Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity
| Author | Christopher S Browning,Pertti Joenniemi |
| Published date | 01 March 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836716653161 |
| Date | 01 March 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2017, Vol. 52(1) 31 –47
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836716653161
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Ontological security,
self-articulation and the
securitization of identity
Christopher S Browning and
Pertti Joenniemi
Abstract
The concept of ontological security has made increasing headway within International Relations,
in particular through its ability to offer alternative explanations of the forces underpinning
security dilemmas and conflict in world politics. While welcoming the insights already provided
by its application, this article argues that the concept’s use to date has been too much geared
to questions of identity-related stability, with change viewed as disturbing and anxiety-inducing.
In contrast, the article calls for a more open understanding that: (i) links ontological security to
reflexivity and avoids collapsing together the concepts of self, identity and ontological security;
(ii) avoids privileging securitization over desecuritization as a means for generating ontological
security; and (iii) opens out the concept beyond a narrow concern with questions of conflict and
the conduct of violence more towards the theorization of positive change.
Keywords
Desecuritization, difference, identity, ontological security, securitization
Introduction
Recently, the concept of ontological security has made headway in theoretical debates
about security in International Relations (IR). Understood broadly as a subject’s capacity
to uphold a stable view of its environment and thereby ‘go on’ with everyday life, the
concept has been utilized to provide alternative explanations of various phenomena,
from the reproduction of security dilemmas (Mitzen, 2006; Rumelili, 2015b) to the radi-
calization of individuals in an era of global terrorism (Croft, 2012).
The general presupposition of most of this literature is that actors (with the focus usu-
ally on states) prefer stability and certitude to change, which is seen as generating anxi-
eties and therefore best avoided. Actors are therefore liable to reassert established
Corresponding author:
Christopher S Browning, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK.
Email: c.s.browning@warwick.ac.uk
653161CAC0010.1177/0010836716653161Cooperation and ConflictBrowning and Joenniemi
research-article2016
Article
32 Cooperation and Conflict 52(1)
patterns of behaviour, routines and identities, rather than embrace change precisely
because of the perceived need and value of maintaining stable self-concepts.
Such works, focusing on what has been called ‘security-in-being’, have provided
important insights.1 However, the application of ontological security to IR arguably
has been geared too much towards identity-related stability. With the emphasis on
maintaining stable and safe identities, change has been perceived as something dis-
turbing and potentially harmful. The application of the concept has thus been largely
premised on a restrictive understanding of ontological security that narrows its focus
in IR to questions of the preservation of extant identities and, more specifically, the
perceived need to ensure the security of identity as a motivator of (state) action – in
particular of conflictual practices. In this article we return to ontological security’s
philosophical underpinnings in order to provide it with a different interpretation, one
emphasizing adaptability rather than stability, and in doing so seek to liberate it from
the tendency to link ontological security closely to practices of securitization. We
make three central points.
First, by showing how, in their empirical analyses, established IR accounts of onto-
logical security have tended to conflate the self with identity, we argue they have simi-
larly reduced ontological security to a question of identity preservation. This collapsing
together of the self, identity and ontological security is problematic because attempts to
reinforce an established identity can actually at times undermine the actor’s sense of
ontological security. Instead of identity being the essence of ontological security, we
argue that identity(ies) are better viewed as crucial elements in the self’s attempts at
achieving it. Instead of conflating self and identity, ontological security analysis would
therefore benefit from analysing how subjects become connected to particular identities
and why they articulate identity claims in the way they do.2 Overall, ontological security
is not just a question of stability but also adaptability, i.e. openness towards and the abil-
ity to cope with change.
Second, we highlight how in existing analyses the reduction of ontological security to
identity preservation typically is understood to result in securitization processes designed
to solidify and close down an identity, with the stability brought about by securitization’s
‘freezing’ of identities seen as enhancing ontological security. In contrast, identity trans-
formation and opening up identities for change through adaptation and engagement in
reflexive processes is viewed as threatening ontological security by generating unwar-
ranted stress, uncertainty and anxiety. This has resulted in a problematic association
whereby securitization – the construction of identities on the basis of the negative differ-
ence provided by radical otherness and enmity – is seen to enhance identity-related sta-
bility and therefore also ontological security, whereas desecuritization processes
promoting change are viewed as fundamentally destabilizing.
This view is problematic on two levels. First, since identities are always in the mak-
ing, never fully stable, settled and complete, the promise of stability in securitization
practices is illusory. Alternative possibilities for self-articulation always exist and this
plurality may even improve the chances of generating ontological security, rather than
necessarily detracting from it. Therefore, instead of the emphasis on identity-stability,
more focus is needed on how reflexivity towards identity is also central to ontological
security. Second, the association of securitization with stability and desecuritization with
To continue reading
Request your trial