ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER TEORİLERİ II

The main reason of defining them as ‘critical’ is connected to their critiques to traditional security conception’s main assumptions on the meaning of security and subsequent practices of it. With the contributions of post-positivist approaches, epistemological and ontological assumptions of traditional security conception are subject to intensive critiques. In general terms, critical security studies represent the aggregate amount of different critical perspectives on security. 

The scholars with critical perspectives on security refuse the assumption of priority of sovereign state as the referent object of security, and argue for the necessity of deepening and widening of security as a conception. 

According to Johan Galtung, who is the most prominent representative of Peace Studies, the biggest, the most important and the most durable threat to the survival of human beings is the social structure in which they face extensive injustices and deprivation. 

Security conception of critical security studies is also affected by Marxist theory, Antonio Gramsci’s hegemony conception, critical social theory Frankfurt School, critical theory of International Relations discipline developed by Robert Cox and post-positivist perspectives in international relations theories 

One of the most important contributions of Aberystwyth School is to bring together the security concept and critical theory. In this respect, by inspiring the critical theory, Aberystwyth School analyses the traditional security conception and seeks to examine the involvement of current structures and practices in continuation of repression, inequality and injustice in world politics. The term of critical security studies is occasionally used to describe all perspectives which criticizes the traditional security conception. 

For Aberystwyth School, priority is not about how security will be ensured, but the sources of security issues. Hence, it is not sufficient to undertake security as a negative security situation. Positive security that comprises social, economic and cultural structures should have a priority. Thus, as long as the concept of security is about the improvement of human welfare, it will have a positive meaning for Aberystwyth School. 

Security as a derivative concept implies that security outcomes result from different political aims and facts. In other words, for Aberystwyth School which questions the objective world conception of traditional security thinking, security would get different meanings depending on different worldviews and different rhetorics. Thus, security conception of one actor will derive from his/her political opinions, ideas, beliefs and thoughts. 

Critique of traditional security conception leads to questioning of ‘true security’. In this context, the concept of security should be employed in the sense of threatening issues for individuals instead of ‘real’ threats to the state. Because real threats to the welfare of individuals constitute the main subject matter of security. If the security agenda is enlarged in this direction, the general issues of human welfare will be inevitably addressed. 

There are also other sorts of crucial security threats to the life of individuals. Many threats to individual security include environmental degradation, socio-economic problems, ethnic conflict, disease, poverty, political repression, human rights violations and organized crime rather than military powers of other states (Booth, 1991: 318). 

Emile Durkheim argues that the state becomes stronger and more active as the individual becomes freer. However, compared to its theoretical background the human security concept is a new phenomenon. The debates on human security in the Security Studies sub-field have not emerged as a new theoretical attempt, but as an emphasis on humanitarian values and needs within the process of determining of a new political agenda about security in the post-Cold War era. In a broadest sense, the concept of human security aims to consider individuals or human beings in a collective manner as the referent object of security. 

Among these characteristics, the most important argument of Aberystwyth School is to comprehend security as “emancipation” that requires the abolishment of all limitations such as poverty, violence and political pressure for realization of human potential. That is why, scholars of security studies should avoid to focus on security issues through the lenses of state-centric security perspective. The best way of conceptualizing security is to explain it in the sense of emancipation, and think of security and individuals together. Doğru cevap E'dir.

Traditional theories with a positivist approach do not criticize the society in an effective manner since they consider the social world as given and ‘out there’. Because such a critique requires scientifically “unverified” value judgements. According to Max Horkheimer, traditional theory is about the reproduction of status quo (Sheenan, 2005: 154). Nevertheless, critical theory that questions the objective knowledge argument of positivism, refuses the idea of irrevocability of dominant thoughts, practices and social conditions. That is why, critical theory has an argument for significant potential of humanity in the direction of alternation (Sheenan, 2005: 154). Doğru cevap A'dır.

Frankfurt School criticizes the unequal and hierarchic structures that limit the free development of individuals. Therefore, the most important contribution of Frankfurt School to critical security studies is the concept of “emancipation”. In this framework, whilst thinkers of Frankfurt School mention about the transformation potential in human relations, it claims for alternative aims that give central position to individuals in the security thinking. Doğru cevap C'dir.

For Cox who introduced his critiques to dominant theories of international relations with a Gramscian perspective, “theory is always for someone and for some purposes” (Cox, 1981: 128). If values and ideas are the reflections of specific social relationships, all knowledge should reflect a specific context, time and space. In other words, knowledge cannot be timeless and objective in contrast to realist argument (Hobden and Jones, 2001: 211). That is why, there is not a simple dividing line between values and facts. In this context, allegedly all objective and value-free theories, thoughts and analyses should be viewed with a critical manner. According to Cox, regarding the world as given, helps to legitimization of dominant hegemonic relationships in world politics. Doğru cevap B'dir.

While traditional security conception defines the Security Studies in terms of the study of the threat, use, and control of military force (Walt, 1991), critical approaches to security focus on the normative choices and their political implications. Doğru cevap E'dir.

Still, there are some reasons that lead to consideration of the state as the dominant actor of security studies. Firstly, state is the only actor which has the legitimacy on the use of violence in international society. Secondly, state is regarded as the best endowed actor for responding to security threats. Thirdly, since established security thinking is based on a state-centric and military based conception, analytical perspectives in security analyses are conditioned to focus on the state (Bilgin, 2003: 216). In addition to these evaluations, state actor has a high level of capacity and flexibility to adopt itself to new conditions. Doğru cevap C'dir.

Given the growing importance of individual security in Securiy Studies sub-field, it is worth to examine the human security concept. It can be claimed that intellectual underpinnings of human security can be rooted in the Enlightenment era. For instance, Emile Durkheim argues that the state becomes stronger and more active as the individual becomes freer. Doğru cevap B'dir.

United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) 1994 Human Development Report represents a turning point for inclusion of human security concept into Security Studies sub-field (UNDP, 1994). In this Report, it is stated that the most important concerns for human security are grounded in socio-economic problems and human rights violations. Accordingly, the concepts of personal security, community security, economic security, food security, environmental security, political security and health security are described as categories of human security (UNDP, 1994). As can be seen, the concept of human security comprises the actors and agendas beyond those of traditional international politics (Ovalı, 2006: 5-22). Doğru cevap E'dir.

In economic security, threats are defined in the following ways; working conditions, employment opportunities, wage and income conditions, poverty, homelessness and job security, etc. In food security, threats are defined as poor access to food and drinkable water, etc. In health security, threats are defined as infectious diseases and cancer, absence of drinkable water, air pollution and poor access to health-care services, etc. In environmental security, threats are defined as degradation of ecosystem, water scarcity, deforestation, air pollution and natural disasters, etc. In personal security, threats are defined in the context of physical violence such as torture, war, ethnic tension, crime and street violence, rape, child abuse, suicide and drug use. In community security, threats are defined as discrimination, assimilation, ethnic tension, genocide, ethnic cleansing and weakening and/or disappearing of traditional languages and cultures, etc. In political security, threats are defined as political repressions of the state and governments, systematic human rights violations, militarization of the society, etc. Doğru cevap C'dir.

According to Aberystwyth School, emancipation should be at the center of security thinking. Ken Booth explains the importance of emancipation concept for security studies in following ways: “Security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin. Emancipation, not power or order, produces true security. Emancipation, theoretically, is security” (Booth, 1991: 319). In respect of question how ‘true’ security will be provided, Aberystwyth School claims that there can be an alternative reality, and that is why, security should be understood as emancipation. The concept of emancipation distinguishes Aberystwyth School from other critical perspectives on security (Sheenan, 2005: 158-59). Doğru cevap D'dir.