Home News Multidisciplinary Approaches to Safety: The Paris Faculty and Ontological Safety

Multidisciplinary Approaches to Safety: The Paris Faculty and Ontological Safety

48
0

In 2006, Jennifer Mitzen famously argued that states don’t solely search bodily safety but in addition ontological safety, or safety of the self.[1] Drawing on components from psychology and psychoanalysis, she proposed a novel method to the examine of safety that focuses on the connection between anxiousness and id.[2] Since then, the idea of ontological safety has been more and more used within the examine of worldwide relations because it gives different explanations, for instance, to the replica of safety dilemmas by means of states’ attachment to routinized social relations.[3] Probably the most extensively referenced authors on this subject are Mitzen, Steele and extra lately Rumelili.

One other faculty of safety research that equally tries to combine different disciplines within the examine of safety and battle is the Paris Faculty, with Didier Bigo as its most distinguished consultant.[4] The Paris Faculty goals to analyse safety points by utilizing conceptual and operational instruments from the realms of IR, sociology, and criminology.[5] Recognizing the work of Barry Buzan and Ole Wӕver, the Paris Faculty’s most important contribution is by including to the evaluation of securitization processes primarily based on speech acts and on the importance of safety practices, whereas constructing on the sociological approaches of Bourdieu and Foucault.[6]

This essay doesn’t deny the truth that the 2 ideas of safety originate from very totally different mental fields. Moreover, Mitzen’s work is criticized of being affiliated with conventional and neo-realist approaches to safety fairly than essential safety research.[7] Mitzen herself admits that by assuming that people in addition to states act rationally, she desires to have interaction realist IR idea.[8] Nonetheless, Mitzen’s core argument is that state id is socially constructed and that sources of battle usually are not exogenous to interplay however situated in between states. That is very totally different to realist idea which assumes {that a} state’s sort is self-organized and never depending on different states. Likewise, Steele emphasizes {that a} state’s curiosity is a product of id building, which is similar to constructivist and demanding constructivist analyses.[9] Close to the Paris Faculty, which primarily builds on Bourdieu’s work, one ought to observe that the latter understands its personal work as positioned in ‘constructivist structuralism’ or ‘structuralist constructivism’, aiming to hyperlink company and construction in a complete conception of observe.[10]

Contemplating that each the Paris Faculty and the ontological safety method may be understood as a part of a broad vary of constructivist views in IR idea, this essay seeks to match the 2 approaches by asking if they’re in the end extra related or totally different? Within the context of a broader try to reconcile essential and ontological safety approaches, this essay goals to focus on the potential for frequent floor between the students linked to Bigo’s analysis and those associated to Mitzen’s understanding of safety. Evaluating the similarities between the idea of id proposed by Anthony Giddens and the idea of habitus by Pierre Bourdieu, it is going to first be argued that they each are perceived as having the same impression on the securitization course of. Moreover, will probably be proven that Bigo and Mitzen not solely share the analytical give attention to insecurity but in addition the affiliation with the idea of practices. Lastly, will probably be argued that in addition they empirically share a typical understanding of EU migration governance.

Id and Habitus

The ontological safety perspective’s give attention to the actors’ must really feel as if they’ve steady identities is impressed by the psychoanalysis of Ronald Laing in ‘Self and Others’ (Laing 1960) and the sociology of Anthony Giddens in ‘Modernity and Self-Id’ (Giddens 1991).[11] By conflating self with id, the idea of ontological security-seeking is usually diminished to issues of id preservation, arguing that “people must really feel safe in who they’re, as identities or selves.[12]” In response to Mitzen, the power to expertise oneself as a complete, steady individual in time is essential so as to notice a way of company.[13] In actual fact, it is vital that people have assured expectations in regards to the means-ends relationships to know the way to act as a result of they know what to anticipate in return.[14] Briefly, id is each sustained by motion and essential for motion. An essential element for id stability is what Giddens has referred to as a “fundamental belief system.[15]” Fundamental belief is taken into account as essential for ontological safety because it refers to a sure sense of confidence within the nature of the world and thereby additionally to 1’s personal actions. What’s essential to notice right here, is that this fundamental belief system in addition to the person’s sense of its capability for company occurs exterior the extent of acutely aware alternative.[16]

In distinction, adopting a Bourdieusian method, the Paris Faculty argues that company is influenced by a person’s “habitus”. Nonetheless, much like the id and fundamental belief aspect of the ontological safety method, the habitus refers to a semi-conscious orientation that people need to the world, which types a foundation for observe.[17] Furthermore, as Bourdieu describes it himself, the habitus is “a system of sturdy, transposable tendencies, which integrates previous experiences and features at each second as a matrix of notion, appreciation, and motion […].[18]” Tendencies could embrace bodily orientations, for instance methods of standing or talking but in addition a set of moral precepts or behavioural tendencies. Bourdieu typically refers to it as a “really feel for the sport,[19]” that somebody “simply is aware of” what to do in a sure form of scenario.

As can be proven, there are a number of overlaps between the idea of the habitus and the idea of id. Each Mitzen and the Paris Faculty respectively spotlight the relational character of id and habitus. The tendencies of the habitus are embodied traces of intersubjective interactions.[20] Mitzen additionally factors out the significance of recognition for id and ontological safety. In response to her, identity-building is at all times an intersubjective course of. As such, id is shaped and sustained by means of relationships.[21] Curiously, Giddens and Bourdieu additionally each contemplate early childhood experiences as essential for id and habitus. Giddens argues that fundamental belief is “fostered by means of the emergence of behavior and routines within the relationships between the toddler and its caregivers, with such routines turning into a vital bulwark towards threatening anxieties.[22]” For Bourdieu, tendencies equally change into ‘second nature’ by means of early processes of coaching and studying.[23]

Though Bourdieu by no means explicitly elaborated on the idea of id, Schäfer proposes in his examine on the sphere of id politics that id may be outlined as one of many tendencies of the habitus.[24] Bourdieu himself argues that motion is just not solely formed by somebody’s habitus but in addition by its cultural capital.[25] Cultural capital implies the gathering of symbolic components comparable to expertise, tastes, clothes and so on. In that sense, sharing related types of cultural capital with different individuals creates a way of collective id. Contemplating the hyperlink between Giddens’ id and Bourdieu’s habitus, one can argue that the ontological safety perceptive and the Paris Faculty could possibly be reconciled on the truth that id is related to Bourdieu’s habitus.

The Position of the State

Respectively making use of the ideas of id and habitus to the state’s stage, the Paris Faculty and the ontological safety approaches each contemplate id and habitus as essential for securitization processes. Whereas Mitzen adopts a fairly exogenous method, declaring how states, equally to people, are involved with sustaining a constant notion of their self-identity to boost their ontological safety in relations with different states, Steele is thought for his intra-subjective or endogenous understanding of ontological safety, by emphasising the position of the state as a supplier of ontological safety for its residents.[26] Nonetheless, each agree on the truth that states are ontological security-seekers, both in relation with different states or for their very own residents. Moreover, Steele and Mitzen additionally agree that actions to safe the self-identity of a state could compromise their bodily safety.[27]

In distinction to that, the Paris Faculty has a barely totally different understanding of the position of the state, arguing that these days the state doesn’t have the identical authority as earlier than. The Paris Faculty argues that that is because of the ‘de-differentiation’ of inner and exterior realms of safety that has led to a common tendency in the direction of shut cooperation between inner and exterior safety companies, ensuing within the emergence of a transnational community of safety professionals.[28] Bigo identifies a subject of (in)securitization processes that’s dominated by professionals or consultants of safety.[29] He claims that this subject follows particular “guidelines of the sport,” that presuppose a specific mode of socialization or habitus on the components of those professionals. The habitus, much like Giddens’ id, additionally performs a central position in shaping securitization processes however is just not strongly outlined alongside the traces of nationwide borders.

Nonetheless, Bigo admits that the realm of safety professionals is dominated by professionals from public establishments, comparable to police and the army.[30] It might subsequently be fallacious to say that the Paris Faculty doesn’t attribute any position to the state of their idea of safety. Bigo would possibly argue that it’s now not tenable to take care of the classical notion of the state due to the transnationalization of police and army bureaucracies, nonetheless, by adopting a Foucauldian method of governmentality, the Paris Faculty nonetheless highlights the facility of the state and the top-down technique of securitization that’s much like the top-down technique of Mitzen’s and Steele’s ontological security-seeking of the state. Moreover, in one among Bigo’s earlier texts revealed in Tradition & Conflit, he acknowledged the position that state id has performed for the American coverage response to 9/11 and worldwide terrorism extra usually.[31] He acknowledged that in that context, the self-representation of the US as a mannequin of democracy has not solely performed a vital position within the building of the enemy after 9/11 but in addition of their safety technique after the assaults, in addition to of their seek for allies within the struggle towards terrorism.

The priority in regards to the position of id can be noticed within the Paris Faculty’s concern in regards to the meshing of the habitus of the safety professionals with new transnational fields of safety. Contemplating, for instance, the skilled habitus of a police officer who’s used to deal with each individual as a possible felony.[32] In response to Bigo, the rising worldwide ambitions of Ministries of Inside and Justice signifies that this habitus of the police officer is now merging with the sphere of the monitoring of the border-crossing of ‘regular’ individuals, in distinction to potential criminals that the police officer is often involved with. At this level, one may argue that his self-identification as a police officer in addition to his ‘policing habitus’ can doubtlessly form its actions and subsequently extra usually the method of (in)securitization.

On this account, one may argue that regardless of a distinct understanding of the notion of the state, the Paris Faculty is, equally to the ontological safety method, involved with how id in addition to the habitus can each form securitization processes.

Anxiousness and Unease in World Politics

Aside from the overlap as regards to the impression of id and habitus on securitization processes, the 2 approaches to safety present one other similarity which issues their give attention to insecurity in addition to their assumption of a common feeling of hysteria and unease in world politics.

Mitzen and Bigo’s world of hysteria and unease is just not the primary formulation of the necessity to assume safety when it comes to insecurity and/or uncertainty. Reviewing the monographs of Mary Kaldor, Mark Duffield and Frank Furedi from 2007,[33] Chandler observes a theoretic shift of the safety problematic from safety – “the inter-state menace of warfare” – to insecurity “the everlasting threat of instability.[34]” On the identical time, Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase observe that there was a semantic shift after the top of the Chilly Warfare of the form of hazard that safety coverage addresses. It isn’t extra in regards to the avoidance of threats, however the administration of dangers that dominate the safety agenda.[35] This in flip contributes to a previous, multidisciplinary debate on ‘threat society’ that first emerged within the subject of sociology within the late Eighties with Ulrich Beck as a distinguished consultant of the idea. Beck claimed that we now dwell in a “threat society, a society through which there are uncontrollable and unpredictable risks towards which insurance coverage is not possible.[36]

Despite the fact that Beck’s idea of ‘threat society’ has been contested by a number of mental fields, it has been utilized by many authors within the subject of safety research to explain the character of the up to date worldwide system. This consists of Bigo who adopted the idea of ‘threat society’ and linked it to the politics of unease.[37] Moreover, representatives of the Paris Faculty declare that the label ‘safety’ in actual fact works as a slogan or a technique by means of which sure teams are in a position to justify and impose a political program by assessing what may be designated as an object of worry or threat. They argue that thereby any try to acquire most safety at all times provokes most insecurity.[38] Bigo demonstrates this with the instance of the rise in variety of policemen in a avenue:[39] This will likely diminish the chance of aggression, however not the worry of the individuals on the street. Quite the opposite, noticing the various policemen on the street, individuals could change into conscious that one thing goes fallacious and should really feel much more insecure. Claiming that safety is at all times additionally insecurity, the Paris Faculty prefers utilizing the terminology of (in)securitization.

Close to the ontological safety method, Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen additionally acknowledge the contribution of the work of Ulrich Beck along with Anthony Giddens within the Eighties and Nineties by linking the ideas of ontological safety with the examine of threat society.[40] The underlying assumption of the idea of ontological safety is a common worry of uncertainty, which is perceived as a menace to id.[41] Mitzen additionally refers to it as “existential anxiousness.” Uncertainty makes it tough to behave, which impedes the action-identity dynamic and makes it tough to maintain self-conception.[42] Making use of this argument to the state stage, from an ontological safety perspective, states’ intentions are sometimes arduous to know and simply misperceived. In that sense, states, much like individuals, are additionally anticipated to expertise existential anxiousness in a world of uncertainty.

Lastly, the ontological safety method adopts the (in)safety terminology just like the Paris Faculty, though this may solely be present in more moderen works on the European Union (EU).[43] Moreover, Browning and Joenniemi state that authors like Mitzen in addition to Rumelili have at all times empirically focussed on ontological insecurity fairly than ontological safety by firstly analysing instances the place actors leak a wholesome sense of fundamental belief.[44] One can subsequently conclude that each faculties are analytically focussing on the query, “What does insecurity do?”, in distinction to, “What’s safety?” Moreover, each Giddens and Mitzen, in addition to Bourdieu and the Paris Faculty, acknowledge the significance of stability for a person in addition to for states in a an increasing number of insecure world.

The Administration of Anxiousness and Unease by means of Routinized Practices

In response to the Paris Faculty in addition to from an ontological safety perspective, the above-mentioned scenario of uncertainty in world politics leads to the emergence of a sure form of ‘administration of hysteria’ as Mitzen would name it or a ‘administration of unease’ in Bigo’s phrases. Though each ideas spotlight the facility of narratives, thereby recognizing the work of the Copenhagen Faculty, securitization for Mitzen and Bigo takes place firstly by means of non-discursive routinized practices.

Once more, Mitzen and Bigo usually are not the primary to analytically give attention to practices. Vincent Pouliot states that there was a broader name in IR idea for a so referred to as “observe flip”, primarily based on insights from philosophy, psychology, and sociology.[45] This observe flip makes an attempt to beat what Pouliot calls the “representational bias[46]” in sociological theorizing. In response to him, this representational bias stems from the three logics of social motion which have been most utilized in up to date IR idea: the logics of penalties, of appropriateness, and of arguing.[47] All three logics emphasize representations and reflexive data in social motion. Nonetheless, Pouliot argues that “in social and political life, many practices don’t primarily derive from instrumental rationality (logic of consequence), norm-following (logic of appropriateness), or communicative motion (logic of arguing).[48]” Quite the opposite, “practices are the results of inarticulate, sensible data that makes what’s to be performed seem ‘self-evident’ or commonsensical.[49]” Psychologists have discovered proof from on a regular basis life that motion typically derives from an “computerized, intuitive mode of knowledge processing,[50]” that distinguishes itself from a rational mode of motion. The important thing argument put ahead by representatives of the sensible flip is that social motion stems from sensible logics which are essentially non-representational.[51]

This assumption of sensible, non-representational logics is the idea of Bourdieu’s habitus and Giddens’ ontological security-seeking. Mitzen’s and Bigo’s give attention to unconscious routines and practices can subsequently be understood as a part of this idea of observe in social science. In response to Mitzen, the mechanism producing fundamental belief and thereby ontological safety is routinization primarily based on social interactions, which makes social life and the self knowable and reduces uncertainty.[52] Routines have usually two features: first, a cognitive perform, which is offering people with data of the world and of the way to act and second, an emotional perform which is saving people from feeling deep worry of chaos.[53] As a result of routines present certainty, people can get hooked up to them. Utilized to the state stage, Mitzen argues that states can change into hooked up to sure routines which could perpetuate bodily insecurity however maintain id and thereby present ontological safety.[54] In such a scenario, it’s tough to resolve the safety dilemma due to states’ attachment to typically very harmful routines. Furthermore, for the ontological safety method, routines are sometimes unconsciously drawn from the cultural subject that people inhabit.[55] This in flip corresponds with the belief of the Paris Faculty, that people usually search to perpetuate sure practices which are a part of their habitus.

Methodologically, the Paris Faculty additionally insists on the truth that safety and insecurity need to be analysed as a technique of (in)securitization primarily based on safety practices. These practices are types of social interactions which are “derived from goal relations, guidelines of the sport, that are neither instantly seen nor acutely aware.[56]” The Paris Faculty claims that practices are framed by a person’s habitus, which may be in comparison with how routines are framed by id in response to the ontological safety method. Opposite to the customarily talked about argument that securitized actions are distinctive measures, the Paris Faculty argues that as a rule, safety practices are already one thing normalized that has been routinized.[57] The Paris Faculty claims that it’s subsequently essential to review safety practices and particularly the routinization of safety practices, as a result of they assume that they differentiate from different social practices in order that one may, by means of figuring out safety practices, additionally determine securitization processes extra usually.

Sharing the analytical give attention to routines and practices, Bigo and Mitzen are each conceptualizing safety and insecurity when it comes to unconscious, non-representational processes. As a consequence of the central position of routines in securitization processes, each faculties see the difficulties of desecuritisation within the robust attachment of the actors to routines, both as a result of it supplies ontological safety or simply as a result of it’s a part of their habitus. The unconscious nature of those routines makes it much more tough first to determine them after which to suppress them.[58]

EU Migration Governance as Administration of Anxiousness and Unease

Lastly, this final part now goals to exhibit that Mitzen and the Paris Faculty may be finest reconciled as regards to the case of the securitization of migration within the EU, sharing the same understanding of EU migration governance as a case of administration of hysteria and unease which leads to a selected type of governmentality primarily based on narratives and routines.

Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen state that the best safety challenges that folks throughout Europe these days face are for instance those associated to sovereign debt and monetary austerity, the rise of populist far-right events throughout Europe, uncertainty a few potential disintegration of the EU on account of Brexit, and refugees coming from totally different conflictual areas comparable to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. In actual fact, what’s behind these challenges are deeper insecurities about financial prospects, social well-being and a widespread worry that the EU will be unable to search out options to those up to date challenges in world politics.[59] Equally, Bigo and Guild observe that the professionals of safety are an increasing number of perceiving the world as a worldwide insecurity system.[60]

In response to Mitzen, present challenges to the EU don’t strictly threaten the EU’s safety in that they don’t result in intra-European warfare. Nonetheless, they do problem EU cohesion when it comes to id which is why Mitzen makes use of the time period “anxious neighborhood” when talking of the EU.[61] Focussing on the migration coverage of the Visegrad 4, Alkopher argues that immigration “challenges their collective id as ‘sovereign’, ‘nationwide’, and ‘European’, which had as soon as served as an anxiety-controlling mechanism reinforcing their sense of belief, predictability, and management on the planet, resulting in uncertainty and ontological insecurity.[62]” Equally, Bigo’s and Guild’s notion of “policing within the identify of freedom” is an allusion to the securitization of EU values the place particularly the liberty of motion is taken into account as being important for the constructing of a European id.[63] Moreover, Huysmans argues that migration is perceived as a destabilizing issue to European integration and specifically to the European inner market which additionally consists of the free motion of individuals.[64] Contemplating the European inner market as an essential aspect of a broader European id, the administration of migration is subsequently about id management.

In a particular challenge of European safety specializing in ontological (in)safety within the EU, Mitzen states that the EU anxiousness administration as regards to migration consists of two main methods that are narratives and routines.[65] Equally, Bigo analyses how the rhetoric of freedom of motion as an integral a part of European id performs a vital position within the narratives on migration as a safety drawback.[66] Huysmans additionally notes that the securitization of migration typically builds on narratives that join migration to different security-related issues comparable to crime and riots in cities, home instability, transnational crime and welfare fraud.[67]

Despite the fact that each acknowledge the facility of narratives, the Paris Faculty in addition to the ontological safety method attribute an much more essential position to routines and practices for the securitization of migration. Mitzen argues that “EU member states search ontological safety by means of routinising relations with their main strategic companions.[68]” In actual fact, European id is constituted by a sure session reflex and intra-European routines of multilateral safety cooperation. The Paris Faculty is analysing these routines on the stage of the safety professionals. In response to Bigo, Bonditti and Olsson, routines of management and surveillance of people, in addition to of trade of know-how and mass-data between and inside EU member states is on the core of the administration of unease as regards to migration.[69]

Lastly, Bigo and Mitzen each agree on the truth that these safety practices of the EU end in a sure sort of governmentality which is characterised by otherness and exceptionalism. Following particular narratives that differentiate between the self and the opposite, Mitzen observes that these narratives of otherness are additionally utilized in observe. For instance, EU border management is turning into focused at particular teams solely.[70] Primarily based on standing or id, individuals crossing EU borders are differentiated between “one among us” or “one among them.” Bigo refers to this observe of management and surveillance as a “ban-opticon”, which is a mechanism of governmentality that excludes classes and solely displays particular populations.[71] Moreover, each, Mitzen and Bigo declare that the truth that these safety practices are routinized on a better stage than the state, it’s not solely tough to interrupt them and thereby desecuritise migration but it surely has additionally change into an increasing number of tough to comprise fundamental democratic rules of energy and resistance in addition to oversight mechanisms within the worldwide sphere.

Conclusion

With the intention to reconcile the Paris Faculty for example of essential safety pondering with a fairly psychological primarily based method to safety, introducing the idea of ontological safety, this essay has argued that the 2 understandings of safety are in the end extra related than totally different. It has been proven that there’s a appreciable hyperlink between the idea of id and the idea of habitus which are each understood as having the facility to border the method of securitization. Moreover, focussing on the notion of ‘insecurity’, each faculties of thought acknowledge the significance of stability for the id of a state in a world of hysteria and unease. In such a world, stability is created by means of typically unconsciously pursued routines. Each approaches to safety subsequently see the difficulties of desecuritisation within the robust attachment of the managers of hysteria and unease to safety routines. Contemplating the overlap between the position of routines for both id or habitus, this essay means that the 2 approaches to safety would finest complement one another on that facet, that means that acknowledging the significance of routines for ontological safety similtaneously contemplating them as a part of the habitus of an actor would symbolize a beneficial asset to analysis within the subject of safety.

Though, the broader intention of this essay was to present a primary perception into the overlaps of the 2 approaches to safety, this essay additionally acknowledges that there are points of their conceptualization of safety that may make it fairly tough to reconcile them. This issues, for instance, the robust focus of the Paris Faculty on the notion of the transnational subject of safety professionals in addition to on Foucault’s governmentality and using applied sciences, whereas the ontological safety method is fairly focussing on the emotional and psychological implications of threats to id. Nonetheless, Mitzen herself admits that a lot work stays to be performed on the idea of ontological safety, as an example on the operationalisation of the modes of routinization.[72] This essay subsequently means that this may be a purpose to think about the work of Bigo and different students of the Paris Faculty, who already performed substantial analysis on the operationalisation of safety practices.

Lastly, this essay finds that a number of essential approaches to the idea of safety haven’t but succeeded in integrating a number of disciplinary analyses. It’s subsequently thought-about essential for future analysis of essential safety research to open up extra to different disciplines by contemplating the essential worth of the mix of sociology and psychology to the understanding of safety practices.

Notes

[1] Mitzen, J. ‘Ontological Safety in World Politics: State Id and the Safety Dilemma’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 12 (2006), p. 341.

[2] More moderen research have tried to open up the understanding of ontological safety to different questions because the one associated to id (see for instance Browning, C.S.; Joenniemi, P. ‘Ontological safety, self-articulation and the securitization of id’, Cooperation and Battle, 52 (2017), pp. 31-47). Nonetheless, because the query of identity-related stability nonetheless dominates the debates on ontological safety, this essay will firstly construct on this understanding of ontological safety.

[3] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 343.

[4] Others are inter alia Thierry Balzacq and Jef Huysmans.

[5] Bigo, D.; Tsoukala, A. ‘Understanding (In) Safety’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009), p. 1.

[6] Balzacq, T.; Basaran, T.; Bigo, D.; Guittet, E.-P.; Olsson, C. ‘Safety Practices’, in The Worldwide Research Encyclopedia On-line, edited by Robert A. Denemark and Renée Marlin-Bennett (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 2.

[7] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 33.

[8] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 345.

[9] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 36.

[10] Bourdieu cited in Williams, M. C. Tradition and safety: symbolic energy and the politics of worldwide safety (London, Routledge, 2007), p. 24.

[11] Kinnvall, C.; Manners, I; Mitzen, J. ‘Introduction to 2018 particular challenge of European Safety: “ontological (in) safety within the European Union’, European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 250.

[12] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 342

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., p. 345.

[15] Giddens cited in Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 346.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Williams, Tradition and safety, p. 25.

[18] Bourdieu cited in Pouliot, V. ‘A Idea of Observe of Safety Communities’, Worldwide Group, 62 (2008), p. 272.

[19] Ibid., p. 275

[20] Ibid., p. 274.

[21] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 342.

[22] Giddens cited in Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological safety, p. 35.

[23] Williams, Tradition and Safety, p. 26.

[24] Schäfer, H. W. ‘Id Politics and the Political Subject: A Theoretical Strategy to Modelling a ‘Subject of Id Politics’, in New World Colours: Ethnicity, Belonging, and Distinction within the Americas, edited by Josef Raab (Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier & Tempe, 2014), p. 378.

[25] Williams, Tradition and safety, p. 31.

[26] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 252.

[27] Steele, B. Ontological Safety in Worldwide Relations (New York, Routledge, 2008), p. 2 and Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 343.

[28] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 6.

[29] Bigo, D. ‘Globalized (in) safety: the sphere and the ban-opticon’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009), p. 14.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Bigo, D. ‘La voie militaire de la « guerre au terrorisme » et ses enjeux’, Cultures & Conflits, 44 (2001), pp.1-11.

[32] Bigo, Globalized (in) safety, p. 19.

[33] See Kaldor, M. Human Safety: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention (Polity, London, 2007); Duffield, M. Growth, Safety and Never-ending Warfare: Governing the World of Peoples (Coverage, London, 2007), Furedi, F. Invitation to Terror: The Increasing Empire of the Unknown (Continuum, London, 2007)

[34] Chandler, D. ‘Overview Article. Theorising the shift from safety to insecurity – Kaldor, Duffield and Furedi’ Battle, Safety & Growth, 8 (2008), p. 265.

[35] Daase, C.; Kessler, O. ‘From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Threat and the Paradox of Safety Politics’ Alternate options, 33 (2008), p. 211.

[36] Beck, cited in Aradau, C.; Van Munster, Rens ‘Governing Terrorism By Threat: Taking Precautions, (un)Realizing the Future’ European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 13 (2007), p. 90.

[37] Bigo and Tsoukala, Understanding (In) Safety, p. 7

[38] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p 2.

[39] Bigo, D. ‘Worldwide Political Sociology’, in Safety Research. An Introduction, edited by P. D. Williams (Oxon – New York, Routledge, 2008), p. 124.

[40] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 251.

[41] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 345.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge.

[44] Browning and Joenniemi, Ontological Safety, p. 36.

[45] Pouliot, Idea of Practices, p. 259.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., p. 258.

[48] Ibid., p. 257.

[49] Ibid., p. 258.

[50] Ibid., p. 267.

[51] Ibid., p. 269.

[52] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 346.

[53] Ibid., p. 347.

[54] Ibid., p. 354.

[55] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 397.

[56] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 2.

[57] Bigo and Tsoukala, Understanding (In) Safety, p. 5.

[58] Mitzen, J. ‘Anxious neighborhood: EU as (in) safety neighborhood’, European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 393.

[59] Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 particular challenge, p. 249.

[60] Bigo, D.; Guild, E. ‘Policing within the Identify of Freedom’, in Controlling Frontiers. Free Motion Into and Inside Europe, edited by Didier Bigo and Elspeth Guild (London – New York, Routledge, 2005), p. 4.

[61] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 394.

[62] Alkopher, D. ‘Socio-psychological reactions within the EU to immigration: from regaining ontological safety to desecuritisation’ European Safety, 27 (2018), p. 321.

[63] Bigo and Guild, Policing.

[64] Huysmans, J. ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal of Widespread Market Research, 38 (2000), p. 751.

[65] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 393.

[66] Bigo and Guild, Policing, p. 1.

[67] Huysmans, Securitization of Migration, p. 770.

[68] Mitzen, J ‘Anchoring Europe’s civilizing id: habits, capabilities and ontological safety’, Journal of European Public Coverage, 13 (2006), p. 271.

[69] Bigo, D.; Bonditti, P.; Olsson, C. ‘Mapping the European subject of Safety Professionals’, in Europe’s 21st Century Problem: Delivering Liberty, edited by Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild and R.B.J. Walker (London – New York, Routlede, 2010), p. 49.

[70] Mitzen, Anxious neighborhood, p. 406.

[71] Balzacq et. al., Safety Practices, p. 6.

[72] Mitzen, Ontological Safety in World Politics, p. 364.

Bibliography

Alkopher, D. ‘Socio-psychological reactions within the EU to immigration: from regaining ontological safety to desecuritisation’ European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 314-335.

Aradau, C.; Van Munster, Rens ‘Governing Terrorism By Threat: Taking Precautions, (un)Realizing the Future’ European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 13 (2007), pp. 89-115.

Balzacq, T.; Basaran, T.; Bigo, D.; Guittet, E.-P.; Olsson, C. ‘Safety Practices’, in The Worldwide Research Encyclopedia On-line, edited by Robert A. Denemark and Renée Marlin-Bennett (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

Bigo, D. ‘Globalized (in) safety: the sphere and the ban-opticon’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009).

Bigo, D. ‘Worldwide Political Sociology’, in Safety Research. An Introduction, edited by P. D. Williams (Oxon – New York, Routledge, 2008).

Bigo, D. ‘La voie militaire de la « guerre au terrorisme » et ses enjeux’, Cultures & Conflits, 44 (2001), pp.1-11.

Bigo, D.; Bonditti, P.; Olsson, C. ‘Mapping the European subject of Safety Professionals’, in Europe’s 21st Century Problem: Delivering Liberty, edited by Didier Bigo, Sergio Carrera, Elspeth Guild and R.B.J. Walker (London – New York, Routlede, 2010).

Bigo, D.; Guild, E. ‘Policing within the Identify of Freedom’, in Controlling Frontiers. Free Motion Into and Inside Europe, edited by Didier Bigo and Elspeth Guild (London – New York, Routledge, 2005).

Bigo, D.; Tsoukala, A. ‘Understanding (In) Safety’, in Terror, Insecurity and Liberty. Intolerant practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, edited by Didier Bigo and Anastassia Tsoukala (London – New York, Routledge, 2009).

Browning, C.S.; Joenniemi, P. ‘Ontological safety, self-articulation and the securitization of id’, Cooperation and Battle, 52 (2017), pp. 31-47.

Chandler, D. ‘Overview Article. Theorising the shift from safety to insecurity – Kaldor, Duffield and Furedi’ Battle, Safety & Growth, 8 (2008), pp. 265-276.

Daase, C.; Kessler, O. ‘From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Threat and the Paradox of Safety Politics’ Alternate options, 33 (2008), pp. 211-232.

Della Sala, V. ‘Narrating Europe : the EU’s ontological safety dilemma’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 266-279.

Huysmans, J. ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’, Journal of Widespread Market Research, 38 (2000), pp. 751-777.

Kinnvall, C.; Manners, I; Mitzen, J. ‘Introduction to 2018 particular challenge of European Safety: “ontological (in) safety within the European Union’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 249-265.

Kinnvall, C.; Mitzen, J. ‘Anxiousness, worry, and ontological safety in world politics: pondering with and past Giddens’, Worldwide Idea, 12 (2020), pp. 240-256.

Mitzen, J ‘Anchoring Europe’s civilizing id: habits, capabilities and ontological safety’, Journal of European Public Coverage, 13 (2006), pp. 270-285.

Mitzen, J. ‘Anxious neighborhood: EU as (in) safety neighborhood’, European Safety, 27 (2018), pp. 393-413.

Mitzen, J. ‘Ontological Safety in World Politics: State Id and the Safety Dilemma’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 12 (2006), pp. 341-370.

Pouliot, V. ‘A Idea of Observe of Safety Communities’, Worldwide Group, 62 (2008), pp. 257-288.

Rumelili, B. ‘Ontological (In)safety and Peace Anxieties: A Framework for Battle Decision’ in Battle Decision and Ontological Safety, edited by Bahar Rumelili (London – New York, Routledge, 2015).

Schäfer, H. W. ‘Id Politics and the Political Subject: A Theoretical Strategy to Modelling a ‘Subject of Id Politics’, in New World Colours: Ethnicity, Belonging, and Distinction within the Americas, edited by Josef Raab (Trier, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier & Tempe, 2014).

Steele, B. Ontological Safety in Worldwide Relations (New York, Routledge, 2008).

Williams, M. C. Tradition and safety: symbolic energy and the politics of worldwide safety (London, Routledge, 2007).

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations