Security Studies has had a convoluted evolution. During that evolution two significant schools of thought have emerged, traditional security Studies (TSS1) and critical security studies (CSS2), each of which have significant differences in perspective. The first divergence is their opposing views on the drivers of conflict, TSS focusing on its concept of predetermined anarchy, CSS investigating a world that has constructed qualities that are born out of the actions of actors that exist within society. The schools focus on different referent objects, the state as central actor versus the individual, community and even ideas.These perspectives there are marked by divergences in methodology and approach. These differences in perspective are not to be seen as deficits in either schools, rather they highlight the complex terrain that both TSS and CSS mark out, and through an understanding of each, students and scholars may be better equipped to study security in a broader context.
These two schools will be defined by what separates them, in order to corral them into some semblance of commonality for the purposes of discussing what differences in perspective each school has to the other.If a traditional or post traditional/critical school of thought adheres to certain criteria, then despite other variances between then, they can be said to belong to one of two sets of theories, either traditional or critical. The criteria for selection will be as follows, the main drivers of conflict, each schools referent object, and their methodologies used to determine the preceding two factors. When Wyn Jones wrote that, some schools of thought share "broadly similar ontological and epistemological assumptions"3 he was referring to traditionalists, however the same can be said about those seeking a critical perspective.At the core of security studies is the examination of what causes conflict.
In determining what drives conflict we see the first difference between the two perspectives. Born out a long history of state centred conflict, traditionalists have determined that a state of inevitable anarchy is the main driver of conflict in the world at large. 4 For traditionalists the world is cluttered with states each competing against each other for either material gain. For Realists in particular the "acting out" of competitive behaviour is seen as timeless and irrevocable5.
The threat, use and control of military force may resolve those conflicts6, but conversely it can be one of the main drivers as well, highlighted by the security dilemma present in TSS7. For traditionalists, security was the military and therefore security studies were a study of the application and resolution of issues by military force. 8 Opposing the standard view point that threat would be military in nature and require a military response Krause wanted to probe this distinction to see world more prone to what we construct it to be9 with globalised capitalism as the primary driver of conflict.This construction must take into account, "history, culture, communication, ideologies and related factors"10.
Using the East vs West Cold War argument Krause outlines the theory that the confrontation wasn't the result of anarchic inevitability, but rather a construed arrangement between superpowers. Had scholars and practitioners constructed a different view or set of ideas, then the confrontation may not have occurred in the way it did or occurred at all11.Along side divergences in perspective regarding the cause of conflict, we see differences in what each theory is attempting to secure, what the referent objects are. There are also disagreements about how analysts should engage with those referent objects. Krause summed up the philosophical difference between TSS and CSS in his explanation that TSS is more concerned with the how, while CSS concerns itself with the why. This question of why is applied through CSS to "constructing the nature of the threat, the object being secured and the possibilities for .
.. overcoming 'security dilemmas'".Floyd marks the divide with traditionalism's adherence to a positivist approach that sees a state/military focus in dominance 13and objectivity as a tenable concept; where one can study the referent object as just that, an object14. TSS contends that the power of decision making and the use of military force should be held by the state.
15Security for the state has meant the minimisation of threats to it, primarily focused toward reducing or mitigating threats from military sources. 16 Traditionalists hold that one must keep oneself removed from the work one is engaged in, to hold at arms length the matter and object of the research.Booth examined the implications of this methodology and determined that it produces a strict set of ideas and analysts incapable of examining the broader range of threats and responses demanded by CSS. 17 CSS engaged in a critique of these past traditions to conceptualise security through a reflectivist epistemology where the state is no longer privileged as sole referent object.
18 CSS attempts to shift the epistemological implication in how security is studied, extending to the perception that ideas held by analysts themselves are not separable from the objects investigate.This is reflected in a desire to develop the referent objects to encompass not just the state but those within that state, to redeploy beyond the narrow focus20 on the threat of military force to examine themes as varied as," economic security, environmental security, societal insecurities, drug threats... human rights. "21 That is not to ignore the role the state may have in IR.
Wendt, an avowed constructivist, still embraces a state-centric thought processes in his work, "Constructing Security"22, but CSS sought to move the debate beyond one that was state-centric.Within the theories that make up CSS we see that there are many opinions as to what should constitute the referent object. Wyn Jones offers a breakdown of these differences,23 linking Booth and Smith with the individual, the notion of social society with Shaw and Reus Smith, Weaver and company with ethno-national/religious identities and the updated ideas of Weaver and Buzan and their theory that referent objects should be as flexible as the locations and events they are linked to.Krause outlines the feminist take on the inherent masculinity of most referent objects in the work of Enloe and Tickner. 24 The key factor in all of these theories is that they oppose the traditionalist viewpoint that the state is sufficient in of itself to act as primary referent object for security studies.
Traditionalists have criticised this attempts to "hyphenate security"25 stating that non-military issues cannot be solved by a national security mindset. However it is that mindset that CSS wanted to enhance.If security is made up of problems that extend beyond the military-state nexus, then scholars must find ways to analyse those issues by means that go beyond that traditional nexus of inquiry and explication. In conclusion I feel it necessary to bring an old saying into practise, comparing these two schools of thought is much the same as comparing apples and oranges.
Each will have its adherents and its detractors. Each can offer valuable insights and vital methodologies for studying security.Pauline Keer notes in her work on Human Security26 that both human security and traditional security are necessary but neither sufficient. This same analogy can be made to the basic comparison between TSS and CSS. Both are necessary if we are to study security in a manner that accepts both traditional threats and methods of study as well as expanding the analysis to include new and vital threats such as disease, financial crisis and disenfranchisement. But alone, unsupported by one another, neither of the schools is sufficient.
Kolodziej noted in 199227, two years before the Toronto conference, too narrow a focus, as prescribed by TSS runs risk of stagnating a complex and often changing field of study. Yet he also points out that one must be wary of being too broad in interpreting the threats we face. In the end the challenge for the future is to define the dimension of study within the field of Security Studies as inclusively as possible, to avoid excluding any theory that may assist us to better understand the world we live and how best to secure its future.
