|
::''Not to be confused with the concept of Social security'' Societal security is a concept developed by the Copenhagen School of security studies that refers to 'the ability of a society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual threats'.〔Waever, Ole, (1993) Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe p23〕 The end of the Cold War prompted scholars to rethink the paradigm of security independently from the state and the military.〔(Bilgin 2003)〕 In Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union led to the emergence of new states and sustained efforts to pursue the European Union (EU) integration. The new order called for a (re)conceptualisation of Europe and European security, which challenged classic understandings of security, as something that took place between states. The move towards an EU security was, thus, closely articulated around questions of EU identity, free movement of people and borders. The concept of societal security, developed by scholars associated with the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, is situated within this context.〔(Bilgin 2003, 211)〕 Societal security relates to: "the ability of a society to persist in its essential character under changing conditions and possible or actual threats."〔(Wæver, Buzan, et al. 1993, 23)〕 In 'Identity, Migration, and the New Security Agenda in Europe', Wæver notes the emergence of different conceptions of the nation-state, and further establishes a distinction between Western and Eastern Europe. In the West, a “decoupling of state and nation” takes place, as Member States, by seeking more integration, accept to relinquish some of their sovereignty. This move towards a “post-sovereign” nation-state is due to “internationalisation and Europeanization” processes, as international institutions assume increased influence over domestic affairs.〔(Wæver 1995)〕 Subsequently, communities, perceiving their identities to be threatened by this integration, can no longer call upon the state to protect them. A duality occurs between the security needs of the state and of society, where “state security has sovereignty as its ultimate criterion, and societal security has identity”.〔(Wæver 1995)〕 In the East, the emergence of new states, formed after the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, leads to more traditional attempts at merging the nation and the state; thus, conflicts arise when the coupling cannot be done (i.e. Yugoslavia).〔(Wæver 1996, 114)〕 In 'Security: a new framework for analysis', Buzan et al. formalise their broader understanding of security by introducing five sectors, each governed by “distinctive characteristics and dynamics”, and conceptualised around particular referent objects and actors (i.e. military, environmental, economic, societal and political) . Societal security is about the survival of a community as a cohesive unit; its referent object is ”large scale collective identities that can function independent of the state.”〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998, 22)〕 Societal insecurities arise when “a society fears it would not be able to live as itself”, and stem from: * migration: the influx of people will “overrun or dilute” a group’s identity e.g. the need to define Britishness; * vertical competition: the integration of a group within a broader organisation e.g. euroscepticism with regards to EU integration, national-separatist claims; and, * horizontal competition: group is forced to integrate more influential identities within their own e.g. France’s cultural exception defending itself against American influences.〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998)〕 Societal security is not tied to a territory, as is state security, e.g. Kurds, where security matters of state and society widely diverge and enter into conflict.〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998, 119)〕 == What does securitization do? == A community, acting upon these insecurities, will try to present an issue as being an existential threat endangering the survival of a group. Thus, securitization is a tactic that seeks to categorise an issue as an existential threat, for its prioritisation over any other issue (i.e. “absolute priority”). Addressing any other issue would be pointless, if the existential threat is not addressed first. Thereby, securitization justifies and legitimises the use of exceptional measures. “’Security’ is the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and frames the issue either as a special kind of politics or as above politics. Securitization can thus be seen as a more extreme version of politicization.” 〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998, 23)〕 “…when a securitizing actor uses a rhetoric of existential threat and thereby takes an issue out of what under those conditions is “normal politics,” we have a case of securitization.”〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998, 24-25)〕 Making use of language theory, securitization is conceptualised as a speech-act, and as such, relies on linguistic techniques and audiences. The message has to be properly delivered (e.g. using appropriate vocabulary, framing, diffusion channels, etc.) for an audience to accept it. “Thus, the exact definition and criteria of securitization is constituted by the intersubjective establishment of an existential threat with a saliency sufficient to have substantial political effects.” 〔(Buzan, Wæver et de Wilde 1998, 25)〕 Not all speech-act are successful. They have to be uttered by those holding enough social capital to be heard and taken seriously. Successful societal security speech-acts can only be uttered by the elites of specific communities. Because of their existential nature, only few claims can be successfully securitised. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Societal security」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|