Critical Security Studies

Course Description

This course is concerned with the way in which the so-called ‘critical turn’ in International Relations has been reflected specifically in thinking about Strategy and Security.

‘Critical Security Studies’ is, in its broadest sense, a collection of approaches all united by a profound dissatisfaction with so-called ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical Security Studies seeks to question (though not always do away with) the foundations upon which the dominant state-centrism and military-centrism is built.

This course deals with a number of these approaches: from the ‘conventional’ constructivists, through the Copenhagen School, the Welsh School, to more poststructural perspectives. The course also deals to a great extent with gender perspectives on security. While very much a part of Critical Security Studies, feminist approaches in themselves have, in the past 15 years or so especially, constituted some of the most sustained and pertinent challenges to the Realist and neo-Realist orthodoxy, and are thus well worthy of some specific attention.

The course is indeed intended as a logical supplement to the prior ‘Thinking about Strategy and Security’, and those students who attended this course will, for sure, be already well equipped to deal with the readings. However, any student with a grasp of IR theory (or indeed an interest in gender) should find the course very much accessible, while at the same time also challenging.

Course Structure

For this course, there are no lectures. Instead, students will participate in seminars where they are expected to form their own opinions through ‘critical’ evaluation of the reading. Seminar discussion will be structured around a short presentation of the topic, in which students will summarise and critique the readings. For each seminar there will be one or two (perhaps three) key texts (which appear in the course reader). The purpose of the seminar is to analyse and evaluate ideas: what is important is to focus on the way in which people think.

Method of Assessment

Each student will be assessed through a combination of seminar contribution, one or two oral presentations (depending on numbers), and written work. One literature review and one term paper are required. The literature review should be approximately 1,500-2,000 words in length and should be written on a topic different to the student’s oral presentation(s). The term paper, around 4,000 words in length, is of the student’s own choosing, but again should be written on a topic different to both the oral presentation(s) and literature review. Deadlines for all written are still to be determined.

For the final grade: 45% is given to the term paper, 25% to the literature review, 20% to the oral presentation(s), with the remaining 10% being allotted to seminar attendance and general contribution.

Guidelines for Assessment

Term Papers should be word-processed (12pt, 1½ spaced), appropriately referenced, and with a full bibliography. All written work should conform to the appropriate standards of academic English; including punctuation, grammar, style, and structure.

In terms of grading, the categories below provide some guidance as to what qualities assessors are looking for, and what kinds of weaknesses may incline assessors towards giving a lower mark.

A Work of exceptional quality that authoritatively demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the topic. Well argued, organised, and structured. Critical awareness of the theoretical/empirical material, and shows originality of thought.

A- Work of high quality that is well above the average for a postgraduate paper. Not necessarily faultless in terms of the above, but still shows some originality of thought.

B+ A very competent piece of work displaying substantial knowledge and understanding. There may well be room for improvement in terms of organisation and structure, although in general terms work will be solid.

B/B- Again, a piece of some competence. More improvement than the above will be required organisationally and structurally. Work at this level may also display some oversimplification and irrelevance.

C+/C/C- An adequate piece of work, but where significant improvements must be made. Too much oversimplification and irrelevance. Required points are missing. Work may also contain serious grammatical errors.

D Inadequate. A work displaying far too many of the above weaknesses.

F A totally unacceptable piece of work. Fail.

Week 1/Seminar 1. No Class

Week 1/Seminar 2. No Class

Week 2/Seminar 3. Introduction: Long Live Strategic Studies!(?)

Key Texts:

Colin Gray, ‘Clausewitz Rules OK?’, Review of International Studies, vol.25 (Special Issue), 1999.

Martin Shaw, ‘Strategy and Slaughter’, Review of International Studies, vol.29, 2003.

Colin Gray, ‘In Praise of Strategy’, Review of International Studies, vol.29, 2003.

Week 2/Seminar 4. Identity and the Politics of Security (or, It’s About Identity, Stupid!)

Key Text:

Josef Lapid & Friedrich Kratochwil (eds.), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1996), Chapter 6: Lapid & Kratochwil, ‘Revisiting the “National”: Toward an Identity Agenda in NeoRealism?’.

Michael Williams, ‘Identity and the Politics of Security’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.4, no.2, 1998.

Week 3/Seminar 5. Theoretical Reconstruction: Societal Security

Key Texts:

Bill McSweeney, ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’, Review of International Studies, vol.22, 1996.

Tobias Theiler, ‘Societal Security and Social Psychology’, Review of International Studies, vol.29, 2003.

Week 3/Seminar 6. Strategic Culture: The Three Generations

Key Texts:

Alistair Ian Johnston, ‘Thinking about Strategic Culture’, International Security, vol.19, no.4, 1995.

Colin Gray, ‘Strategic Culture as Context; the First Generation of Theory Strikes Back, Review of International Studies, vol.25, 1999.

Week 4/Seminar 7. Strategic Culture: The Third Generation

Key Texts:

Peter Katzenstein (eds.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), Chapter 4: Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald, ‘Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos’.

Theo Farrell, ‘Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.1, March 2001.

Week 4/Seminar 8. Strategic Culture: The Third Generation

Key Texts:

Katzenstein (eds.), The Culture of National Security, Chapter 6: Elizabeth Kier, ‘Culture and French Military Doctrine Before World War II’.

Jeffrey Legro, ‘Military Culture and Inadvertent Escalation in World War II’, International Security, vol.18, no.4, 1994.

Week 5/Seminar 9. Securitization and Desecuritization

Key Texts:

Ronny Lipschutz (ed.), On Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), Chapter 3: Ole Waever, ‘Securitization and Desecuritization’.

Olav Knudsen, ‘Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization’, Security Dialogue, vol.32, no.3, 2001.

Week 5/Seminar 10. The Securitization of Migration

Key Texts:

Robert Miles and Dietrich Thranhardt (eds.), Migration and European Security: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion (London: Pinter, 1995), Chapter 3: Jef Huysmans, ‘Migrants as a Security Problem: Dangers of ‘Securitizing’ Societal Issues’.

Didier Bigo, ‘Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease’, Alternatives, vol.27 (Special Edition), 2002.

Week 6/Seminar 11. Human Security

Key Texts:

Nicholas Thomas & William Tow, ‘The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Intervention’, Security Dialogue, vol.33, no.2, 2002.

Alex Bellamy & Matt McDonald, ‘The Utility of Human Security: Which Humans? What Security?’, Security Dialogue, vol.33, no.3, 2002.

Nicholas Thomas & William Tow, ‘Gaining Security by Trashing the State? A Reply to Bellamy and McDonald’, Security Dialogue, vol.33, no.3, 2002.

Week 6/Seminar 12. Security and Self (or, Emancipation Rules OK?)

Key Text:

Krause and Michael Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies (London: UCL Press, 1997), Chapter 4: Ken Booth, ‘Security and Self: Confessions of a Fallen Realist’.

Week 7/Seminar 13. Where are the Women?

Key Texts:

Cynthia Enloe, Does Khaki Become You? (London: Pandora, 1988), Chapter 2: ‘The Militarisation of Prostitution’; Chapter 4: ‘Nursing the Military’.

Week 7/Seminar 14. Militarized Masculinity

Key Texts:

Cynthia Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkely: University of California Press, 1993), Chapter 3: ‘Beyond Steve Canyon and Rambo: Histories of Militarized Masculinity’.

Miriam Cooke & Angela Woollacott (eds.), Gendering War Talk (Princeton: PUP, 1993), Chapter 4: Lynda Boose, ‘Techno-Mascularity and the “Boy Eternal”: From Quagmire to the Gulf’.

Week 8/Seminar 15. Women in the Military

Key Texts:

Elisabetta Addis, Valerie Russo, & Lorenzo Sebesta (eds.), Women Soldiers (New York: St. Martins Press, 1994), Chapter 4: Patricia Hanna, ‘An Overview of the Stressors in the Careers of US Servicewomen.

Martin van Crefeld, ‘The Great Illusion: Women in the Military’; Elshtain, ‘‘Shooting’ at the Wrong Target: A Response to Van Creveld’, Millennium, vol.29, no.2, 2000.

Week 8/Seminar 16. Sexual Violence and the Politics of Security

Key Texts:

Lene Hansen, ‘Gender, Nation, Rape: Bosnia and the Construction of Security’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol.3, no.1, 2001.

Inger Skjelsbaek, ‘Sexual Violence and War: Mapping Out a Complex Relationship’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.7, no.2, 2001.

Week 9/Seminar 17. Sex-Trafficking and the Politics of Security

Key Text:

Jacqueline Berman, (Un)Popular Strangers and Crises Unbounded: Discourses of Sex-Trafficking, the European Political Community and the Panicked State of the Modern State’, European Journal of International Relations, vol.9, no.1, 2003.

Week 9/Seminar 18. Gender and Securitization

Key Text:

Lene Hansen, ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’, Millennium, vol.29, no.2, 2000.

Week 10/Seminar 19. A Genealogy of Security

Key Texts:

Lipshutz (ed.), On Security, Chapter 2: James Der Derian, ‘The Value of Security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard’.

Anthony Burke, ‘Aporias of Security’, Alternatives, vol.27, no.1, 2002.

Week 10/Seminar 20. Strategic Discourse: The Cold War

Key Texts:

David Campbell, Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1992), Introduction: ‘On Dangers and Their Interpretation’; Chapter 6, ‘Writing Security’.

Week 11/Seminar 21. Strategic Discourse: The (Virtual?!) Gulf War

Key Texts:

Michael Shapiro, Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War (Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press, 1997), Chapter 2: ‘Warring Bodies and Bodies Politic’; Chapter 3: ‘That Obscure Object of Violence’.

Week 11/Seminar 22. Gender and ‘Defence Intellectuals’

Key Texts:

Carol Cohn, ‘Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals’, Signs, vol.12, no.4, 1987.

Cooke & Woollacott, Gendering War Talk, Chapter 10: Cohn, ‘Talking Gender and Thinking War’.

Week 12/Seminar 23. No Class

Week 12/Seminar 24. No Class