addition to from an ontological safety perspective, the above-mentioned state of affairs of uncertainty in world politics leads to the emergence of a sure type of ‘administration of hysteria’ as Mitzen would name it or a ‘administration of unease’ in Bigo’s phrases. Though each ideas spotlight the facility of narratives, thereby recognizing the work of the Copenhagen College, securitization for Mitzen and Bigo takes place firstly by way of non-discursive routinized practices.
Once more, Mitzen and Bigo usually are not the primary to analytically deal with practices. Vincent Pouliot states that there was a broader name in IR idea for a so referred to as “apply flip”, based mostly on insights from philosophy, psychology, and sociology.[45] This apply flip makes an attempt to beat what Pouliot calls the “representational bias[46]” in sociological theorizing. In response to him, this representational bias stems from the three logics of social motion which have been most utilized in up to date IR idea: the logics of penalties, of appropriateness, and of arguing.[47] All three logics emphasize representations and reflexive data in social motion. Nevertheless, Pouliot argues that “in social and political life, many practices don’t primarily derive from instrumental rationality (logic of consequence), norm-following (logic of appropriateness), or communicative motion (logic of arguing).[48]” Quite the opposite, “practices are the results of inarticulate, sensible data that makes what’s to be finished seem ‘self-evident’ or commonsensical.[49]” Psychologists have discovered proof from on a regular basis life that motion typically derives from an “automated, intuitive mode of data processing,[50]” that distinguishes itself from a rational mode of motion. The important thing argument put ahead by representatives of the sensible flip is that social motion stems from sensible logics which are essentially non-representational.[51]
This assumption of sensible, non-representational logics is the idea of Bourdieu’s habitus and Giddens’ ontological security-seeking. Mitzen’s and Bigo’s deal with unconscious routines and practices can subsequently be understood as a part of this idea of apply in social science. In response to Mitzen, the mechanism producing fundamental belief and thereby ontological safety is routinization based mostly on social interactions, which makes social life and the self knowable and reduces uncertainty.[52] Routines have usually two features: first, a cognitive perform, which is offering people with data of the world and of how you can act and second, an emotional perform which is saving people from feeling deep worry of chaos.[53] As a result of routines present certainty, people can get connected to them. Utilized to the state degree, Mitzen argues that states can turn out to be connected to sure routines which could perpetuate bodily insecurity however maintain id and thereby present ontological safety.[54] In such a state of affairs, it’s troublesome to unravel the safety dilemma due to states’ attachment to typically very harmful routines. Furthermore, for the ontological safety strategy, routines are sometimes unconsciously drawn from the cultural area that people inhabit.[55] This in flip corresponds with the idea of the Paris College, that people usually search to perpetuate sure practices which are a part of their habitus.
Methodologically, the Paris College additionally insists on the truth that safety and insecurity must be analysed as a strategy of (in)securitization based mostly on safety practices. These practices are types of social interactions which are “derived from goal relations, guidelines of the sport, that are neither immediately seen nor acutely aware.[56]” The Paris College claims that practices are framed by a person’s habitus, which might be in comparison with how routines are framed by id in response to the ontological safety strategy. Opposite to the usually talked about argument that securitized actions are distinctive measures, the Paris College argues that as a rule, safety practices are already one thing normalized that has been routinized.[57] The Paris College claims that it’s subsequently necessary to check safety practices and particularly the routinization of safety practices, as a result of they assume that they differentiate from different social practices in order that one may, by way of figuring out safety practices, additionally determine securitization processes extra usually.
Sharing the analytical deal with routines and practices, Bigo and Mitzen are each conceptualizing safety and insecurity by way of unconscious, non-representational processes. As a consequence of the central function of routines in securitization processes, each colleges see the difficulties of desecuritisation within the robust attachment of the actors to routines, both as a result of it supplies ontological safety or simply as a result of it’s a part of their habitus. The unconscious nature of those routines makes it much more troublesome first to determine them after which to suppress them.[58]
EU Migration Governance as Administration of Anxiousness and Unease
Lastly, this final part now goals to display that Mitzen and the Paris College might be finest reconciled close to the case of the securitization of migration within the EU, sharing an analogous understanding of EU migration governance as a case of administration of hysteria and unease which ends up in a particular type of governmentality based mostly on narratives and routines.
Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen state that the best safety challenges that folks throughout Europe these days face are for instance those associated to sovereign debt and financial austerity, the rise of populist far-right events throughout Europe, uncertainty a few doable disintegration of the EU because of Brexit, and refugees coming from totally different conflictual areas similar to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Actually, what’s behind these challenges are deeper insecurities about financial prospects, social well-being and a widespread worry that the EU will be unable to seek out options to those up to date challenges in world politics.[59] Equally, Bigo and Guild observe that the professionals of safety are an increasing number of perceiving the world as a worldwide insecurity system.[60]
In response to Mitzen, present challenges to the EU don’t strictly threaten the EU’s safety in that they don’t result in intra-European struggle. Nevertheless, they do problem EU cohesion by way of id which is why Mitzen makes use of the time period “anxious neighborhood” when talking of the EU.[61] Focussing on the migration coverage of the Visegrad 4, Alkopher argues that immigration “challenges their collective id as ‘sovereign’, ‘nationwide’, and ‘European’, which had as soon as served as an anxiety-controlling mechanism reinforcing their sense of belief, predictability, and management on this planet, resulting in uncertainty and ontological insecurity.[62]” Equally, Bigo’s and Guild’s notion of “policing within the title of freedom” is an allusion to the securitization of EU values the place particularly the liberty of motion is taken into account as being important for the constructing of a European id.[63] Moreover, Huysmans argues that migration is perceived as a destabilizing issue to European integration and particularly to the European inner market which additionally consists of the free motion of individuals.[64] Contemplating the European inner market as an necessary component of a broader European id, the administration of migration is subsequently about id management.
In a particular challenge of European safety specializing in ontological (in)safety within the EU, Mitzen states that the EU anxiousness administration close to migration consists of two main methods that are narratives and routines.[65] Equally, Bigo analyses how the rhetoric of freedom of motion as an integral a part of European id performs an important function within the narratives on migration as a safety downside.[66] Huysmans additionally notes that the securitization of migration typically builds on narratives that join migration to different security-related issues similar to crime and riots in cities, home instability, transnational crime and welfare fraud.[67]
Despite the fact that each acknowledge the facility of narratives, the Paris College in addition to the ontological safety strategy attribute an much more necessary function to routines and practices for the securitization of migration. Mitzen argues that “EU member states search ontological safety by way of routinising relations with their major strategic companions.[68]” Actually, European id is constituted by a sure session reflex and intra-European routines of multilateral safety cooperation. The Paris College is analysing these routines on the degree of the safety professionals. In response to Bigo, Bonditti and Olsson, routines of management and surveillance of people, in addition to of alternate of know-how and mass-data between and inside EU member states is on the core of the administration of unease close to migration.[69]
Lastly, Bigo and Mitzen each agree on the truth that these safety practices of the EU end in a sure kind of governmentality which is characterised by otherness and exceptionalism. Following particular narratives that differentiate between the self and the opposite, Mitzen observes that these narratives of otherness are additionally utilized in apply. For instance, EU border management is changing into focused at particular teams solely.[70] Primarily based on standing or id, individuals crossing EU borders are differentiated between “one among us” or “one among them.” Bigo refers to this apply of management and surveillance as a “ban-opticon”, which is a mechanism of governmentality that excludes classes and solely screens particular populations.[71] Moreover, each, Mitzen and Bigo declare that the truth that these safety practices are routinized on a better degree than the state, it isn’t solely troublesome to interrupt them and thereby desecuritise migration nevertheless it has additionally turn out to be an increasing number of troublesome to include fundamental democratic rules of energy and resistance in addition to oversight mechanisms within the worldwide sphere.
Conclusion
With the intention to reconcile the Paris College for instance of important safety pondering with a fairly psychological based mostly strategy to safety, introducing the idea of ontological safety, this essay has argued that the 2 understandings of safety are in the end extra comparable than totally different. It has been proven that there’s a appreciable hyperlink between the idea of id and the idea of habitus which are each understood as having the facility to border the method of securitization. Moreover, focussing on the notion of ‘insecurity’, each colleges of thought acknowledge the significance of stability for the id of a state in a world of hysteria and unease. In such a world, stability is created by way of typically unconsciously pursued routines. Each approaches to safety subsequently see the difficulties of desecuritisation within the robust attachment of the managers of hysteria and unease to safety routines. Contemplating the overlap between the function of routines for both id or habitus, this essay means that the 2 approaches to safety would finest complement one another on that side, that means that acknowledging the significance of routines for ontological safety concurrently contemplating them as a part of the habitus of an actor would characterize a helpful asset to analysis within the area of safety.
Though, the broader intention of this essay was to provide a primary perception into the overlaps of the 2 approaches to safety, this essay additionally acknowledges that there are points of their conceptualization of safety that will make it fairly troublesome to reconcile them. This considerations, for instance, the robust focus of the Paris College on the notion of the transnational area of safety professionals in addition to on Foucault’s governmentality and the usage of applied sciences, whereas the ontological safety strategy is fairly focussing on the emotional and psychological implications of threats to id. Nevertheless, Mitzen herself admits that a lot work stays to be finished on the idea of ontological safety, for example on the operationalisation of the modes of routinization.[72] This essay subsequently means that this might be a purpose to think about the work of Bigo and different students of the Paris College, who already performed substantial analysis on the operationalisation of safety practices.
Lastly, this essay finds that a number of important approaches to the idea of safety haven’t but succeeded in integrating a number of disciplinary analyses. It’s subsequently thought-about essential for future analysis of important safety research to open up extra to different disciplines by contemplating the necessary worth of the mix of sociology and psychology to the understanding of safety practices.
Notes
[1] Mitzen, J. ‘Ontological Safety in World Politics: State Id and the Safety Dilemma’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 12 (2006), p. 341.
[2] Newer research have tried to open up the understanding of ontological safety to different questions because the one associated to id (see for instance Browning, C.S.; Joenniemi, P. ‘Ontological safety, self-articulation and the securitization of id’, Cooperation and Battle, 52 (2017), pp. 31-47). Nevertheless, for the reason that query of identity-related stability nonetheless dominates the debates on ontological safety, this essay will firstly construct on this understanding of ontological safety.
[3] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 343.
[4] Others are inter alia Thierry Balzacq and Jef Huysmans.
[5] Bigo, D.; Tsoukala, A. ‘Understanding (In) Safety’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009), p. 1.
[6] Balzacq, T.; Basaran, T.; Bigo, D.; Guittet, E.-P.; Olsson, C. ‘Safety Practices’, in The Worldwide Research Encyclopedia On-line, edited by Robert A. Denemark and Renée Marlin-Bennett (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 2.
[7] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 33.
[8] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 345.
[9] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 36.
[10] Bourdieu cited in Williams, M. C. Tradition and safety: symbolic energy and the politics of worldwide safety (London, Routledge, 2007), p. 24.
[11] Kinnvall, C.; Manners, I; Mitzen, J. ‘Introduction to 2018 particular challenge of European Safety: “ontological (in) safety within the European Union’, European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 250.
[12] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 342
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., p. 345.
[15] Giddens cited in Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 346.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Williams, Tradition and safety, p. 25.
[18] Bourdieu cited in Pouliot, V. ‘A Principle of Follow of Safety Communities’, Worldwide Group, 62 (2008), p. 272.
[19] Ibid., p. 275
[20] Ibid., p. 274.
[21] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 342.
[22] Giddens cited in Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 35.
[23] Williams, Tradition and Safety, p. 26.
[24] Schäfer, H. W. ‘Id Politics and the Political Area: A Theoretical Strategy to Modelling a ‘Area of Id Politics’, in New World Colours: Ethnicity, Belonging, and Distinction within the Americas, edited by Josef Raab (Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier & Tempe, 2014), p. 378.
[25] Williams, Tradition and safety, p. 31.
[26] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 252.
[27] Steele, B. Ontological Safety in Worldwide Relations (New York, Routledge, 2008), p. 2 and Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 343.
[28] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 6.
[29] Bigo, D. ‘Globalized (in) safety: the sector and the ban-opticon’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009), p. 14.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Bigo, D. ‘La voie militaire de la « guerre au terrorisme » et ses enjeux’, Cultures & Conflits, 44 (2001), pp.1-11.
[32] Bigo, Globalized (in) safety, p. 19.
[33] See Kaldor, M. Human Safety: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention (Polity, London, 2007); Duffield, M. Growth, Safety and Endless Warfare: Governing the World of Peoples (Coverage, London, 2007), Furedi, F. Invitation to Terror: The Increasing Empire of the Unknown (Continuum, London, 2007)
[34] Chandler, D. ‘Evaluation Article. Theorising the shift from safety to insecurity – Kaldor, Duffield and Furedi’ Battle, Safety & Growth, 8 (2008), p. 265.
[35] Daase, C.; Kessler, O. ‘From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Danger and the Paradox of Safety Politics’ Alternate options, 33 (2008), p. 211.
[36] Beck, cited in Aradau, C.; Van Munster, Rens ‘Governing Terrorism By way of Danger: Taking Precautions, (un)Figuring out the Future’ European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 13 (2007), p. 90.
[37] Bigo and Tsoukala, Understanding (In) Safety, p. 7
[38] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p 2.
[39] Bigo, D. ‘Worldwide Political Sociology’, in Safety Research. An Introduction, edited by P. D. Williams (Oxon – New York, Routledge, 2008), p. 124.
[40] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 251.
[41] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 345.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge.
[44] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological Safety, p. 36.
[45] Pouliot, Principle of Practices, p. 259.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid., p. 258.
[48] Ibid., p. 257.
[49] Ibid., p. 258.
[50] Ibid., p. 267.
[51] Ibid., p. 269.
[52] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 346.
[53] Ibid., p. 347.
[54] Ibid., p. 354.
[55] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 397.
[56] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 2.
[57] Bigo and Tsoukala, Understanding (In) Safety, p. 5.
[58] Mitzen, J. ‘Anxious neighborhood: EU as (in) safety neighborhood’, European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 393.
[59] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 249.
[60] Bigo, D.; Guild, E. ‘Policing within the Identify of Freedom’, in Controlling Frontiers. Free Motion Into and Inside Europe, edited by Didier Bigo and Elspeth Guild (London – New York, Routledge, 2005), p. 4.
[61] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 394.
[62] Alkopher, D. ‘Socio-psychological reactions within the EU to immigration: from regaining ontological safety to desecuritisation’ European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 321.
[63] Bigo and Guild, Policing.
[64] Huysmans, J. ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal of Widespread Market Research, 38 (2000), p. 751.
[65] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 393.
[66] Bigo and Guild, Policing, p. 1.
[67] Huysmans, Securitization of Migration, p. 770.
[68] Mitzen, J ‘Anchoring Europe’s civilizing id: habits, capabilities and ontological safety’, Journal of European Public Coverage, 13 (2006), p. 271.
[69] Bigo, D.; Bonditti, P.; Olsson, C. ‘Mapping the European area of Safety Professionals’, in Europe’s 21st Century Problem: Delivering Liberty, edited by Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild and R.B.J. Walker (London – New York, Routlede, 2010), p. 49.
[70] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 406.
[71] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 6.
[72] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 364.
Bibliography
Alkopher, D. ‘Socio-psychological reactions within the EU to immigration: from regaining ontological safety to desecuritisation’ European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 314-335.
Aradau, C.; Van Munster, Rens ‘Governing Terrorism By way of Danger: Taking Precautions, (un)Figuring out the Future’ European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 13 (2007), pp. 89-115.
Balzacq, T.; Basaran, T.; Bigo, D.; Guittet, E.-P.; Olsson, C. ‘Safety Practices’, in The Worldwide Research Encyclopedia On-line, edited by Robert A. Denemark and Renée Marlin-Bennett (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).
Bigo, D. ‘Globalized (in) safety: the sector and the ban-opticon’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009).
Bigo, D. ‘Worldwide Political Sociology’, in Safety Research. An Introduction, edited by P. D. Williams (Oxon – New York, Routledge, 2008).
Bigo, D. ‘La voie militaire de la « guerre au terrorisme » et ses enjeux’, Cultures & Conflits, 44 (2001), pp.1-11.
Bigo, D.; Bonditti, P.; Olsson, C. ‘Mapping the European area of Safety Professionals’, in Europe’s 21st Century Problem: Delivering Liberty, edited by Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild and R.B.J. Walker (London – New York, Routlede, 2010).
Bigo, D.; Guild, E. ‘Policing within the Identify of Freedom’, in Controlling Frontiers. Free Motion Into and Inside Europe, edited by Didier Bigo and Elspeth Guild (London – New York, Routledge, 2005).
Bigo, D.; Tsoukala, A. ‘Understanding (In) Safety’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009).
Browning, C.S.; Joenniemi, P. ‘Ontological safety, self-articulation and the securitization of id’, Cooperation and Battle, 52 (2017), pp. 31-47.
Chandler, D. ‘Evaluation Article. Theorising the shift from safety to insecurity – Kaldor, Duffield and Furedi’ Battle, Safety & Growth, 8 (2008), pp. 265-276.
Daase, C.; Kessler, O. ‘From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Danger and the Paradox of Safety Politics’ Alternate options, 33 (2008), pp. 211-232.
Della Sala, V. ‘Narrating Europe : the EU’s ontological safety dilemma’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 266-279.
Huysmans, J. ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal of Widespread Market Research, 38 (2000), pp. 751-777.
Kinnvall, C.; Manners, I; Mitzen, J. ‘Introduction to 2018 particular challenge of European Safety: “ontological (in) safety within the European Union’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 249-265.
Kinnvall, C.; Mitzen, J. ‘Anxiousness, worry, and ontological safety in world politics: pondering with and past Giddens’, Worldwide Principle, 12 (2020), pp. 240-256.
Mitzen, J ‘Anchoring Europe’s civilizing id: habits, capabilities and ontological safety’, Journal of European Public Coverage, 13 (2006), pp. 270-285.
Mitzen, J. ‘Anxious neighborhood: EU as (in) safety neighborhood’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 393-413.
Mitzen, J. ‘Ontological Safety in World Politics: State Id and the Safety Dilemma’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 12 (2006), pp. 341-370.
Pouliot, V. ‘A Principle of Follow of Safety Communities’, Worldwide Group, 62 (2008), pp. 257-288.
Rumelili, B. ‘Ontological (In)safety and Peace Anxieties: A Framework for Battle Decision’ in Battle Decision and Ontological Safety, edited by Bahar Rumelili (London – New York, Routledge, 2015).
Schäfer, H. W. ‘Id Politics and the Political Area: A Theoretical Strategy to Modelling a ‘Area of Id Politics’, in New World Colours: Ethnicity, Belonging, and Distinction within the Americas, edited by Josef Raab (Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier & Tempe, 2014).
Steele, B. Ontological Safety in Worldwide Relations (New York, Routledge, 2008).
Williams, M. C. Tradition and safety: symbolic energy and the politics of worldwide safety (London, Routledge, 2007).
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
