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 and objectivity as a tenable concept; where one can study the referent object as just that, an object. TSS contends that the power of decision making and the use of military force should be held by the state.Security for the state has meant the minimisation of threats to it, primarily focused toward reducing or mitigating threats from military sources. 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. 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. 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 focus on the threat of military force to examine themes as varied as,” economic security, environmental security, societal insecurities, drug threats… human rights.” 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”, 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, 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. 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” 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 Security 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 1992, 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.
Acharya, Amitav. “The Periphery as the Core: The Third world and Security Studies”, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, edited by Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael C, 299-359. Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997
Baldwin, David A. “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, 23:3 (1997): 5-26
Dalby, Simon. “Contesting as Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security discourse”, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, edited by Keith Krause and Michael C Williams. 3-33 Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997
Floyd, Rita. “Toward a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of Security”, Review of International Studies, 33, (2007): 327-350
Keer, Pauline. “Human Security”, in in Contemporary Security Studies, edited by Collins, Allan. 90-108 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007
Kennedy Pipe, Caroline. “Gender and Security”, in Contemporary Security Studies, edited by Collins, Allan. 75-89 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007
Kolodziej, Edward A. “Renaissance in Security Studies: Caveat Lector!” International Studies quarterly, 32 (1992):421-438
Kolodziej, Edward A. “Security and International relations”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005)
Keith Krause “Critical Theory and Security studies”, Cooperation and Conflict, 33:3, (1998): 298-333
Krause, Keith. Critical Theory and Security Studies, YCISS Occasional Paper 33, Geneva, Graduate Institute of International Studies , (1996)
Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael C. “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods”, Mershon International Studies Review, 40 (1996): 229-254
Krause, Keith and Williams, Michael C, (ed) Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997
Morgan, Patrick. “Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches”, in Contemporary Security Studies, edited by Collins, Allan. 13-33 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007
Mutimer, David. “Critical security studies: A Schismatic History”, in Contemporary Security Studies, edited by Collins, Allan. 53-74 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Walt, Stephen. “The Renaissance of Security Studies”. International Studies Quarterly 35 (1991):211-239
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics” International Security, 20:1 (1995): 71-81
Wyn Jones, Robert. Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner 1999
TSS is a collection of theories mainly centred around three key labels, Realism, Liberalism and to a declining degree Marxism. Realism posited that the world is anarchic, that state will always compete with each other thus establishing an evolving security dilemma, and that the pressure of the international system are the primary determinates of states security goals. Liberalism offers a slightly flexible perspective on the nature of anarchy but still adheres to its dominance as a driver of conflict. Allows for increased cooperation between states and accepts that the security dilemma can be diminished by the establishment of security communities, the behaviours of states within IR is shaped by their characters, politics and social structures. Marxist theory still lies in the issue of the dominance of capitalism, and to a degree is orientated more toward critical theory than traditional, However it shares a Realist approach to the its emphasis on competition and rivalry between states and shares with Liberalism the idea the government depend on the character and nature of those that exist with in the state. - Patrick Morgan, “Security in International Politics: Traditional Approaches”, in Contemporary Security Studies, ed. Allan Collins, 14-32 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)
CSS encompasses many different theories and ideologies. Included in this church are the following: Krause and Williams and the output from the 94 Toronto conference that produced “Critical Security studies”, the Aberystwth exclusion or Welsh School focussing on Critical Theory and the ideas of knowledge as a social process and its theories of human emancipation; Copenhagen School and its focus on sectorial divisions of military, environment, economic, societal and political and its concept of securitization as a speech act, or something that becomes a threat because we say it is a threat; Constructivism and its desire to close the division between social world and the analyst; Post-Structuralism and its desire to foster an ethos of critique, unattainable but something to be ever strived for. Additionally other post modern theories that critique traditionalism such as Peace Studies, and its focus on economic disparities and orientation on problem solving; Feminism and its critique of the inherent masculinity of TSS and Human security and the concept that it proposes that all humans should be secure, regardless of state affiliation. Krause and noted in the introduction to “Critical Security studies” that they wished to attached critical to security studies to imply an orientation, not a precise theory. This allows the gathering of post traditional, post modern, Marxist/Socialist based Critical Theory, Feminist and Constructivist theories unde the umbrella of CSS. – Patrick Morgan et al, Contemporary Security Studies, ed. Allan Collins, 56, 65,61,67,71, 35,75,91 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007) AND Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (ed)“ Keith Krause and Michael C Williams (Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997): (introduction) page X
Robert Wyn Jones, Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner 1999), 95
Morgan, 17
Stephen Walt, “The Renaissance of Security Studies”. International Studies Quarterly 35 (1991):212
Edward A. Kolodziej, Security and International relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 271
Keith Krause and Michael C Williams, , “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods”, Mershon International Studies Review, 40 (1996): 230
David ABaldwin, “The Concept of Security”, Review of International Studies, 23:3 (1997): 9
David Mutimer, “Critical security studies: A Schismatic History”, in Contemporary Security Studies, ed. Allan Collins, 67 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Keith Krause “ Critical Theory and Security studies”, Cooperation and Conflict, 33:3, (1998): 306
Krause K, Critical Theory and Security Studies, YCISS Occasional Paper 33, Geneva, Graduate Institute of International Studies , (1996):7
Morgan, 14-15
A Acharya, “The Periphery as the Core: The Third world and Security Studies”, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (ed)“ Keith Krause and Michael C Williams (Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997):349
Walt, 212
Rita Floyd, “Toward a Consequentialist Evaluation of Security: Bringing Together the Copenhagen and Welsh Schools of Security”, Review of International Studies, 33, (2007): 334
Edward A, Kolodziej, “ Renaissance in Security Studies: Caveat Lector!”, International Studies quarterly, 32 (1992):422
Simon Dalby. Contesting as Essential Concept: Reading the Dilemmas in Contemporary Security discourse”, in Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, (ed)“ Keith Krause and Michael C Williams (Geneva, Switzerland and York University, Canada, Routledge 1997):4
Alexander Wendt “Constructing International Politics” International Security, 20:1 (1995): 72
Pauline Keer, “Human Security”, in Contemporary Security Studies, ed. Allan Collins, 105 (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Kolodziej “ Renaissance in Security Studies: Caveat Lector!” ,456-436