How should we REALLY think about security?
“Security” is a word that we all use every day in a variety of contexts – so much so that it rarely occurs to us to reflect on what we think it means (or on what it ought to mean). The academic study of International Relations is something of an exception: scholars from a variety of schools of thought embrace unconventional, idiosyncratic, and sometimes downright weird definitions. Accordingly, most IR scholars would describe security as an “essentially contested concept.” I argue that it is not, or at least it should not be so considered: there is one, and only one, useful definition of security. But more than this, if we are to wield the word effectively – for example, if we are to have confidence in our ability to allocate resources wisely to various security problems – we need to think deeply about what is worth securing, and why. For this, we need a clear axiology, or theory of value, as well as a solid understanding of why itis often so difficult to gauge security threats properly. I make the case that if we are bold enough to godown this rabbit hole, we will discover that we grossly misallocate resources to security problems and that there is a clear hierarchy as between ecospheric security, state security, cultural security, and human security.
Date: 19 February 2025, 16:00
Venue: Manor Road Building, Manor Road OX1 3UQ
Venue Details: Seminar Room G
Speaker: Professor David A. Welch (Waterloo University)
Organising department: Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR)
Booking required?: Not required
Audience: Members of the University only
Editors: Holly Omand, Daniel Burton