Security Studies has had a convoluted evolution. During that evolution two significant schools of thought have emerged, traditional security Studies (TSS) and critical security studies (CSS), 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” 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.  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 irrevocable. The threat, use and control of military force may resolve those conflicts, but conversely it can be one of the main drivers as well, highlighted by the security dilemma present in TSS. For traditionalists, security was the military and therefore security studies were a study of the application and resolution of issues by military force. 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 be with globalised capitalism as the primary driver of conflict. This construction must take into account, “history, culture, communication, ideologies and related factors”. 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 all.

Join now!

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 ...

This is a preview of the whole essay