A Case for Seduction?

Abstract

This paper argues that the field of security studies would benefit from engaging more closely with the poststructuralist writings on security than has previously been the case. Poststructuralism advocates a position different from both the traditional realist and idealist perspectives in IR and offers important insights on the construction of the national-international dichotomy, the relationship between national identity and security politics, the discursive character of the concept of security, and the late-modern transformation of security. Specifically, poststructuralism is an important contribution to the debate on whether and/or how to expand the concept of security. It is argued from the poststructuralist position, most clearly by Ole Wæver, that security is a discursive practice and that the concept of security cannot therefore by definition be linked to the military domain: the crucial point is not to establish an objective relationship between the concept and the possible domains of security, but to study whether and how an issue is securitized. The paper concludes by pointing towards further research within poststructuralist security studies and argues in favour of more studies problematizing the possible and argues relationships between the state and the Other, asking whether security politics has to be built on a conquest of the Other.