Securitizing capital: A processual-relational approach to pluralized security

Abstract

In this article, we introduce the concept of ‘securitizing capital’ as a new analytical tool to understand the pluralized landscape of security. We define securitizing capital as a process whereby different forms of capital are, consciously and unconsciously, used to acquire legitimacy and power. While other approaches have been developed to understand pluralized security, such as security networks, nodal frameworks and assemblages, we argue that, useful as they are, they tend to overlook issues of agency, how relationships are established and negotiated and the subjective experiences of security. In contrast, we introduce a processual-relational approach that is based on the translation and conversion of other types of capital, such as economic and social, to acquire a position of power within a specific (security) ‘field’. In order to elaborate on our approach and its relevance, we draw on fieldwork conducted in Kenya, Jamaica and Israel.

Mercenarism, norms and market exchange: Reassembling the private military labour market

“…In recent years, scholars of military and security governance have advanced a range of organising perspectives to describe, explain and evaluate the pluralisation of the contemporary military landscape, each of which has variable utility depending on the precise questions under examination (for an overview see: Kruck 2014). For present purposes the global security assemblages approach put forward by Williams (2009, 2011) Bourdieu (1990Bourdieu ( , 1999) that symbolic capital (legitimacy and authority) carries the most significance, especially the symbolic capital of the state (see also Diphoorn and Grassiani 2016).…”

“…History weighs heavily on the security field they explain the very origins of the modern (and later liberal democratic) state were defined by its opposition to the notion of private security )n the modern state security was to become a public function (Abrahamsen and Williams 2011: 111-2). It is this state-centric historical bearing encompassing, among other social structures, the conjoined norms against mercenarism and for the state monopoly over violence which compels so many actors in the capacity development phase to enhance the publicness of their security operations through the realization of the symbolic capital of the state (see also White 2010White , 2012Diphoorn and Grassiani 2016). Expressed differently, they draw attention to a distinctive structure-agency dynamic rooted in the historical terrain of the security field.…”

‘Arms for mobility’: policing partnerships and material exchanges in Nairobi, Kenya

“…These studies have exemplified the numerous ways in which people and knowledge are shared or exchanged and how this shapes certain power structures. As a way of further dissecting such exchanges, Diphoorn and Grassiani (2017) discuss the way in which various forms of capitalsocial, political and economicare employed and mobilised by security providers across localities to acquire authority in the field of security. The authors encapsulate this with the concept of securitising capital, which refers 'the processes of acquiring symbolic capital through other forms of capital in the field of security' (435).…”

"Eyes, Ears, and Wheels"

“…Th e third issue concerns a fi nancial dimension: we contend that the idea of "wheels" refers not only to an operational and physical assistance, but also to a fi nancial contribution, an element that has been identifi ed elsewhere (Diphoorn and Grassiani 2016;Dupont 2004) as one of the main ways in which non-state policing bodies, particularly the private security industry, support state policing eff orts. Th is is particularly crucial in countries such as Kenya where fi nancial resources are oft en lacking: police stations in Nairobi are known to be extremely underequipped, and vehicles and fuel are among the scarcest resources.…”