Ontological theorizations in critical security studies: making the case for a (modified) post-structuralist approach

Abstract

This article demonstrates the nuances of the critical security studies literature and argues for the benefits of employing a (modified) post-structuralist approach to security. The proposed “modification” is necessary to avoid the inclination within post-structural approaches to conflate epistemological commitments with ontological ones. Using Stephen K. White's arguments for the viability of “weak ontologies,” I demonstrate that a critical post-structuralist approach need not be anathema to the making of claims, nor should it be seen as suffering from a paralytic disjuncture from the “real world.” Two important points that counter familiar critiques leveled against a critical post-structuralist security studies are then introduced. First, acts of re-construction can be critical in the most fundamental ontological sense, though they need not employ the “strong ontologies” that appeal unproblematically to external grounds to make their claims. Second, acts of re-construction can emanate directly from post-structuralist commitments, where deconstruction is both a first step and an ethic to bring to engagement with the status quo. Hence, maintaining critical commitments can mean being reflexive about the indeterminacy of the claims that are ultimately made while being accountable to them.