The Politicisation of Security: Controversy, Mobilisation, Arena Shifting

Abstract

While security has always been political, it has for the most part been considered a special kind of politics that closes down political activity and debate. This introduction reviews recent theoretical and empirical developments to argue that a research agenda that re-engages security through the prism of politicisation is better able to elucidate the growing range of actors, arenas and arguments visible in contemporary security governance. Based on recent literatures from Political Science and European Studies that -so far -have been largely ignored by Security Studies, it develops an analytical framework around three dimensions: controversy, mobilisation and arena-shifting. It showcases the relevance of this perspective through brief empirical illustrations on the post-Snowden controversy, public participation on security strategy-making, and the role of parliaments in security policy. The overall aim is to reopen conceptual questions on the relationship between security and politics, inspire innovative empirical work to study the diverse politics around security, and allow for more differentiated normative inquiries into the ambivalent consequences of politicisation.

Politicising European counter-terrorism: the role of NGOs

“…The same trend is supported by scientific publications that link security and public perception (Rüger 2013, Peters 2014 and combine politicisation research with European (foreign) security (Hegemann and Schneckener 2019, Hagmann et al 2018, Costa 2019, Barbé and Morillas 2019. In politicisation research, the call to widen the focus on other, less elite-oriented actors is highly present (De Wilde 2011, Statham and Trenz 2013, Zürn 2013, Hegemann and Schneckener 2019, Schneckener 2020.…”

The eternal return: Imagining security futures at the Doomsday Vault

“…Even though the disruptive context of the Anthropocene is present, the apocalyptic imaginary does not escape a conventional, universalist logic of security that renders it as a function of danger, fear, emergency and the pursuit of integrity (bodily and territorial) and survival. The doomsday that lies at the heart of the SGSV fixes the apparatus to a security politics driven by the threat and use of extraordinary interventions and dependent upon an expert-led, technocratic politics (Hagmann et al, 2018). It also simultaneously reinforces and resettles conventional security politics within the ostensibly novel Anthropocene context; a rational response to cumulative local destruction leading to future, global, common collapse.…”

Urban Design as Technology of (Counter‐) Democratic Security Politics

“…In the Urban Age – the new epoch in which the majority of humankind resides in urban settlements –, cities are so (re‐)discovered as key sites of security politics by scholars and practitioners (Rodrigues et al 2017). They become enlisted as contributors to national security and acted upon as places where integrated security management and resilience programming is required (Hagmann et al 2018). Some argue that they become the ‘new global battlespace’ tout court , i.e., the central terrain of international security altogether (Graham 2009).…”

“…Overall, the architectural security strategy seeks to guide visitors’ behavior in more subtle ways, and its design makes that agenda more difficult to spot and discuss. It does not shut down all agency, however, as it is only one factor defining the possibility of inclusive/exclusive politics around security, which, in Zürich, is conditioned by a strong tradition of democratic control (Hagmann et al 2018).…”