The Sense of How Security is Deeply Political - Essay Example

IN WHAT SENSE IS SECURITY POLICY DEEPLY POLITICAL? Lecturer: Introduction From social security to national security to homeland security, security has turned to be among the most overused words in politics and culture today, yet it remains as one of the most undefined. The precise definition of security has not exactly been achieved, but in general, it can be termed as a state of being free from danger. A security policy is a definition of the implication to be secure for an organization or a system (Uzain et al 1998). Security is extremely essential, and thus it is extremely vital to be certain that the entire security policies are implemented by adequately sturdy mechanisms. Various factors influence security policies. However, politics are is a key aspect that should not be overlooked when it comes to security policies. In other terms, security policies are deeply related to the politics of any particular entity. Discussion There exists a preoccupation that connects both the start and the end of metaphysics and so also the start and the end of metaphysical politics. This is a thing, which, since it furnishes the elementary link between metaphysics and politics, affords the entry into the relationship between security metaphysics and politics (Detraz 2013). This thing is security policy. If the issue of the political has to be raised from the metaphysical ideology, thus, then the issue of security has to be chipped in the matter, first. Of course, security saturates the modern politics language. The political terminologies stench of it and the political imagining is restrained by it. Further, the insincerity of the rulers unswervingly fleeces behind it (Wibben 2005). Therefore, it would be an informal task to institute that security is the first, as well as, foundational state requirement, of contemporary comprehension of politics not only by the allusion to particular political theorists but also by allusion to the state discourses. It is therefore essential to explore the contemporary politics in terms of a security project. Consequently, to conceive of the modern politics, as politics of security is not merely advancing the view brought forward by specific thinkers, or even by specific disciplines (Oogensen 2014). It draws attention to a stipulation to which, the entire school of political thinkers in the tradition of metaphysics, are subject. Therefore, in following this ideology, it follows that security turns out to have an extensive register, and that it has always had an extensive register, something that has started to be registered by the contemporary international studies of security. Actually, it has all the time being concern with fortifying the precise ground of what the political itself is, specifying what the significance of politics is deemed to be. The purpose is that the thought within which political thought take place (metaphysics) and particularly its commencement of truth, is itself a security policy. Metaphysics is a practice of thought defined in regards to the search of security. Thus, security establishes its expression as the key, arche or ground for which the thought of metaphysics is a search, upon which something stands, guiding and pervading it in its entire essence and structure (Spear & Williams 2012). Thus, as written by Leibniz, if a house is to be constructed in a sandy place, one must go on digging until he or she establishes a firm or rock foundation. Further, if an individual wants to unknot an interwoven thread, he or she must search for the start of the thread (Woo 2011). Additionally, Archimedes exemplified that for great weights to be moved, a stable place is the only requirement needed. In a similar way, if the elements of human knowledge are to be established, there is need for a fixed point on which people can safely rest, in addition to setting out fearlessly. Therefore, it is due to this that metaphysics initially permits an impression of security upon political thought as a self-proof condition for the precise presence of life (both social and individual). One of these instincts that is said to appear as an inner command to be innate (in the aspect, for instance, of the survival instinct), or axiomatic (in the aspect of the self-preservation principle, the right to life or self-defence). Security, thus, became the value that contemporary comprehension of the political, alongside contemporary political practices have come to be beyond question, precisely since they derived its actual requirement from the metaphysical truth requirements (Wirls 2010). Consequently, security turned to be the quandary upon which the architectonic discourse of politics of modernity were constructed. Further, security turned to be the quandary upon which the vernacular architecture of contemporary power of politics exemplified in the state was founded, and from which the practices and institutions of contemporary national and international politics, including contemporary democratic politics, eventually pursue to descend their foundational and grounding legitimacy. Thus, an excellent instance is the security of a shrewdness of credence based on an exquisitely ordained world promising redemption for humanity. This thing availed a model of a community that carries on infiltrating the western tradition. Salvation was the eventual kind of spiritual security. Further, security was to be attained through back into where people belong; in other words, a belonging to God. What is important in this case is not happens to people after death, but redemption as an countenance of the craving for the return to an unadulterated and pure kind of belonging, or rather an eventual closing up of the existence wound by taking back a lost oneness that never existed. The opposite of the statement by Cyprian was, unquestionably, correspondingly true. No church without redemption (Deudney & Mathew 1999). The eventual result of this project was a denunciation of the world via the composition of an ideal world, which not least due to the ideal it availed, the bitterness that it nurtured, alongside the redemption economy, as well as, cruelty that it instantiated, operated in the world to establish a kind of redeeming politics. In a manner that illustrates the progression of the tradition of metaphysics, however, this jingle can be, and was, definitely accustomed to endow the outlining truism of contemporary politics: no safety outside the nation: no nation without safety. Therefore, in turn, has led to the raise of prevailing kinds of what could be referred to as Hobbesian thought disciplinary politics, alongside the actuarial technologized thought politics. Each of these two kinds is concerned to specify the rule, ground or principle that would content the metaphysically requisitioned coercion for security (PROFESSOR ROY & DR SUSAN 2012). Thus, it would be relieving people of the dilemmas, alongside challenges; they go through in discovering situations, to act, as well as, to live, as humans. The fundamental thought to be sought is one that in instantaneously drawing both the present politics and the political thought tradition into question, through challenging the security foundation, serves, additionally, to demonstrate, as well as explore some essential aspects of the implications of politics. Therefore, contemporary politics is a security project in the broadest possible ontological logic of the word. This is because it was resolute to become so by feature of the precise nature or character of the truth thought, through which, within which, and by intimate and progressive reference to which, the thinking of politics has relied on. Thus, what is at issue is not if an individual says no or yes to the contemporary national and international security regimes. However, what is at issue is what Foucault would have mentioned the general discursive actuality that security is mentioned at all, the manner that it is integrated into political discourse, in addition to the manner in which it flows throughout politics, as well as other discourses (Vreeland & Dreher 2014). Those that advocate for an alliance of security with the political, as the context in this paper has been doing, do so to expand the political imagination. Security can also be employed in a manner that is not completely indebted to the philosophical insight. This is because security is a thing that is seen to operate elsewhere, as well. Further, those that advocate for a coalition of security and the political have the ideology of emphasizing that the political is in the end a how, and not a what (Dahl 2013). Thus, consequently, it cannot be gripped in a perception, nor fixed with an explanation. The manner in which this precise question can be focused on and sharpened is availed, however, by referring back to Foucault. Among many recent thinkers, Foucault was one of the most dedicated to the work of writing the antiquity of the extant following the history of philosophy as metaphysics. This is the reason as to why, when contemplating regarding the importance of security in contemporary politics, Foulcault’s way of question is extremely stimulating (Kim 2007). There existent a parallel to be constructed between what Foulcault saw the disciplinary technology of knowledge/power performing to the body and what the security principle does to politics. For security, a genealogist would explain that it is not a natural fact but a civilisation fact. Further, it cannot be termed as a noun that gives a name to something, but a formation principle that does a thing. Additionally, it is not an ontological establishment of being, nor an objective requirement, but the predecessor rather than a flourishing display of danger. Thus, security is the term under which the assorted lucidities of the contemporary age march together, witness the serried security ranks in a struggle that progressively threatens to overwhelm any other comprehension of the political, in addition to the responsibility of freedom on the people. The initial inclination in this context, thus, was to construe the outlining and now menacing terminal inconsistency of security genealogically (Kim 2007). In this light, one could easily counterattack the call, now repeatedly made, to construe the ideology of security, more precisely, as if it existed outside the political. Security does not require a bigger domain, and neither is its true meaning required to be recovered through political interpretation. A political viewpoint, thus, availed the extra virtue of averting a historiographical antiquity of the ideology of security where political theory has inclined to disregard political authenticity, alongside the authenticity of rule for the recognised breakdown of political concepts. A security concept analysis of this kind, for instance, would imply nothing regarding the deep relationship between security and the political. Further, it would not imply a thing regarding the suffering that people have been through, or have enjoyed in the hands of the numerous security regimes. Similar to a rough thumb rule, one might even explain to the analyst of the concept that the more a theory of politics portrays security as axiomatic for national and international politics, the less is possibly to illustrate regarding any specific security regime (Kim 2007). That, as suggested by the various approaches, it is not right to think that this matter of overcoming any type of challenge of broadening or seeing the horizons fitting to the scheme in which security seems, in order to t schematise a more exclusive, as well as, encompassing comprehension of it. Thus, a refinement of the security concept should not be discussed, and neither should a more exclusive immersion in the modern security world be, to assist in making people even more empirically and theoretically knowledgeable regarding security. Among the collections of struggles, nonetheless, indeed one, which informs the others, is the periodic scuffle for the political itself (Galeotti 2010). Whatever politics is taken or allowed to be, the manner in which it is captured, determined and fixed in its fundamentals, is a crucial component in the entire array of power struggles. Succinctly, the precise information surfeit regarding politics that media and academic technologies create has made people so negligent of the political, in addition to the manner in which it is secured, that they are hardly even able to formulate, much less pose and pursue, the political question itself (Dokken 2008). Thus, security has genealogy, and that the genealogy exposes how security diversely and variously functions in the dissemination and production of the international order of politics and identity. This genealogy further results to being the genealogy of politics of the political tradition. Thus, if an individual is to account for the entry of security into discourse, he or she has to tackle the precise terms in which the political thinking has occurred within. Thus, the thought occurs beyond genealogy towards the aggravated ultimate relationship between security and politics. Therefore, in securing security, there must also be a securing of the political. This implies that that the political should not only be made unquestionable and certain, but also it should be made an enterprise, which is engrossed with achieving security. It turns to maturity as just that, in the technologized and subjectivised practice and theory of the contemporary state (Small 1996). Recovering the political, in addition to repose the political question does not, suppose that it was at one time appropriate to comprehended but lost as time passed by, so that people would have to go back in time to rediscover. Recovering the political implies responding to the precise subjecting technologisation of politics as a project of security that has attained its apogee in the universal politics of security of the contemporary system of state. This has been achieved thru the questioning of the security imperative itself through recalling the freedom of obligation of people. Conclusion Contesting the sense of how security is deeply political, thus, not only needs a lot more than technical involvement over the range, meaning, morality, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability of nuclear and conventional, political and military, security technologies. Security saturates the modern politics language. The political terminologies stench of it and the political imagining is restrained by it. Therefore, in following this ideology, it follows that security turns out to have an extensive register, and that it has always had an extensive register, something that has started to be registered by the contemporary international studies of security. Thus, security establishes its expression as the key, arche or ground for which the thought of metaphysics is a search, upon which something stands, guiding and pervading it in its entire essence and structure. It is due to this that metaphysics initially permits an impression of security upon political thought as a self-proof condition for the precise presence of life (both social and individual). The fundamental thought to be sought is one that in instantaneously drawing both the present politics and the political thought tradition into question, through challenging the security foundation, serves, additionally, to demonstrate, as well as explore some essential aspects of the implications of politics. References DAHL, A.-S. (2013). Northern security and global politics Nordic-Baltic strategic influence in a post-unipolar world. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=631916. DETRAZ, N. (2013). International Security and Gender. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2014121711062. DEUDNEY, D., & MATTHEW, R. A. (1999). Contested grounds: security and conflict in the new environmental politics. Albany, State Univ. of New York Press. DOKKEN, K. (2008). African security politics redefined. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=433554. GALEOTTI, M. (2010). The politics of security in modern Russia. Farnham, Surrey, England, Ashgate Pub. Co. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10362161. KIM, J. (2007). International politics and security in Korea. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. OOGENSEN GJØRV, G. (2014). Understanding civil-military interaction: lessons learned from the Norwegian model. PROFESSOR ROY H. GINSBERG, & DR SUSAN E. PENKSA. (2012). The European Union in Global Security: The Politics of Impact. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, GB. SMALL, M. (1996). Democracy & diplomacy: the impact of domestic politics on U.S. foreign policy, 1789-1994. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. SPEAR, J., & WILLIAMS, P. (2012). Security and development in global politics a critical comparison. Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=877169. UZAN, B., WAEVER, O., & WILDE, J. H. D. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder [u.a.], Rienner. VREELAND, J. R., & DREHER, A. (2014). The political economy of the United Nations Security Council: money and influence. WIBBEN, ATR, (2005). Human Security: Toward an Opening Security Dialogue 39:4 (2008), 455-462 Berenskoetter: Mapping the Mind Gap: A Comparison of US and European Security Strategies, Security Dialogue 36:1), 71-92 WIRLS, D. (2010). Irrational security: the politics of defense from Reagan to Obama. Baltimore, Md, Johns Hopkins University Press. WOO, J. (2011). Security challenges and military politics in East Asia: from state building to post-democratization. New York, Continuum. Read More