Ontological security, self-articulation and the securitization of identity

Abstract

The concept of ontological security has made increasing headway within International Relations, in particular through its ability to offer alternative explanations of the forces underpinning security dilemmas and conflict in world politics. While welcoming the insights already provided by its application, this article argues that the concept's use to date has been too much geared to questions of identity-related stability, with change viewed as disturbing and anxiety-inducing. In contrast, the article calls for a more open understanding that: (i) links ontological security to reflexivity and avoids collapsing together the concepts of self, identity and ontological security; (ii) avoids privileging securitization over desecuritization as a means for generating ontological security; and (iii) opens out the concept beyond a narrow concern with questions of conflict and the conduct of violence more towards the theorization of positive change.

The market for ontological security

“…On the one hand, physical traumas, such as being the victim of attacks, natural disasters or violent crime, can disrupt personal and collective identities and trigger ontological insecurity (Hawkins andMaurer 2011, Georgiou 2013). On the other hand, actors often misinterpret the deep anxiety caused by ontological insecurity as a rational response to perceived physical threats which become the target of securitisation (Dirsuweit 2007, Steele 2008, Croft 2012, Browning and Joenniemi 2017. Browning (2018) observes: "existential anxieties about the unknown are frequently refracted onto tangible objects of fear that can be prepared for or countered in some way".…”

“…Those mechanisms which effectively undermine the physical security of the self or others while seeking ontological security have been considered particularly maladaptive. The discursive construction of individual or collective identities through the othering of outgroups, such as immigrants, Muslims and oriental nations, has received particular attention and criticism (Steele 2008, Croft 2012, Rumelili 2015, Agius 2017, Browning and Joenniemi 2017, Steele 2017, Alkopher 2018. Although pervasive, this strategy is usually considered maladaptive because it frequently leads to securitisation.…”

“…Finally, there is the "securitisation of subjectivity", a term coined by Kinnvall (2004) to describe the unhealthy fixation of one's self on a single inflexible identity. The literature has contrasted this fixation with a healthy reflexive self, involving the acknowledgement of the fluidity and multiplicity of individual and collective identities (Kinnvall 2004, Chernobrov 2016, Browning and Joenniemi 2017.…”

“…In contrast to other fields and actors, however, PSCs rarely engage in the othering or securitisation of specific outgroups. Instead, the industry contributes to the construction of self-identity primarily through expert attributions of individual distinctiveness, including status, belonging and ownership (compare Rumelili 2015, Browning andJoenniemi 2017).…”

Ethics and Ontological Security

“…Such examples, however, also suggest an imperative exists that scholars do not fall into the trap of overemphasising the importance to ontological security of upholding particular (exclusivist) conceptions of identity, or put differently, being misled by the practices of actors they observe in the field into confusing ontological security seeking strategies with ontological security per se. Insofar as they do, the danger is that they may end up providing a normative justification for the securitization of identity (Mälksoo 2015;Browning and Joenniemi 2013b), thereby confusing means with ends. As the cases of Norden and Europe demonstrate, (radical) identity adjustments and transformations are not a priori inimical to reducing existential anxieties and establishing ontological security, but may at times be precisely what is required.…”