Pushing the Boundaries: Can We “Decolonize” Security Studies?

Abstract

This essay reflects on the approaches to inclusion and exclusion put forward in this special issue and suggests a more radical alternative: the project of “decolonizing” the field of security studies. Drawing on work in decolonial thought and critical security studies, I discuss systemic-level structures of inclusion and exclusion such as global racial hierarchies, imperial and colonial legacies, and North-South inequities. Such structures both shape the material reality of the global security order, and affect knowledge production in the field of security studies itself, including the definition of what is and is not viewed as a legitimate “security issue.” I conclude by asking what a “decolonized” security studies might look like.

Re‐spatialising migration governance: From ‘multi‐level’ to ‘entangled’

“…In other words, in addition to being spatially entangled, the dynamics produced by (or that produce) cross‐border migration are also frequently historically entangled in that they are affected by enduring connectivities that pre‐date contemporary state borders and national migration regimes. The emergence of migration as a central area of contemporary state policy needs to be understood in its broader historical context of state formation and consolidation (Adamson, 2020a; Hollifield, 2004; Klotz, 2013; Torpey, 2000; Vigneswaran, 2013; Vigneswaran & Quirk, 2015). For example, in Europe, colonial and imperial histories have had a profound impact on the development of contemporary migration governance regimes and have shaped migration flows between Europe and the rest of the world (Buettner, 2016; Mayblin & Turner, 2020; Sadiq & Tsourapas, 2021).…”

De-centering Europe as a strategy—what “non-Western” means in and for peace and conflict studies?

“…Seit den anti-kolonialen Befreiungskämpfen (Fanon 1981) und dem nachfolgenden Aufkommen postkolonialer Theorie gibt es Bestrebungen Disziplinen, Forschungsfoci und Wissen zu dekolonisieren (Bhabha 2012;Said 1979;Spivak 1988, (Abboud et al 2018;Adamson 2020;Barkawi und Laffey 2006;Ketzmerick 2018). Ein anderer Forschungsstrang innerhalb der Friedens-und Konfliktforschung folgt dem sogenannten "Local Turn" (Mac Ginty und Richmond 2013), also der Umsetzung von "westlichen" Konzepten der Friedensförderung innerhalb von oft "nicht-westlichen" Gesellschaften.…”

Racism! What do you mean? From Howell and Richter-Montpetit’s underestimation of the problem, towards situating security through struggle

“…We should be wary of any project of 'decolonizing security studies' that seeks to work decolonial insights into the fabric of the discipline in this way (e.g. Adamson, 2020). 'That knowledge has been colonized', Lewis Gordon (2011: 95) reminds us, 'raises the question of whether it was ever free'.…”

“…After staking out my critique – and why I think recent discussion of racism in security studies only scratches the surface of the problem – I will consider how research agendas and methods might be recalibrated with a greater sensitivity towards colonialism and race. Crucially, I caution against attempts to ‘decolonize security studies’ by seeking to add the insights of decolonial and critical race scholarship to the field (see Adamson, 2020) without attention to the ontological assumptions that make it natural to centre security. Taking inspiration from Lewis Gordon (2011) and Olivia Rutazibwa (2020), as well as from my own engagement with decolonial social movements, I propose that part of what is required is greater attention to lived thought, to how reality always exceeds the questions our scholarly communities lead us to ask, and to what is revealed when we consider security through the lens of struggle.…”