Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Introduction
Can we broaden our understanding of
security in the Arctic?
Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv and
Marina Goloviznina
Introduction
Security is a concept about power, as well as a powerful concept. Invoking the
concept is a political act. It makes a claim to power. The debate around what
the concept means is itself a practice in power. It is a concept that has been, and
continues to be, invoked to draw attention to 'something' that is or should be
valued above all other things. Often this something is 'existence' and a continued
existence (it is about the future), and a core feature of the 'security debate' is a
debate as to the existence of what. So-called 'narrower' or 'traditional' approaches
to security demand restrictions upon how the concept is used, who can use it
and how. These narrower approaches demand that the existence we should be
most preoccupied with is the existence of the state, assuming that without the
state, nothing else really matters (Buzan
et al
. 1998). These approaches assume
that security is provided through the use or threat of use of military force (Walt
1991). They assume that the state establishes and maintains security for itself
as well as for its 'contents' (people and territory), partly reflecting, for example,
social contract theory and related traditions in western political thought that
assume a relationship of security between the individual and the state. What is
lost in state-focused approaches to security, however, is the important role of the
individual, which has also had a significant role in western philosophical think-
ing about security (Rothschild 1995; Hoogensen 2005a).
The concept of security can invoke a sense of urgency and sometimes fear.
At the same time, it can also invoke a sense of stability, comfort and hope.
The concept is used to draw attention to that which we consider most impor-
tant to my, your or 'our' existence, depending on how the security referent is
defined. The identification of a security referent (the 'object' or 'subject' that
should be made secure) depends further on the values held by the security or
'securitizing' actor (the one who wishes to alert a public or an audience to a
security problem). What that person or organization/institution values most
will play a role in how that same actor interprets and identifies security and
insecurity. Narrow conceptions of security are the purview of elite state inter-
ests, and thus the values and priorities of the state as an actor are those that
