Human Security as ontological security: a post-colonial approach

Abstract

This article 1 will critically interrogate the relationship between Human Security and Ontological Security from a broadly post-colonial perspective. For Anthony Giddens to be "ontologically secure is to possess… "answers" to fundamental existential questions which all human life in some way addresses"(Giddens 1991:47). Religion and nationalism provide "answers" to these questions in times of rapid socioeconomic and cultural change (Kinvall 2004). The dislocation engendered by successive waves of neo-liberal globalization has resulted in the deracination of many of the world"s inhabitants resulting in a state of collective "existential anxiety" (Giddens 1991). Under such conditions, the search for ontological security becomes paramount. However, conventional understandings of Human Security as "freedom from fear and want" are unable, from a post-colonial perspective-to provide the individual with ontological security since they operate with a culturally specific, Eurocentric understanding of the "human" as "bare life" (Agamben 1998). It will then be argued that post-secular conceptions of Human Security (Shani 2014) by acknowledging the role which culture and religion can play in providing answers to existential questions concerning the "basic parameters of human life" are better able to "protect" the ontological security of the individual in times of rapid global transformation in the post-colonial world given the centrality of religion to post-colonial subjectivity. This will be illustrated by the case of the global Sikh community. It will be argued that ontological, and therefore, Human Security rests on reintegrating the "secular" and "temporal" dimensions of Sikhi which had been severed as a result of the colonial encounter.

Returning to the roots of ontological security: insights from the existentialist anxiety literature

“…This common starting point notwithstanding, IR research on ontological security is characterized by increasing diversity with constructivist (Berenskoetter, 2014; Berenskoetter and Giegerich, 2010; Flockhart, 2016), post-structuralist (Browning, 2019; Eberle, 2019; Kinnvall, 2004, 2018), and post-colonial (Agius, 2017; Shani, 2017; Untalan, 2020; Vieira, 2018) approaches being developed. Recently, this internal heterogeneity seems to have prompted a terminological shift away from Ontological Security Theory (OST), a label that might be taken to imply a single standardized theory, toward OSS (Donnelly and Steele, 2019; Steele, 2019; Steele and Homolar, 2019) as a way to better capture the plurality of approaches.…”

Security Practices and the Production of Center–Periphery Figurations in Statebuilding

“…Similarly, Bilgin (2010) has pointed to the "'Western-centrism' of security studies." In response to these appeals, Hönke and Müller (2012), for instance, have provided a perspective on the entangled histories of (in)security governance in the (post)colonial world, while other scholars have introduced the concept of ontological (in)security into postcolonial security (see Cash & Kinnvall, 2017;Shani, 2017). Recently, too, the demand for incorporating a postcolonial perspective into critical security research was reiterated by Laffey and Nadarajah (2016).…”

“…A postcolonial perspective was only quite recently introduced into critical security studies through the seminal article by Barkawi and Laffey (2006), which criticized traditional security research for its Eurocentrism and called for a critical investigation of the historical geographies that inform its empirical analyses. Similarly, Bilgin (2010) has pointed to the “‘Western-centrism’ of security studies.” In response to these appeals, Hönke and Müller (2012), for instance, have provided a perspective on the entangled histories of (in)security governance in the (post)colonial world, while other scholars have introduced the concept of ontological (in)security into postcolonial security (see Cash & Kinnvall, 2017; Shani, 2017). Recently, too, the demand for incorporating a postcolonial perspective into critical security research was reiterated by Laffey and Nadarajah (2016).…”

Climate Change and Ontological (In)security in the Marshall Islands

“…Quando não é esse o caso, os desafios ambientais são enquadrados a partir de uma lógica de segurança humana, animada por um entendimento moderno e liberal acerca do que a segurança deveria ser e, portanto, desconsiderando entendimentos e necessidades locais. (Shani, 2017). Ao focar em narrativas não-científicas sobre segurança, esta tese visa expor as contingências dos discursos hegemônicos verificados em meios aos ESI que, longe de se mostrarem racionais e fundamentados em uma descrição "autêntica" da realidade, contribuem para agravar os desafios enfrentados por alguns indivíduos, como os Marshalleses.…”

“…When this is not the case, environmental challenges are located within the logic of human security, animated by a modern and liberal understanding of what 'security' is supposed to be, thereby disregarding the role of local conceptualizations and needs. (Shani, 2017) Departing from this critical position, I seek to analyze the ways through which issues related to the environment, especially climate change, interact with local conceptualizations of security in communities which are severely threatened by these problems and, at the same time, profoundly excluded from security studies' debates. By focusing on these testimonies, I expect to unveil the contingencies of the hegemonic discourses within ISS that, rather than being rational and based on an "authentic" description of reality, contribute to aggravating the security challenges faced by some individuals.…”