Jutta Weldes

The evolution of international security studies and the everyday: Suggestions from the Buffyverse

Security studies is again reflecting on its origins and debating how best to study in/security. In this article, we interrogate the contemporary evolutionary narrative about (international) security studies. We unpack the myth’s components and argue that it restricts the empirical focus of (international) security studies, limits its analytical insights, and constrains the sorts of interlocutors with whom it engages. We then argue that these limitations can at least partially be remedied by examining the performance of identities and in/securities in everyday life. In order initially to establish the important similarities between (international) security studies and the everyday, we trace elements of the evolutionary myth in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel – which both stand in for, and are, the everyday in our analysis. We then argue that the Buffyverse offers a complex understanding of (identities and) in/security as a terrain of everyday theorizing, negotiation and contestation – what we call the ‘entanglement’ of in/security discourses – that overcomes the shortcomings of (international) security studies and its myth, providing insights fruitful for the study of in/security. In conclusion, we briefly draw out the implications of our analysis for potential directions in (international) security studies scholarship and pedagogy.

Globalisation is Science Fiction

Just as the Anglo-American world touted the Cold War as the explanation for everything and anything from the early 1950s to the late 1980s, so globalisation became ‘the buzzword of the 1990s’. We are inundated by talk of ‘the global’, be it the global village, global capital, the global economy, global markets, global communication, global threats, the global environment, global consumers, global teens, global civil society or global governance. Part of the problem is that the term ‘globalisation’, as Neil Brenner has noted, is a classic example of an ‘essentially contested concept’. Analyses of globalisation differ fundamentally, and with some profound political consequences, on their conceptualisation of globalisation as information society, as late capitalism, as postor hyper-modernity, or as the by now notorious ‘end of history’. They also differ in their analysis of globalisation’s effect on the state as withering away, being strengthened, or being transformed; and in globalisation’s normative implications as a panacea for global ills, or an onrushing disaster of global proportions. Out of this ever-expanding ‘global babble’, two initial literatures can be identified: in the first, globalisation is treated not only uncritically, as real and

Policing and global governance

In a brilliant discussion of power in world politics, Cynthia Enloe has argued that, while much of international relations scholarship has been obsessed with power, the discipline has in fact dramatically “ under estimat[ed] the amounts and varieties of power it takes to form and sustain any given set of relationships between states” (1996: 186). She criticizes in particular the tendency of IR scholars to study only the powerful on the assumption that such a focus will provide insights into and explanations of world politics. Instead, she argues, if we focus on the “margins, silences and bottom rungs” (ibid.: 188), we can see the myriad forms and the astonishing amounts of power that are required for the system to exist at all. In this chapter we take up Enloes challenge. Specifically, we explore power in global governance by examining the increase in and transformation of policing that accompanies, and indeed helps to produce, the globalization of a neoliberal form of capitalist restructuring. Examining mundane practices of policing long ignored within a discipline more attentive to the upper reaches of state power enables us to demonstrate the massive amounts and the intricate relations of power that underpin what Peck and Tickell term the “neoliberalization” of social spaces and relations (2002). These policing practices, we argue, are integral to contemporary global governance and implicate power in all its forms. Beginning with coercion or compulsory power, we trace out the workings of global governance through institutional, structural, and productive forms of power as well.

Whither the Study of Governmental Politics in Foreign Policymaking

Editors Note: Unlike previous essay reviews in this journal, this review is a symposium with a number of different experts reflecting on governmental politics from a variety of perspectives. Eric Stern and Bertjan Verbeek both organized and have served as editors of the symposium. They wrote the introduction and conclusion to the piece. The various authors represent three different disciplines—political science, psychology, and public administration—and come from four countries. Several are involved in the application of this knowledge in collaboration with a government agency. All are concerned with where research on governmental politics has been and where it can and should go in the future.

Security: the state (of) being free from danger?

With the demise of the Cold War, policy-makers claimed to recognize a plethora of new security threats - a veritable ‘dysplasia’ of the global body politic (Manning 2000: 195). In the face of rogue states, loose nukes, international organized crime and global terrorism, among other menaces, government and non-government organizations devoted considerable time and resources to addressing new insecurities. Academics too have tried to rework the concept of security. As David Baldwin wrote in 1997, in the fields of International Relations (IR) and Security Studies, “[r]edefining ‘security’ has recently become something of a cottage industry” (Baldwin 1997: 5), although the difficulty in defining ‘security’ had already exercized the minds of scholars over several decades.1

Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice

If looking for a ebook Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice (New International Relations) in pdf format, then you have come on to faithful website. We furnish the utter edition of this ebook in txt, DjVu, PDF, doc, ePub forms. You may read online Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice (New International Relations) or downloading. Besides, on our site you can reading the instructions and other art books online, either downloading theirs. We will invite consideration what our website not store the eBook itself, but we provide url to website where you may downloading or reading online. If you need to load pdf Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice (New International Relations) , then you have come on to correct website. We own Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice (New International Relations) txt, ePub, doc, DjVu, PDF forms. We will be glad if you return us more.

Editors’ introduction to the first EJIS Junior-Senior Dialogue feature.

EJIS Junior-Senior Dialogue: Editors’ introduction The European Journal of International Security is pleased to introduce the Junior-Senior Dialogue, a feature designed to showcase the excellent work being produced by early career researchers in Security Studies. The Junior-Senior Dialogue seeks to recognise and highlight the many ways in which new scholars raise new questions, attack old questions in innovative ways, and generally inspire Security Studies to innovate and evolve. The Junior-Senior Dialogue seeks to foster lively intellectual debate between new and established security scholars. We invite early career researchers, including advanced PhD students, to submit provocative, discipline-extending work to EJIS for consideration for the Dialogue. We also invite supervisors and colleagues to identify such cutting-edge work by early career researchers and advanced PhD students and to encourage them to submit that work to the Dialogue. The Dialogue comprises an anchoring article, a critical engagement, and a response. The anchoring article submission by the junior scholar can be identified in one of two ways: it may be explicitly submitted as a potential candidate for the Dialogue by its author through the EJIS online submission portal, or it may be spotted as the potentially fruitful basis for a Dialogue by one of the journal’s editors. The latter mechanism discovered Sarah Bertrand’s (PhD Candidate in International Relations, London School of Economics) fascinating analysis. With input from the junior scholar, the editors approach a senior scholar whose work, or type of work, is at stake, to act both as a reviewer and as a respondent for the Dialogue. In this case, Claudia Aradau (Professor of International Politics, King’s College London) thus agreed both to review Bertrand’s submission and to engage her in debate. Based on an exchange of anchoring article (8,000 words) and response (3,000 words), the junior scholar gets the last word, with a final rejoinder (2,000 words). In this, our inaugural Junior-Senior Dialogue, we are delighted to present a postcolonial and feminist critique of securitization theory by Bertrand, who exposes a significant ‘colonial moment’ in securitization theory. In re-examining securitization theory’s ‘silence problem’, Bertrand demonstrates how that theory actively silences the subaltern, preventing her, through mechanisms of ‘locutionary silencing, illocutionary frustration and illocutionary disablement’, from acting as a securitizing agent. Aradau builds on and contests Bertrand’s focus on speaking and silencing, on binaries of the visible/invisible, heard/unheard, legible/illegible, directing our attention to ‘disputes, controversies and struggles’ as productive analytical foci and to ‘modes of non-knowing’ as fruitful avenues for developing critical epistemologies of in/security. This

UK Nuclear Interests: Security, Resilience and Trident

Over the last eight years, discussions about the UK’s national interest have set the goal of building a ‘resilient nation’ (Omand 2005). The idea of ‘resilience’ has, or seems to have, superseded ‘security’ as a primary way of defining the UK’s national interest. Resilience was thus at the heart of the Conservative Party platform in 2010 (‘A Resilient Nation’) and remained at the core of the two key strategic documents published in 2010: the National Security Strategy (Cabinet Office 2010a) and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (Cabinet Office 2010b). In each, resilience appears as one of the two overarching goals that the UK has set as its national interest. In their foreword to the National Security Strategy, David Cameron and Nick Clegg thus state: ‘at home, we must become more resilient both to external threats and to natural disasters’ (Cabinet Office 2010a, p. 4).