Virtuous imperialism or a shared global objective? - Environmental and Human Security in the Arctic - page 59

well placed to assist the South in eradicating the same. It is also a very state-
based concept assuming that security is addressed by state actors alone, rather
than a process that involves multiple actors, state and non-state (Hoogensen
Gjørv 2012). The result becomes an imbalance in perceptions and explanations
of what occurs within and across regions and the globe, as well as disguising
the contributions and competencies of different actors in providing security at
different levels (Stuvøy 2009; Hoogensen Gjørv 2012). Assuming that human
security perspectives have little relevance in the global North serves to mute
voices of individuals and communities who recognize threats to their existence
as they perceive it (Deiter and Rude 2005). Thus while rendering passive global
South actors, it also renders invisible any human insecurities and vulnerabilities
that may be occurring in northern states. It assumes that northern voices are
fully represented and attended to by a state actor, and it disguises and prevents
any possible shared human security concerns and experiences between peoples
across regions, between the global North and South.
Instead of broadly brushing one area of the world as 'secure' and another
as 'insecure', we can look at securities of non-dominance (Hoogensen 2006;
Hoogensen and Stuvøy 2006). Relations of dominance/non-dominance exist
in all parts of the world, albeit distributed in different ways. In the global
North, where it is broadly understood that the entire area is 'secure', a secu-
rities approach recognizing a dominance/non-dominance relationship would
recognize non-dominant insecurities otherwise invisible to the dominant dis-
course, such as those experienced by women or indigenous communities, for
example. Equally it can be recognized who is secure in the global South by
acknowledging the dominance/non-dominance relationship. Despite the gen-
erally more pronounced insecurities (and in some cases extreme insecurities)
present in global South communities, there are nevertheless dominant groups
living in relative broad security. These relationships need to be made visible in
the securities context, and securities of non-dominance might be recognized to
be broadly shared across constructed divides such as the North and South.
Broadened notions of security are becoming more prevalent (Buzan et al .
1998; Thomas, 2001; Buzan and Wæver 2003; Fierke 2007; Glasius 2008;
Newman 2010). In this chapter I argue in favour of security defined from
the 'bottom up', which can dig deeper into the security perspectives of com-
munities, states and regions but also transcend North/South divisions, by
identifying security articulated from the position of those who are most inse-
cure; in other words, those often on the margins. This is not a call to focus
on the global North at the expense of the global South, nor a competition of
insecurity between regions and peoples. Security and insecurity from the bot-
tom up implies that security is understood within the context from which it
is identified and expressed. In this chapter I am interested in understanding
security from the 'bottom up', and will look more specifically at positions
of gender and indigenous perspectives. I will begin however with a focus on
the perceptions of human security as they developed within Canada since the