Aporias of Security

8/3/2019 Aporias of Security

1/28

Aporias of SecurityAuthor(s): Anthony BurkeReviewed work(s):Source: Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 2002), pp. 1-27Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40645035 .

Accessed: 01/11/2011 00:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. andLynne Rienner Publishers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toAlternatives: Global, Local, Political.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40645035?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40645035?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/28

Alternatives7 (2002),1-27

AporiasofSecurityAnthony urke*

Maybe he task]nowadayss not todiscoverwhatweare,but torefuse hatwe are. We have o .. getridofthepolitical double-bind,"which s thesimultaneousndividualizationnd totaliza-tionof modernpower tructures.. . The political, thical, o-cial,philosophical roblem f ourdays s not to try oliberatethe ndividual rom he state nd from he state's nstitutions,but to liberate sbothfrom he state ndfrom hetype f ndi-vidualisation hich s linked o the tate.- MichelFoucault, TheSubject nd Power"Whatdoes it mean to be secure? Should we even need to ask?Surelyweknow.Weknow hat ecuritys one of themostfunda-mentalhumanneeds:an irrefutableuarantee fsafetynd well-being, conomic ssurancendpossibility,ociabilityndorder; fa life ivedfreely ithout earorhardship. hatsecuritys a uni-versal ood available oall,and a solemnpledgebetween itizensand their oliticaleaders, o whom heir eople'ssecuritys "thefirstuty,"heoverridingoalofdomesticnd internationalolicymaking. s such t hasbeen able to trace powerfulathbetweensubject ndworld, tate nd citizen, opromise imultaneouslysolution o the nchoate ears nd insecuritiesfeverydayife ndthe enormous patial, ultural, conomic, nd geopolitical om-plexities fgovernment.n short, ecurityemains ne of moder-nity'smost tubbornndenduring reams.However, believethat,more thanever,we do need to askwhatt s tobe secure. urelywe no longerknowwhat ecurity5inthatPlatonic ense.Surelymorethan enyears fter he endoftheColdWar,fter heClinton octrine ndthedestructionf theTwinTowers,fter umanitarianndpolicy isastersn ndochina,Africa,astTimor,heMiddleEast, nd Central merica,nd aftera growingody fhumanistnd criticalcholarshipasquestioned*School fPolitical cience nd nternationaltudies, niversityfQueensland,t.Lucia,QLD 4076,Australia.-mail:[email protected].

1


3/28

2 Aporiasf ecuritysecurity'snity,iscursivetructure,ndpolitical mplications,e-curityo longer ossesses crediblewholeness.1his rticle eginsfrom hepremise hat ecurity'slaims ouniversalityndwhole-nessfounder n a destructiveeries faporias,which erive irstlyfrom hegrowingense hat ecurityolonger as a stable eferentobject, ornames common etofneeds,means, rways fbeing,and secondly,rom hemoralrelativismhat ies at the center fdominantrealist) iscourses fsecurityhat retend o universal-ity ut nsist hat our" ecuritylways ests n the nsecurityndsufferingfan-other.While his rticle rgues tronglyhat ecurityas no essentialontological ntegrity,talsoargues hat fthepower nd sweepofsecurityre tobe understood ndchallenged,tsclaims o univer-salitymust e taken eriously. heyunderpin nd animate weep-ingforms fpower,ubjectivity,orce, nd economiccirculationand cannotbe dismissed ut of hand.Nor, n thehands ofsomehumanist riterswhohave ought o think uman ndgender e-curitynradical ounterpointorealistmages fnational nd in-ternationalecurityare suchclaims lways ernicious. heyhavea valuablemoral ndpolitical orce hat ndermines,erhaps n-wittingly,he ogocentricresuppositionsfthe realist iscoursesthey uestion.Yet common ssumptionhat ecurityanbe on-tologicallyompleted nd secureddoes present hurdlefor hekind f"ontopolitical"ritique hatwereally eed.2The answersnotto seekto close outthese porias; hey alltous and their xistencepresents n importantoliticalopening.Rather han eek toresecureecurity,o make t conformo a newhumanistdeal howeveraudable we need tochallenge ecurityas a claimtotruth,o set ts"meaning"side.Instead,weshouldfocus n securitys a pervasivendcomplex ystemfpolitical,o-cial,and economicpower,whichreaches from he mostprivatespacesofbeingto thevastflowsnd conflictsfgeopolitics ndglobaleconomic irculation.t is tosee securitys an interlockingsystemfknowledges,epresentations,ractices,nd institutionalformshatmagine, irect,nd actuponbodies, paces, ndflowsin certainways tosee security ot as an essential alue but as apoliticalechnology.his s to movefromssence ogenealogy: ge-nealogy hat ims, nWilliam onnolly'swords, o "openusup totheplayofpossibilityn thepresent .. [to] incitecritical e-sponsestounnecessaryiolences nd injuries urreptitiouslym-posedupon ifeby he nsistence hat revailingormsrenatural,rational,niversal rnecessary."3Thisarticle xplores heaporiasofsecurity.nd thenbeginsthework f tsgenealogy a genealogyf ecurity'sonceptualnd


4/28

Anthonyurke 3

discursiveoots hat ims ouncover,t ts rucialpoints fforma-tion,the order ofknowledge ying eneathsecurity's ramaofstruggle, echnology,iolence, nd metaphor in thehope thatthisorderofknowledge an in turnbe challenged, ltered, ndrethought.t is to ask: s there omething eyond r "outside" e-curity? hatmighttspossibilitiesnddangers e?Two KindsofAporia

Inboth tsrealist nd humanistuises, ecurityakes heform ndpromise f a metaphysicaliscourse: n overarching oliticalgoalandpractice hatguaranteesxistencetself,hatmakes hepossi-bilityf theworld ossible.US President ill Clinton refacedhe1997 NationalSecurity trategy y aying hat protectinghe se-curity f our nation our people, our territorynd ourwayoflife ismy oremost ission nd constitutionaluty." r.MahathirMohamad, fMalaysia, asargued hat national ecuritys insep-arablefrompolitical tability,conomic success and social har-mony."n 1995,former ustralian abor leader Paul Keating r-guedthat a primeminister'suty, is first uty,s to thesecurityof his country," hile his successorKimBeazleydeclared theparty'sentral alues s "securityndopportunity"ndelevated e-curityo an overarchingoal that inked, longa seamless ontin-uum,thepersonalsecurityf individuals nd familieswith hesecurityfthe nation tself.4n Indonesia, ecurity as a funda-mental ocietaldiscourse uring he entire enure f the SohartoNewOrder,nd it hastaken nonly reater rgencyn theturmoilthat ccompaniedhis retreat rom ower.n Indonesia'sdoctrinalcontinuum etweennational and regional"resilience,"ecuritylinks heunityndprosperityfthenation o idealsystemsfre-gional nd internationalrder.5Indeed,theEuropeanpolitical heorist .N. Berki rgues hatsecuritys the ltimate nd overridingumanvalue, he basiccon-dition or ife nd freedom: Securitys theparamount alue forself-conscious,ational,hinkingndividuals . . not ustan exter-nal (and thereforeptional)condition f life and freedom utsimplynotherwordfor ife and freedom."6Morecritically,hecritical cholarMichaelDillonrecognizeshe amedrive: Securityimpresses] itself pon political houghts a self-evidentonditionfor hevery xistence f ife both ndividual nd social."7R. B.J.Walker ikewise rguesthatmodernaccountsofsecurity efine"the onditions nderwhichwe havebeenconstructeds subjectssubject osubjection. hey ellus whowemust e."8


5/28

4 Aporiasf ecurityEven a position dmirablyntitheticalo thatof Berki andother ealists,s setoutbyJ.AnnTicknernher1992bookGenderin nternationalelations,ccepts hat the chievementfsecurityhasalways een central o thenormativeoncerns f nternationalrelations cholars." erwork eeksto realize "trulyomprehen-sive ecurity"hat dds the removal f"gender elations f domi-nation nd subordination"o "theelimination fphysical,truc-tural nd ecologicalviolence."9 imilarly . B.J.Walker's arlier(1988) OneWorld, anyWorldsrguedfor a clearer ense ofwhatit means ohave ecurityor llpeoplerather han henational e-curityhatnow renders veryone ncreasinglynsecure."10 hat-ever he mportantifferencesetween ickner,he 1988Walker,and the stillhegemonic laims frealism, here emained com-monassumptionhat ecuritysuniversal.However, hese differences hould not be quickly ffaced.Whilethe commonmetaphysicalssumption resents problem,thecritiques evelopedbyTickner,Walker,nd othershave beenof enormouspoliticalvalue and have implicitlyontestedboththeir wn nd realist ssumptionshat ecurity as universal. hisoccurred ntwoways. irstly,nargumentsorhuman ecurityherewas a radical hift n thenature fthesubject obe protectedfrom hehighlybstractmaginaryfthe nation-stateo the m-mediate, orporealdistress f thehuman, humanthat,n thatdistress,ctivates call fordifferencehat imultaneouslynder-mines he llusory nity f a bodypolitic hatwould subsume lldifferenceseneath commonmaginationfhome.Secondly,heforce f suchcritiqueshattered ealism's laimtobe a foundingandcomprehensiveccount f ecurity,catteringts bjects,meth-ods,andnormativeims nto n often ontradictoryndantitheti-

cal dispersal.Whatwas revealedhere was not a universalityut afield fconflict,s much ocial s conceptual. hiscreates ome e-riousproblems or moreradical nd inclusiveanguageof secu-rity,owevermportanttsdesireforustice.This wasrecognizedlater yWalker, hoargued n1997 that demands orbroader c-countsof securityisk nducing pistemologicalverload."11n-deed,SimonDalby rgues hat ecurity,s a concept,maynolongerbe viable: "Thatthepolitical tructuresfmodernity,atriarchyandcapitalismre the ources ratherhan hevulnerablebjects]of nsecurity.. is so differents to call ntoquestionwhether heterm tself an be stretched o accommodate uchreinterpreta-tions. nescapably,tputs ntoquestion heutilityf the termnpolitical iscourse fter heColdWar."12Thushumanistritiquesf ecurityncover naporiawithinheconcept f ecurity.naporia s an event hat revents metaphysi-cal discourse rom ulfillingtspromisednity not contradiction


6/28

Anthonyurke 5

that an be broughtnto hedialectic,moothedver,nd resolvedintotheunityf theconcept, ut an untotalizableroblem t theheart f theconcept, isruptingts rajectory,mptyingut tsfull-ness,openingout its closure.Derrida writes faporiabeingan"impasse," paththat annotbe traveled;n "interminablexpe-rience" hat, owever,must emainfone wants othink,omakecomeor to etcomeany vent f decision rresponsibility."13As anevent, errida ees the poria ssomethingike strangercrossinghe thresholdf a foreignand:yet heaporetic tranger"doesnotsimplyross given hreshold"ut"affectshevery x-perience f the threshold.. to thepointofannihilatingr ren-deringndeterminatell thedistinctiveigns fa priordentity,e-ginningwith heveryborderthatdelineated legitimate omeand assured ineage,names nd language."14hus it s importanttoopen up andfocus n aporias: hey ring ossibility,hehopeofbreaking ownthehegemonynd assumptionsfpowerful oliti-calconcepts,othink nd createnew ocial, thical,nd economicrelationshipsutside theiroppressivetructuresfpolitical ndepistemologicalrder in short, hey elpus to think ewpaths.Aporiasmark otmerelyhefailure fconcepts ut newpotentialtoexperiencend imagine he m-possible.his s where hecriti-cal andlife-affirmingotentialfgenealogyan come ntoplay.Myparticularoncernwithhumanist iscourses fsecuritysthat,whateverheir ritical alue, heyeave nplace (andpossiblystrengthen) key tructuraleature ftheelitestrategyhey p-pose: ts laim oembody ruth ndfix hecontoursf thereal. nparticular,heontologyfsecurity/hreat rsecurity/insecuritywhichforms hebasic condition f thereal formainstreamis-courses f nternationalolicy remains owerfullynplace,andsecurity'sroaderfunctions a definingondition f humanex-perience ndmodernpoliticaliferemainsnvisible nd unexam-ined.This s toabjurea powerfulriticalpproachthat s able toquestionthevery ategoriesn whichour thinking,ur experi-ence,and actions emain onfined.This articleremainsfocused on the aporias that ie at theheartofsecurity,ather hanpushingnto thespacesthat ie be-yond.The contours f thisproject realready ecoming learer.15What s stillrequired s a properly enealogical ccount of secu-rity'sbilityoprovidewhatWalker alls a "constitutiveccount fthe political":as Walker ays,"claimsabout commonsecurity,collectiveecurity,r world ecurityo littlemorethanfudge hecontradictions rittenntothe heartof modernpolitics:wecanonlybecome humansor anythinglse, afterwe havegiven upourhumanity,r anyother ttachments,o thegreater ood ofcitizenship."16


7/28

6 Aporiasf ecurityThus,beforewe can effectivelyewriteecurity, e have toproperlynderstandow ecurityaswrittens how thasshapedandlimited urvery ossibility,hepossibilitiesor urselves, urrelationships,nd our availablemages fpolitical,ocial, nd eco-nomicorder.This, sWalkerntriguinglyints,s also toexploretheaporetic istance hatmodernitystablishes etween ur "hu-manity"nd a secure dentityounded nddefined y he tate.nshort,ecurityeeds to be placed alongside rangeof other co-nomic,political, echnological, hilosophic,nd scientific evel-opmentss one ofthecentral onstitutivevents fourmodernity,and it remains ne of ts ssential nderpinnings.Securityerivestsenormous ultural ower rom tsplace atthecenter fmodern olitical hought at thecenter f thoughtthat,fter irststablishinghefoundingmythsfmodern oliticalsociety,as furtherought o think heuridicalbasis ndfunctionof thestate, tsenablingrelation o a broader ultural nd eco-nomicmodernity,nd to the maginationf"progressive"orms fmodern oliticalnd economic ubjectivity.usts Foucault ought,through he idea of governmentality,o trace the emergenceof

simultaneouslyotalizingnd individualizingorms fstatepower,I would rgue hat ecurityccupies key nabling ositiont theirjunction. he remainder f this rticle lucidatesecurity'sconsti-tutiveccount fthepolitical"hrough reading fHobbes,Locke,theutilitarianhilosopher eremyentham,ndHegel,using ou-cault'swritingsngovernmentaleason s a loosetemplate.It s nthis onstitutiveccount fthepolitical hatwe find hesecond poriaofsecurity,hich sopenedup as an impassewithinitsbasicconceptual tructure.adly, his s a moral mpasse hatalso possesses malign unctionality.hisaporiaoccursbecausedespite heir resumptionouniversality,ealist tructuresf secu-rity ave lways rgued hat he ecurityfthe elf the ndividual,thenation, r the"wayf ife")must e purchasedt theexpenseof another. hiswasstarklyaid outbytheEuropeanpolitical he-oristR. N.Berki,whowrotenhisSecurityndSociety,Seekingftersecurityor neself ndbeinga causeof nsecurityor thers renotust closely elated; heyre the amething, ith o chanceofeitherogical rexistentialeparation. . when he hips redown,and to a certain egree, hey realways own .. it smy ife,myfreedom,my ecurityersusherest f thehuman ace."17

Ur-theoristf realismHansMorgenthau,urprisinglynough,expressedomequalms bout uch n image f ecurity,ven s hedid so muchto entrench ational ecurityt theapexof modernpolicymaking.With headvent fthe nuclear ge,he argued,nostate ould purchase tssecurityt theexpenseofanother;now


8/28

Anthonyurke 7

diplomacymust eek to make llnations quallyecure.18 owever,this nsightwas oston a generation f atertheoristsnd policymakers, orwhom ecurity ould nevitablymply he sacrificefthe other. onsiderGeorgeKennan's rgument,n 1948,that heUnitedStateswouldhave to "to devise pattern frelationshipswhichwillpermit s to retain urposition f[economic]disparitywithoutositive etrimentoour national ecurity.. . We shouldcease to talk boutvague andfor heFar East unrealobjectivessuch as humanrights,heraising fthe iving tandards,nd d-mocratisation."19ne of Australia'smost enior and influentialpolicymakers f thepost- ietnam ra,RichardWoolcott, nder-linedthecontinuing owerofthisviewwhenhe argued n 1995that"sentimentalotions" f self-determinationor EastTimorandBougainville ere threato Australia's ational ecuritya se-curityhatfor wodecadeshad been premised n close relationsandmilitaryooperationwith hemurderous ohartoregime).20Thishighlightsn urgentneed to interrogatehe magesofselfandother hat nimate in) ecure dentities,nd toexposethevi-olenceandrepressionhat s so often eliedon topolicethem.I amserious n arguing hat heaporiasofsecurityo createimportantoomtomove, odisruptts claim touniversalityndtruth,o maginenewpossibilitieshat scape tsrepressiveialec-ticofself nd other. etherewe also encounter disturbingrony.Security orms political echnologyhose ower artly erivesromtsaporetictructure.generalized pposition etween ocietynd itsothershas worked s an effectiveechnologyf fear o constructandpoliceformsf national nd ethnicdentity;hile llusions funiversalecurityave imultaneouslyorkeds a smokescreenora realpolitikhatpurchases hesecurityf the self t theexpenseof the other.n short,ecurity'sower ies nthevery lipperinessofitssignifications,ts ronic tructurefmeaning,tsability ohave an almostuniversalppealyetnamevery ifferentrrange-ments f order ndpossibilityordifferentroups fpeople.Thisiswhyt spointlessotryndstabilizeecurity'sntology.t s bet-terto track ecurity'sactical nd discursiveower houghtsde-velopments a constitutiveccount fthepolitical one that s si-multaneouslytructured,nabled, ndfissuredy ts porias.

Security nd "Government"In his"Governmentality"ecture, oucault raced heemergenceof ecurityithinWesternolitical houghthroughwo inked e-velopments:irst,uring hesixteenthnd seventeenthenturies,


9/28

8 Aporiasf ecurityofthe dministrativendgovernmentalpparatusesf theterritor-ialmonarchies,fmercantilism,tatistics,ndtheCameralists'sci-ence ofpolice"; ndsecond, fwhat e called n "anti-Machiavellianliterature"hat ought oformulaten "art fgovernment"gainstthat arrowerocus n theprince, is overeigntyndpreservation.Foucaulthighlightedwokeyfeatures f Machiavelli's tudy.The firstwas that ts centralproblematic,he linkbetween heprince, is ubjects,ndterritory,as "purelyyntheticne," ndthuseternally ragile, ulnerable o both external nemies andfromwithin,rom subjects ho have no a priorieasontoaccepthisrule."Second,thismplied hat heobjectivef theexercise fpowerwas "toreinforce,trengthennd protect heprincipality,butwith his astunderstood ot to meantheobjective nsembleof tssubjects nd territory,ut rather he Prince'srelationwithwhathe owns."21The artofgovernmentmpliedboth the"government"f n-dividuals nd social nstitutionsnd thedesignationfnew tech-niques ndobjects fpower hatwould mergewithin heproblemof "governinghe state as a whole." Between hese realmswasposedan essential ontinuity:he morediscrete orms fgovern-ingwere till internal o the state r society,"nd the task f theartofgovernmentastoestablish hemwithin continuum hatworked inboth an upwards nd a downwards irection." hedownwardine,which transmitso individual ehaviour nd therunningfthefamilyhe ameprincipless thegood governmentofthe tate," as t this ime eginningo be calledpolice.Theup-ward ine meant heapplication fprinciples fself-governmentand familial overnmento the conductofthe state's ffairs; ecan also ocate t n theemergencefwhat oucault lsewhere is-cussed s reasonf tate, hich ought pecific orms fknowledgewhose bjectwasthe tate tself,ather han heuncertainelationbetween heprince nd his realm.Reason f tatemplied ratio-nality fgovernmenthat ould ensurethat he state must oldout for n indefiniteength f historical ime- and in a disputedgeographicalrea."22An analogous development as the extension f the idea of"economy"nd its ntroductionnto generalpolitical racticethe nventionf"politicalconomy,"s we nowunderstandt.Thisinvolved series fshifts,irst romconomys a principle or hegovernmentfthefamilyo one for hegeneral rganizationf o-ciety,ndthen fsovereigntyrom rule over erritoryo thegov-ernment fa "complex fmenandthings"hatwould ncorporateterritorynto set of economicrelations. hus an importantewobjectofpolitics merged: opulation.23


10/28

Anthonyurke 9

Statistics owdiscovered hatpopulationhad itsownmeasur-able"regularities,"hatwith tcame new bjects fmedicine,abor,andwealth,nd thatpopulationhad analogouseconomic ffectsthroughtsmovements,ustoms,nd activities.hefamily asthusrecast s "an element nternal opopulation,nd as a fundamentalinstrumentn itsgovernment." ecan see here theconvergencewiththe phenomenonFoucaulthas elsewheredescribed,thelinkeddevelopment f the humansciencesand thesocial tech-nologiesofdiscipline hat nableda moredetailed and flexibleproductionf ubjectivity:Discipline asnevermore mportantrmorevalorized han t themomentwhen t become mportantomanage population."24Political conomy,e said, arises ut of theperceptionfnewnetworksfcontinuous ndmultipleelationsetween opulation,territorynd wealth" nd out of thedevelopment f newtech-niquesof nterventionhat, would rgue,becomebythetwenti-ethcentury field ncompassinghe wholetaskofgovernment:linking elfare, efense, conomics, ealth,mmigration,ommu-nications,cience, ducation, nd law.Sovereigntys thenreartic-ulated n the terms f Rousseau's ttempt,n The ocialContract,odivine a general rinciple fgovernmenthich llows oombothfor uridical rinciplef overeigntyndfor he lementshroughwhich n artofgovernmentan be defined nd characterised."Whatformss a triangle f rationalitiesinking overeignty,isci-pline, ndgovernment,hich ogethersgovernmentalitya power-ful nsemble formedy he nstitutions,rocedures,nalysesndreflections,hecalculations nd tactics hat llow the exercise fthis ery pecificlbeit omplex orm fpower, hich as as its ar-get population, s itsprincipal orm fknowledge olitical con-omy,nd as its ssentialechnicalmeans pparatusesfsecurity."25Colin GordonarguesthatFoucaulttreats ecurity ere notmerelys a self-evidentbjectofpolitical owerbut"as a specificprinciplefpoliticalmethodndpractice, istinctlikefrom hoseof aw, overeigntynddiscipline,ndcapableofvariousmodesofcombinationwith heseotherprinciplesnd practiceswithin i-versegovernmentalonfigurations."e goeson toarguethat, orFoucault,ecurity,romheeighteenthenturyn,"tends ncreas-inglyobecome thedominantomponent f modern overnmen-talrationality:e ive oday ot o much n a Rechtsstaatrdiscipli-nary ocietys in a societyfsecurity."26Hobbesand Lockeestablishedecuritys a key ignifiernthemythf theemergence f themodern tateformthecommon-wealth)from he stateofnature, nd thusmakes ecurityndis-pensable omodernpracticesf iberalismndsovereignty.hese


11/28

10 Aporiasf ecuritywould n turn eed nto hat riangularelationfgovernmentalitythat imedfor hegeneralgovernmentfthe state s a regime fprosperity.fFoucault mphasizedhe ntense roblematizationfsovereigntyithinheemergence f an "art fgovernment,"hework fHobbes and Locke hadalreadyounteredhis roblemx-actlyn the terms osed byRousseau (ofreconciling juridicalmodel ofsovereigntyith he newrationalitiesf"government")and inso doingachieved morepowerfulusion f both. n par-ticular,heyaid out the discursiveimits or he citizen s a formofsubjectivityndbound t to the tate s an essential igure.WhileHobbes's account sconsiderably oretheatrical,oththinkers oundmodernpolitical ociety n the samemyth:tsemergence rom he tate f nature hroughheexchange f free-dom for ecurity. obbes'saccount sparticularlyevealing henhe argues hatnthecondition fwar hat s the tate fnature

there s noplaceforndustry;ecause hefruit hereofs un-certain;ndconsequentlyo Culture ftheEarth; oNaviga-tion or seof he ommoditieshatmay e mportedy ea;noBuilding.. noKnowledge.. noaccountfTime; oArts; oLetters;oSociety;nd whichsworstfall,continualieare,anddangerfviolenteath; nd he ife fman,olitary,oor,nasty,rutish,nd hort.27

Thispassage shighlymportant,rovidinglink rom hemythfthe state fnature o the fundamentalromise nd objectives fthestate,which re notonly oprovide meansofprotectionorindividuals utto enablea newkind fsocietyo flourish. erewecan see security'sunction t the threshold nd fulcrumf ourmodernity:he birth f theArtificial an,Leviathan,nablesnotmerelyhedevelopmentf moreefficientorms fgovernmentalreason butnew ndustrial nd cultural ossibilitiesnwhich heidea of a great ndprogressiveivilization of themoderntselfcan becomereal. n thismetaphorfthebody oliticwastheprob-lem ofMachiavelli's rinceresolved: o longer "synthetic,"ul-nerablelinkbetween overeign nd subjectbut theirabsolutefusion nd identity,n a chilling rophecy fHegel'smergingfthe ubjectwith heunityf theOne.Alreadyhismage f theOne reposed n therejectionnd re-pression f the other: irstn the dea ofthe state f nature tself,as an essential ealm fconflict here assions ule reason nd in-securitysperpetual; econd, n the division etween easonandunreason,n which Children,oolesandMad-men" annot e theauthors f their wnor the overeign'sctions,nd thusnotwhole


12/28

Anthonyurke 11

subjects; hird,nthedivision etween riminal ndsociety,trictlyestablishedy he aw,which onformso reason nd embodies hewillof thepeople; and finally,n the divisionso importanto acolonial ndpostcolonialmodernity)etweenavage ndcivilized.HereLocke made a far-reachingormulation,nwhich abour(which ormedheontological asisofpropertys theproductiveuse of and) pivoted n an imageofwaste nd impoverishmentn"the ndian's"failure oexploit he earth.This n turn ed ntoachain ofreasoning ywhich claimtoproperty asonly ecuredby and'sexploitation hroughabor, hat tsoriginwas n a man's"propertyn hisownperson"whichsbroughtut f he tatefna-turehroughhe "Labour f hisbody") nd that hepreservationfProperty as itself he "chief nd" of "men'sunitingnto Com-monwealths,"ndwasthus heprime bjectofsecurity.28hus wecan see, in embryo, he idea of subjectivitys realization ponwhichHegelwouldbase a philosophy; hatLocke also achievedwas newontologicalondition or ubjectivityn work.romherepolitical conomy andmodernitys an inexorable istoricalro-gression becamethinkable.Bentham: ecuritynd the Future

Jeremyentham's rinciplesf he ivilCode ouldbe said to strad-dle thishistoricalmoment, ithin contextwhere hecentralityfraisond'tat wasgivingway o a form f iberalismnwhich helinkages etween easonofstate, heartofgovernment,ndpolit-icaleconomyweremoreproblematic,etno lessnecessary.Whilepolicescience orCameralism) ad already ormulated relationbetween otalizingnd individualizingower hathad as itsobjec-tive general rosperity,oucault ees AdamSmith's heWealthfNationss thenmarkingutthepoint t which heCameralists'o-tion of an equivalencebetween tate and economywas placedunder tress. olitical conomy ecomes knowledgehats "lateralto" the artofgoverning,ut cannot tself onstituteovernment,and its "effects to resituate overnmentaleasonwithin newlycomplicated,penandunstable olitico-epistemiconfiguration."29Smith's invisibleand"marked shiftrom easonof state nthattsought oplace imits ngovernmentalnterventionncon-trast o an earlier mphasis n itsexpansion, nd conceived heeconomy s an autonomous ealmwithtsown awsthatworked,ostensibly,or hepublicgood.Laissez-faire,hen,writes oucault,wasan injunctionnottoimpedethe courseofthings, ut to en-sure the courseof natural nd necessarymodes ofregulation,o


13/28

12 Aporias fSecurity

make regulations which permit natural regulation to operate."30 Intwentieth-century foreign economic policy, we can then see thecombination of two modes: a kind of soft mercantilism whereingovernments use aid programs and diplomacy to promote tradeand contracts for the corporations domiciled within their state,and a form of "regulation of natural regulation" that takes as itsfocus infrastructure, labor and foreign-investment law, cost struc-tures, and trade regimes that have a more general effect on busi-ness activityand profits. Nor should we forget that Western gov-ernments, most notably that of the United States, have useddiplomatic pressure, military ntervention, and sponsored coups inorder to improve the business climate in many states.Bentham's Civil Code appeared in the space Smith carved out,entrenching securityas a fundamental societal objective within theopenness and uncertainty of this new political configuration. Ben-tham began Principlesofthe Civil Codeby asserting that the principalobject of the legislator ought to be the "happiness of the bodypolitic." This happiness consists of four objects- subsistence, abun-dance, equality, and security of which security was the most im-portant. Security guaranteed all the others, contained them, anddesignated acts and persons dangerous to them: "Actions hurtful tosecurity, when prohibited by the laws, receive the character ofcrimes." Eithersecurityr crime:within this brief,claustrophobic for-mula lay the basis of a whole systemof order.Furthermore, Bentham made the crucial and far-reaching ar-gument that, as a guarantee of all the objects of government,

securitys the onlyone whichnecessarily mbraceshe uture: ub-sistence, abundance, equality,maybe regarded for a momentonly;butsecurity mpliesextension n pointoftime,withrespectto all the benefits o which t is applied. Security s therefore heprincipalobject.31

In a prophetic convergence of Enlightenment thought with eco-nomic liberalism, government now took on a temporal dimension:the future was now a thinkable space in political discourse, and ageneral progressive movement could be imagined as an essentialcondition of human society. Bentham argued that securityprotectsMan's expectation f the future: through expectationwe are enabled to form general plan of conduct. . . . Expecta-tion is a chain which unites our present and our futureexis-tence, and passes beyondourselves to thegenerationswhichfol-low us. The sensibility f the individual s prolonged through llthe links of thischain.32


14/28

Anthonyurke 13

Above ll,as expectationhefuture asan economicrinciple,ink-ingtheconstructionfsubjectivitys interest nd desirewith hegeneralncreasenprosperityhatmodern conomics allsgrowth:The ctive esire f ddingoourhappiness,ill,nder he afe-guard f ecurity,ncessantlyroduce ew ffortsfter ew c-quisitions.antsnd njoyments,hose niversalgentsn ociety,afteravingaised he irstars f orn, ill y egreesrecthegranariesf bundance,lwaysncreasingnd lwaysull.33This in turn ffected ew modes ofgovernmenthat inkeddisciplinewith opulation,ndividualizingith otalizing owera power hat, eemingly ithoutoercion, ouldproduce ndividu-als as subjects f their wn desirewhile ntegratinghem nto amuchbroadersystem f regulation.Elsewhere,Benthamcon-trasted thedolefulmotive fpunishment"ith he"gentlemotiveofreward,"he pparatus f awwith thegentle ibertyfchoice";labor,he said, s "soeasy ndso lightwhen nimated yhope."34This"uncoerced,"conomic orm f iberal ndividualismen-eratedwhat oucaulthas called "the ubject f nterest"nd intro-duced a contradictionntogovernmentaleason:while t made n-dividualsmore ccessible opower,t alsodistanced hem romt,forming rhetoricnwhich, s Bentham aid,securitylsoguar-antees"political iberty"gainst the njustice f themembers fthegovernment."his ntroduced,aidFoucault, "dissonance frationalities"etween heuridical orm fgovernmentmplied ysovereigntynd the morediffuse nd accidental econciliation findividual nd societal nterestsn liberalism.ubjectsweretobesubserviento the exercise fsovereign ower, uttheywere lso

assumed o be free nd autonomous conomic ctors. iberalismas an art fgovernmentegan,heargued,when tcould formulatethe"incompatibilityetween henon-totalisableultiplicityhichcharacterisesubjects f nterest,nd thetotalizingnityf theu-ridical overeign."35Thisgenerated political roblem: o discover form fgov-ernment hat recognizinghatno sovereigntyanfullyompre-hend thetotalityf theeconomy r regulate very ct thatmayhave an economiceffect must till eek odo so. t was at theap-pearanceof thisproblem hatFoucault ited he unctionof secu-rity, iscipline,nd population a mixof rationalitieshatmightmorefully raspthisuncertain olitical pace.Thus,he argued,"libertysregisteredotonly s a right f ndividualsegitimatelytooppose . . thesovereign,ut also nowas an indispensablele-ment fgovernmentalationalitytself."36hisengendered drive


15/28

14 Aporiasf ecurityfor lexibility,obility,ndvigilance:s Bentham eclared, Econ-omyhas . . many nemies," nd, hence, ecurityrequiresn thelegislator,igilance ontinuallyustained,nd power lwaysnac-tion, o defend tagainsthisconstantlyevivingrowd f adver-saries."37n short, henew, pen space of iberalism ad engen-dered a prophetic aranoia:the themeof a newproductivityfpoliticalpower hat imultaneouslyeaches ntotheheartof thecitizen ndmultipliests ownspatialreach. t seemsno accidentthat othBenthamndSmithwrotet theheight f theEuropeanimperialisms,ithin hich hediscursivemaginationf the twen-tieth entury global trade,geopolitics,war, nd technologicalprogresswasborn.

The StrategicmaginationIn describinghisproductivity,oucault mphasized he simulta-neous individualizationnd totalizationfgovernmental owerdisciplinend desire ddressed o ndividuals,iopowerddressedto populations,n a perpetualfeedback nd combination.38othese,however, e must dd geopoliticss the form fpower hatcombined heserationalitiesith hevast usts f modernmperi-alism.39ythe mid-twentiethentury,eopolitics ad become thepracticeof security ar excellence a spatializing ationalityfpower hat ought he control f territoriesnd populations asboth economicresources nd strategic ossessions)within per-petually angerous nd contestedrena,throughhe nterdepen-dentproductionfdomesticnd transnationalolitical pace.Not-withstandinghe fascistmperialismsf the1930s,we could thuscharacterizeeopoliticss a liberalphilosophyfglobal nterven-tion,which inksncreasinglylobal ssues feconomicmanagementwith omestic olicy ormationscross hewholeofgovernment.The domestic nd internationalecomefused pacesthrough se-ries f nterlinkedrocesses:fdomestic ndforeignconomic ol-icy, ransnationalusiness ndtrade,nd theraisingfarmieswithimages f fear nd otherness hat imultaneouslyecure ndrigid-ify omestic dentities. sglobal nfluence ecomesconceivable,the nterrelationfpolitical conomy, ationalism,nd the otherbecome entral osecuritys a vector ndrationalityfpower.

The technologyecurityuts nto ctionhere,whichhasbeencentral o ts xtensionrom relation etweentate ndcitizen oa principle or he actions f thebodypoliticn the nternationalarena, havechosento call thestrategicmagination.his magina-tion sprimarilypatial, utnotexclusivelyo,becoming owerfully


16/28

Anthonyurke 15

linkedwith emporal iscourses f racialsuperiority,olitical n-lightenment,nd cultural nd economicprogress. he strategicimaginations not omuch nentrynto preexistingpaceas theproductionf newoneby detailed olitical echnologyhat eeksto make tmeaningfuls itorders ndpartitionst nto hevehicle,effect,nd arenaofan industrial,olitical,nd cultural conomy.Through hemappingndtraversingfthis paceby ransport,tsappropriation hrough overeignty,tsdefense y cts and meansofwar,nd its ultivationndexploitation y ndustry,griculture,and commerce, hestrategicmaginationhus eekstoengendereconomicallyndpoliticallyseful rrangementsfbodies,com-munities,nd social nstitutions.n this ense, ts pace snever ta-tic ndunchanging,ut tself as a history:hangesntechnologyintroducehangesnits xtent ndpermeability,hangesnpolit-ical doctrine hange tsmeaning nd in turn ffect otonly heeconomic nd socialpossibilitiesf ndividuals uttheir sychicn-teriors. hus tsrepresentations crucial: sthis pacethreateningrsafe, amiliar ralien,masculine rfeminine,roductiver recal-citrant?What re itsflows nd boundaries? nd, boveall,what sourcapacityor ctionwithintsgeopoliticalndpsychicontours?

Hegel: Security s RealizationThework fHegel, lose ntime oBentham's,efineduch iberal-ismbydeveloping philosophyhat elf-consciouslynderstood hefutures an entrynto heradicallyew emporalpaceof the mod-ern.Hisworkntervened,na politicalense, t thepointwhere n-lightenmentationalismnd the iberal roblem fgovernmento-incide.Hegel lifted iberal deas of freedom nd right nto aphilosophicalniversalismhat owerfullylluminatesheontologi-cal structuref modernnationalisms,heforms fsubjectivityheyengender,nd the ssentialandnegative)oleoftheother or heirthought.n particular,e developed formalmodelfordiscoursesthatwouldattempto reconcile iberalpolitical conomywithstrongmageof thenation-state.n this ransition,e can see the"politicalouble-bind"the nterplayftotalizingndindividualiz-ingpower takeon a powerfulewform one linking future-di-rectedmode of self-beliefnd conductwith rander ationalistndcivilizationalarrativesna mutuallyeinforcingxchange.In thePhenomenologyf pirit,hemodern ppears s a constantbreakwith hepast,which reates xciting ewpossibilitiesndhorizons.Yet t also engenders ncertaintynd loss:having un-dered itsfoundations nd "the mmediacy f faith" nd having


17/28

16 Aporiasf ecuitygone "beyondhe atisfactionndsecurityfthecertaintyhat on-sciousness henhad,of tsreconciliationith he essential eing,"spirit ad "lost tsessentialife."Philosophy'sask henwasto re-cover"throughtsagency hat ost sense of solid and essentialbeing."40 abermas uggestshatHegel sought olimit hisprob-lemthroughhe dea ofprogress,tocloseoff hefutures a sourceofdisruption ith he id ofteleologicalonstructionsfhistory."41As f o reconcileiberalism ith onservatism,egelsought oliberate he restlessnergies f modern ubjectivityhile ontrol-ling hem, etainingvision f tabilityndordernwhich rogresstakes heform, ot of an irruption,uta measurednd "rational"design. t wasagainsecurity,efractedhroughhe iberalprob-lematic f Smith nd Bentham,hatwouldprovide heframeworkfor thisdifficultalibration.t wouldbe in theharnessingndmanagementfuncertaintyhat ecuritynd spirit ouldcoincide:securitymanages hangeand peers nto thecloudy uture;piritstrives o illuminatetspromise nd strengthenheresolve f thepresent o move n.Hegelheredeveloped thematicfcertitude arlier isiblenDescartes hathasbecome central o modern tatecraft.artesianthought ositsess a world hat s stableprior o ts ognitionhanone thatbeginss disordered:o obtain rutht wasfirst ecessaryto postulate bsolutedoubt and uncertaintyeyond hebound-aries of thesubject's wnexistence nd cognition,hentomove,via the correctmethod,o stable nd universalruths.42s CostasConstantinourgues, securitizations a discursiveracticeworksby ynchronisingecurity,afety,nd certitude."43his enters urcontemporary odernitys the foundation f botha dangerousempiricismywhichpolicymakers stablecognitiveminds)feelthat olicy an be madetocorrespond ith verifiablendacces-sibleexternal ealitynd tobe thefoundation fa continual ro-jectionofuncertaintys thediscourse'swn ondition fpossibility.In the midst f a modernityhose maginationfthefuture ara-doxically pens up a space of darkness nd unpredictability,heCartesianmodelhas had a potentppealas a formalndproceduralsolution. his wasparticularlyisiblenRobertMcNamara'snowdisavowed)pproach o theVietnamWar,nd t s a desire till ow-erful n dominant pproaches o strategynd policymaking.Wehave nly o consider eorgeW.Bush's ssertion,n thewake ftheattacks n NewYork ndWashingtonfSeptember 1, 2001,that"thisountry ill efine urtimes, otbe defined y hem."44Just s subjectivityas a key chievementorHobbes, Locke,and Bentham formednto principle or itizenship,he securebody olitic,nd economicman itprovided central,verarching


18/28

Anthonyurke 17

principleorHegel'sthought. e replayedhe evels f ubjectivitypresentntheirwork,ntroducinghem nto temporalmovementthatwouldconstituteubjectivitytself ndmerge t with he rest-less aborof the ge.Inparticular,nthePhilosophyfRighthis ul-mination fsubjectivityasmadehostage oits mmersionnthegreater dentityepresented ythe nation-state.he potentiallydangerous ivisionmmanentn iberalism between tate nd civilsociety was here controlled y systemhat, llowing or he dif-fusion f nodes andmechanismsfpower onceived y he "art fgovernment,"ought o seizesubjectivityt tsvery enter,hroughitseffacementn thegreaterdentityf the One. Membershipfthe statewas notoptional rather he full thicaldevelopmentfthe ndividual ependedon its bsolutepsychologicalmmersionin the "universalife" f the state.45n thisway, egel intensifiedthe ogocentriclosure f the ystemisiblenHobbesandLocke.He clarified nd intensifiedhenecessityf the other or ecurity,forprosperity,nd forprogressngeneral, ncorporatingt ntowhollyestrictedconomynwhich heotherwas lwaysubsumedwithin return o thehigher nity fthe same. n thisway,ecu-rity,conomicprosperity,nd a central rganizing acism ower-fullyoalesce.This racism s starklylear n the Lecturesn the hilosophyfHistory,n whichHegel soughtto show the progress f spiritthrough orldhistory.nsurprisingly,his ractical orwardmove-ment f piritinwhich uropewas t themost dvanced tages fworldhistorynd America the and of thefuture") urned n theoppositiono andnegation f a backwardther,much s it didin Hobbes, Locke,and Bentham.46 egel spokeofthe "want fspirit,"crouchingubmissiveness,"nd "inferiorityn all respects"of the "native mericans." heAfrican,e declared,

exhibitshenaturalman nhiscompletelyild nduntamedstate.Wemustay side llthoughtfreverencendmoralityall thatwe callfeelingifwewould ightlyomprehendim;theresnothingarmoniousith umanityobe found.47In thefaceofthis, houldwebe surprisedhatPierreClastreswasdriven o saythat the "spiritualityf ethnocide s the ethic ofhumanism."48

This"progressive"thnocentrismn turn rovidedn apologiaformperialism. egel argued hatmperialismas n entirelyat-uralresolution f "the nner ialectic fcivil ocietywhich] rivesit .. topush beyondtsown imits nd seek markets.. inotherlandswhich re deficientn thegoodsit hasoverproduced."49t


19/28

18 AporiasfSecu ity

thispointthe relation etween he artofgovernmentnd politi-cal economy ame nto tsown, ndsecurity ade the eapfromprinciple or heproductionndmanagementfthe nation-stateto one that imultaneouslyirectedhepolicies f stateswithinnnter-nationalystem.he historicaphad beenbridged; hemod-ern, n an importantense,nowbecamepossible.Securitynd Gender

It wouldbe fair oconclude, hen, hat securemodernityas it-selfbeenfundamentallyharacterizednd constitutedyvariousmodes f mperialism. hethern "realist"r"liberal"orms,hesemodesof mperialismndgeopolitics rew heir nderlyingnto-logicalframeworksrom heconstitutiveccountof thepoliticalanalyzedhere. Gender s a crucialelement f this geopolitical"liberalism,ffectingecurity'smages f self nd other,ts patialand economic rganizationfbodiesandwork,nd, nparticular,theeconomyf action hat ominates olicymaking.Most ignifi-cantly,t has also been a repressed rganizing rinciple or themodern rchitectonicfsecurity.In her ssay Corporeal epresentationn/and heBody olitic,"Moira Gatens hallengesHobbes'saccountoftheLeviathan s aneutralmageof thepolitical ody, rguing hat t s an implicitlymasculinedeal the"artificial an"whobyestablishing com-monwealthfrees imselfrom henecessaryutdifficultealingswith othwomen ndnature." he argues,na similarway o thatinwhich have ought oarguehere, hat his odypolitichas dif-ficultyccommodatinganythingut the same" because thisimage f samenesss secured hrough refusaloacknowledgeif-ferences such;rather,ifferencesproduced s othernesshroughtheexclusion f "differentinds fbeings rom hepact . . slaves,foreigners,omen,he onquered,hildren,heworkinglasses."50Thisproblem earson boththesubjectswhohavehistoricallydirected tate ctions mostoftenmen) and thekinds f actionsdeemed egitimatend effectivethosethathavetendedto con-form o a "masculine"rive or ertitudendsameness).A crucialdivision ere s that etweenhe"public"ndthe"private"hathasbeencentral o so much iberalthoughtnd thathelpsorganizethe nterplayetween he ndividualizingnd totalizingmodes ofpower hat ecurityuts nto ction.Hegel s ofparticularelevance ere. n a similar ay o thatnwhich hemad,thecriminal,nd thesavagehad to be excludedfrom hebodypoliticn earlier ccounts,n thePhilosophyfRight


20/28

Anthonyurke 19

Hegeldenied full ubjectivitywithinven a "European" tate)tofullyne-halff thepopulation. hisreproduces genderedivisionbetweenpublicand private,whichwould n turnbe crucialformodern racticesfsecurity:Manhashis ctual ubstantialifenthe tate,n earning,ndsoforth,s well sin actual abor nd truggleith he xternalworldndwith imselfo thatt sonlyut fhis iremptionhathefightsiswayo elf-subsistentnity ith imself.. .Woman,on the ther and, asher ubstantiveestinynthe amily,ndtobe mbued ithamilyietysher thicalramefmind.51

Thushe preserves,or ubjectivity,dialectical chemaof realiza-tion hat till eposes n thenegationndsupersessionftheother,and whose ulminating omentsnpublic ife, he tate,he iberalontologyf abor,production,nd struggle, ill lways e essen-tiallymale" preserved othformale bodies andmale modes ofbeing.Writersuchas Gatens,while cknowledginghepartial d-vancesof women ntopublic ife, till rguethat hebodypoliticremainsdominatedbymasculine anguages nd modes of exis-tence: Ifwoman . . speaksfrom hisbody, heis limitednwhatshe can say. f she livesbythis eason nd this thic, he still ivesfrom hebody fanother."52Theseinsights avedirect elevance othe nternationalon-ductof states. hristineylvesterasarguedthat here s a perni-cious"normativityf ex" tructuringnternationalelations, hileTickner rgues hat tatecrafts dominated y n imageof"hege-monicmasculinity"hat s "sustainedhroughtsoppositiono var-ious subordinatednd devaluedmasculinitiesuch as homosexu-ality . . andthroughtsrelation o various evalued eminities."ninternationalolicy, he characteristicsfhegemonicmasculinity"areprojected nto thebehaviour f stateswhose uccess s inter-national ctors s measuredn terms ftheir ower apabilitiesndcapacity or elf-helpndautonomy."53What his chievess a whole eries fexclusionsandnorms faction)basedon thedichotomyetweenmasculine ndfeminine.Thisgenerates chainof nalogous ppositionshat lignmalenesswith eason, ctivity,bjectiveruth,nd themind, nd womanwithpassion, assivity,ubjectiveruth,nd thebody realms nd valuesconstructeds perpetuallyhreatening,ackward,nd disruptive.Bythenaligning hese with woother crucial dichotomies be-tween avage ndcivilized,nd thecommonwealthnd the tate fnature this hainofoppositionsivesife o theprogressive ove-ment fbeingentral o a post-Enlightenmentolitics fsecurity.


21/28

20 Aporiasf ecurity

In the iberal hain that inks ubjectivity,conomy,ndgeo-politics,ender ssimultaneouslywork n the elf, principle ortheparticipationf ndividualsnsociety,nd onefor heconductof the state n managing ubject populations nd constructinggeopoliticalpace.Hegemonicmasculinityas also been crucial ouniversalizinghe liberal mode of economicsubjectivityasedaround he ubjugation,ontrol,ndexploitationf nature withthe mplicitxclusion f otherpossiblemodesof economic ife.54A pivotal igure ere sDescartes,whosephilosophicalccountofmethodnd the division etweenmind ndbodyhasunderpinnedmanyharacteristicsfthemoderniberal rder: tsobsessionwithpoliticalndepistemologicalertitudestabilityndequilibrium),thevision fnaturemplicitnmodern conomics,ndthecontroland production f internationalpace.Genevive loydempha-sizes howtheseparation fmind and bodywasessential o hisvision f a "unitary urethought"hat ecured hefoundationsfmodernscience,yetsimultaneouslyeparated t from he restof ife.Lloyd lso draws ut the inksbetweenCartesianmethodandHegel'sassociationfmaleattainmentsith niversality.ale-nessbecomes technicalttributechieved ybreaking way romthe nature ssociatedwithwoman, nd thus nalogous o moderntheories ftechnological, olitical,nd economicprogress asedon themanipulationndcontrol f nature.55Thisopensup significantuestionsbout he tructurendop-eration f ecuritys a concept: owevermuch hey isavowt,Der-ridareminds s that ll suchmetaphysicaldealsexistna relationofdependence o a subordinatederm hey laimtosupersede rexpel.Securitys no different. hilebetrayingretensionso ab-solute elf-presence,ecuritynly ver xistsn relation o "insecu-rity":t thus perates ccording o theHegelianeconomy hat n-corporateshis ichotomynto "dialectical"movementhat osesthe second term s the anathema f thefirst, hichbecomesanidealstate, rgoal,towardwhich ne aspiresna movementwayfrom he econd.Securityhenbecomes powerfulignifierf anidealpolitical, conomic, nd cultural rder, pposedto "others"designateds inferiorrthreatening.et tspromise reaks ownwhenwe consider hat, ecause "security"s bound ntoa depen-dentrelationwith insecurity,"t cannever scapeit: t must on-tinue oproducemages f"insecurity"n order o retainmeaning.Deployed into a politicaltechnologyhat activates he ex-changebetweenhe "individual"nd the"total,"his conomy astwopotent ffects. tthe evelof the ndividual,t forms power-fulmechanism fsubjectivityn whichmages f fear nd insecu-rityateither personal,ocietal, rgeopoliticalevel often ll at


22/28

Anthonyurke 21

once) can be used tomanipulatendividuals nd populations.AsMichaelDillon uggests,Don't skwhat people s .. askhow norderoffearforms people."56 uchimagesportrayhe state spatriarchalndprotective,rovoking eelingsfallegiance, afety,and submission:ctivatingheexchangebetween ublicand pri-vate, hey end tofeminize hecitizenry hilereservingullmas-culineparticipationnthe defense f the state ormen.The argu-mentthatwomen re unsuitable orcombathas servedboth tolegitimatehe exclusion fwomenfrom ublic ife nd to makemen'sparticipationn war hevehicle f a more"total" nactmentof ubjectivity.oiraGatens elieves hat his erives rom hecon-dition dating rom he Greeks r even "theoriginal ovenant e-tweenGod andAbraham") or ull dmission o thepolitical odybeingthat ne can maketheappropriate orfeit. orAbraham,twasthe"corporealacrifice"fhisforeskin;ormodernmen t hastoo often een life nbattle.57Atthe evel f thetotal,nsecuritylsoworkss a metaphor e-scribingoththe nherent ature f the nternationalystemndan ideal mode of state ction.Thus we have the realist ssertionthat he nternationalystemsessentiallynarchicnd that heob-jective f states houldbe to ordert,usingforce s a fundamentalmechanism;nlywithin ucha Cartesianmetaphysicoes a state-mentikeE. H. Carr's, hatmilitarytrengths"arecognisedearerofpolitical alues," akeon meaning.58n fact,n thisdiscoursehegemonicmasculinity,n Enlightenmentrogressivism,nd afoundingthnocentrismoalesce togenerate hemodern olitico-economic hematic f order one thatmagines ertain conomicmodes indigenousragriculture-based)nd forms f dentification(substatend ocal)asbackward,nd often lso unstablend threat-ening. husfeminizednddemonized,heyre made ubject o theorderingffectsf both maleeconomyf action toooftenmili-taryndrepressive)nd to theultimatemasculinemetasubjecttheindustrializingtate).As Ticknernotes,"nonwhitesnd tropicalcountries re often epicted s irrational,motional ndunstable,characteristicshat re often ttributedo women."59Order,nthis ense, ecomes nalogous o the amingfwomanand nature.From theeighteenth-nd nineteenth-centuryove-ments fcolonization o theColdWarbattles ver heThirdWorldand the turn-of-the-millenniumffortsomanageand accelerateglobalization,uch ntegratedmages frace andgenderhavebeencentral o the onstructionf n architectonicodeof ecurityndorder one that, hroughheoperations fthestrategicmagina-tion,might each imultaneouslynto hedepths f the ubject ndintegratehemntothevast paces nd flows fgeopolitics.n this


23/28

22 Aporiasf ecurity

vision,ecurityppears swhat t hastoooften een: a stiflingis-ciplinarymachine.Howcould t everbe escaped?Refusing ecurity

It sperhaps asy o becomedespondent,ut s countlesstrugglesforfreedom,ustice,and social transformationave proved,sense of seriousness an be temperedwith heknowledge hatmany ools re already vailable and where hey renot,the ef-fort o create productiveewcriticalensibilityswell dvanced.There is also a crucialpolitical peningwithin he iberalprob-lematictself,nthe ensethat t assumes hat ower s most ffec-tivewhen t s absorbed s truth,onsented o anddesired whichcreates n importantpaceforrefusal.As ColinGordonargues,Foucault houghthat hevery ossibilityfgoverning as condi-tionalon itbeingcredible o thegoverned s well as thegovern-ing.60 his throws eight nto thequestion f howsecurity orksas a technologyf ubjectivity.t s to takeupFoucault's hallenge,frameds a reversalfthe iberalprogressive ovement fbeingwe have een nHegel,nottodiscover hoor whatweare somuchas torefusehatwe are.61 ust s securityules ubjectivitys bothtotalizingnd individualizinglackmailndpromise,t sat theselevels hatwe can intervene.Wecancritique he machinic rame-worksfpossibilityepresentedy aw, olicy,conomic egulation,anddiplomacy,hile hallengingheway hese nstitutionseploylanguage o draw ndividualubjectsnto heir onsensualweb.Thissuggests,t eastprovisionally,dualstrategy.he firsts-serts he pacefor gency,oth nchallengingvailable ossibilitiesforbeingand their arger ocioeconomic mplications. olandBleiker ormulatesn idea ofagency hat hiftsway rom he one(male) herooverthrowinghe social order n a decisive ct of re-bellion o one that nderstandsoththe thicknessf socialpowerand its"fissures,"fragmentation,"nd "thinness."Wemust,hesays, observe ow n individualmay e able toescapethe discur-siveorder nd influence ts hiftingoundaries. .. Bydoingso,discursiveerrainsfdissent ll ofa sudden ppearwhere orces fdominationreviouslyeemed nvincible."62Pushing eyond ecurityequires actics hat an work tmanylevels that mpowerndividualsorecognizehe argerocial, ul-tural, nd economic mplicationsf theeverydayorms fdesire,subjection,nddisciplineheyncounter,ochallengendrewritethem,nd that n turn ontributeo collective ffortso transformthe arger tructuresfbeing, xchange, nd power hat ustain(andhavebeen sustainedy)these orms. s Derrida uggests,his


24/28

Anthonyurke 23

is to open up aporeticpossibilitieshattransgressnd call intoquestion he boundaries f theself, ociety,nd the nternationalthat ecurityeeks o magine ndpolice.The secondseeksnew thical rinciples ased on a critique ftherigid ndrepressiveorms f dentityhat ecurityas hereto-foreoffered. hus writersuchas Rosalyn iprose,WilliamCon-nolly,nd MoiraGatenshave ought o magine new thical ela-tionshiphat hinks ifferenceot on thebasisof the ame butonthebasisofa dialoguewith heother hatmightllow pacefor heunknownnd unfamiliar,or "debate nd engagement ith heother's aw and the other's thics" an encounter hat nvolvestransformationf theselfrather hanthe other.63huswhile hesweep ndpower f ecurity ust e acknowledged,t must lsoberefused: t the simultaneousevelsof individualdentity,ocialorder,nd macroeconomicossibility,twould ntail nother indof work n "ourselves" a political efusal f theOne, the magi-nationof an other hatnever eturns othe same. t wouldbe toask fthere s a world fterecurity,nd what ts himmeringossi-bilitiesmight e.Notes

1. On theClinton octrine,eeStrobe albott,Self-determinationnan Interdependent orld,"oreignolicy,o. 118 (spring 000): 152-164;onVietnam,eeJamesWilliamGibson,The erfect ar: echnowarn Viet-nam Boston:AtlanticMonthlyress, 986);PaulHendrikson,he ivingand the ead NewYork:Knopf, 996), ndAnthonyurke,Violence ndReason on The Shoals ofVietnam," ostmodernulture, ay1999:www.iath.virginia.edU/pmc/current.issue/9.3burke.Muchof thevaluable riticaliteraturen securitys referencednddiscussedthroughouthis article.FurthermportantwritingsncludeJamesDerDerian, The ValueofSecurity: obbes,Marx,Nietzsche,ndBaudrillard,"nDavidCampbell nd MichaelDillon, ds.,The oliticalub-jectofViolenceManchester P, 1993); DavidCampbell,Writingecurity:United tates oreign olicy nd the olitics f dentityManchesterUP, 1992);R. B.J.Walker,Security,overeignty,nd theChallengeofWorldPoli-tics,"working aper87, Canberra:ANU Peace ResearchCentre,1990;Gary mith nd St.JohnKettle, d.,Threats ithoutnemiesSydney:luto,1992); GraemeCheeseman nd St.JohnKettle, d., TheNewAustralianMilitarismSydney: luto,1990);GraemeCheeseman nd RobertBruce,eds., Discourses fDanger nd Dread Frontiers: ustralian efencend SecurityThinkingfterheColdWarSydney: llen 8cUnwin, 996); KeithKrauseandMichaelC. Williams, ds.,CriticalecuritytudiesMinneapolis: ofMinnesota,1997);MichaelC.Williams,Identitynd thePolitics fSecu-rity," uropeanournal f nternationalelations, no. 2 (1998): 204-225; Ron-nieLipshutz,d.,OnSecurityNewYork: olumbiaUP,1995);JefHuysmans,"Security! hatDo YouMean?FromConcept o Thick ignifier,"uropeanfournal fnternationalelations,no. 2 (1998): 231-232.


25/28

24 Aporias fSecurity

2. For a discussion f the term ntopolitical,ee William . Connolly,TheEthos fPluralizationMinneapolis:Universityf MinnesotaPress,1995),pp. 1-5.Connollyuggestshat ontopoliticalnterpretation"eedstocriticallyevisit hefoundingandoften isavowed) laims fmodernpolitics about he necessitiesndpossibilitiesfhumanbeing" oques-tionhowmany commonresumptionsfour time . . contain angerousdemands ndexpectations ithin hem."3. Ibid.,p. 34.4. Clinton nd Mahathirre cited n Brig.Gen. MikeSmith,Aus-tralia s ational ecuritynto heTwenty-Firstentury:ethinkingtrategicirec-tionCanberra: trategicnd Defence tudies entre, NU,1997);Keatingis quoted n theSydneyorningerald, ec. 16, 1995;Australian aborParty,998national latform.5. For the ndonesian oncepts f"resilience"nd"security,"ee theIndonesian1995DefenceWhitePaper ThePolicy f he tate efencendSecurityftheRepublic f ndonesia,p. 12, which argues that the primarygeopoliticaloncept nowns Wawasan usantaraarchipelagic rinciple)requires the trengtheningfnational esilience, hich s the ntegrationof allformsfresiliencexistingnthepolitical,conomic, ociocultural,securitynd defence ields. hisresilience s aimed at guaranteeinga-tional tability,hichncorporateshe tabilityn all these ields";ee alsoDewi FortunaAnwar, ndonesiaand theSecurityfSoutheast sia (Jakarta:Centre or trategicnd Internationaltudies, 992).6. R. N. Berki,Securitynd Society: eflectionsnLaw, Order,nd Poli-ticsLondon:Dent,1986),p. 20.7. Michael Dillon, Politics j Security:owards PoliticalPhilosophyjContinentalhoughtLondon:Routledge, 996),p. 13.8. R. B.J.Walker,TheSubject fSecurity,"n MichaelC. Williamsand KeithKrause, ds.,CriticalecuritytudiesMinneapolis: niversityfMinnesota ress, 997),p. 71.9.J.AnnTickner,Gendern Internationalelations: eministerspectivesonAchievinglobalecurityNewYork: olumbiaUP,1992),pp. 22-23.10. R. B. J.Walker,One World,ManyWorlds: trugglesora fustWorldPeaceBoulder: ynneRienner,988),pp. 1-9.11.Walker,ote8,p. 66.12. SimonDalby, Contestingn EssentialConcept:ReadingtheDilemmas n Contemporaryecurity iscourse,"n Keith KrauseandMichaelC. Williams,ds.,CriticalecuritytudiesMinneapolis: niversityof Minnesota ress, 997),p. 20.13.JacquesDerrida,AporiasStanford:tanford P,1993),p. 16.14. bid.,pp. 12-35.15.See Anthonyurke, Poetryutside ecurity,"lternatives5,no.3 (2000): 307-321, nd, dem, n Fearof ecuritySydney: lutoAustralia,2001).Valuablework nthis irection asbeen carried utbyCostasCon-stantinou,hourges s to see securityot s "a rescue rom anger utfreedom rom hecareofdanger .. a continuous,piritual,eafaringagon," nd MichaelDillon,whocriticallynterrogatesthe imits etbysecurityo our modern olitical magination.. by howing ow ecurity,itselfxceeding hose imits,hallenges s to out-livehemodern": ostasM.Constantinou,Poetics fSecurity,"lternatives5,no. 3 (2000): 292;Dillon,note7,p. 10.16.Walker,ote8, p. 71.17.Berki, ote6,pp.32-33.


26/28

Anthonyurke 25

18.HansJ.Morgenthau,oliticsmong ationsNewYork: nopf,973),pp.553-555.19. Kennan, ited n NoamChomsky,urningheTide:The US andLatinAmericaNewYork: lackRose, 1987), p. 48.20. RichardWoolcott,The PerilsofFreedom,"Weekendustralian,Apr. 2-23, 1995,p. 24.21.MichelFoucault, Governmentality,"rans. asquale Pasquino, nGraham urchell, olinGordon,nd PeterMiller,ds.,The oucaultffect-StudiesnGovernmentalityLondon:HarvesterWheatsheaf,991),p. 90.22.Michel oucault, olitics,hilosophy,ulture,d.,Lawrence . Kritz-man London:Routledge, 988),pp. 76-77.23.Foucault, ote21,p. 92.24. Ibid.,pp.98-102.25. Ibid.,pp. 101-102.26. ColinGordon, Governmentalationality:n Introduction,"nBurchell, ordon,Miller, ote21,p. 20.27.ThomasHobbes,LeviathanLondon:Penguin, 985),p. 186.28.JohnLocke, TwoTreatisesfGovernmentCambridge,UK: Cam-bridgeUP,1967),pp. 305-309.29.Gordon, ote26,pp. 11-16.30. Ibid.,p. 17.31.Jeremyentham,ThePrinciplesf CivilLife,"nJohnBowring,ed.,TheWorksf eremyentham,ol. 1 (London:Simpkin, arshall, 837),p. 302;emphasisdded.32. Ibid.,p. 308.33. Ibid.,p. 304;emphasisdded.34. Ibid.,p. 312.35.Gordon, ote26,pp. 21-23; Bentham, ote31,p. 302.36.Gordon, ote26,p. 20.37.Bentham, ote31, p. 307.38. Foucaultoutlinedbiopowern "TheRight fDeathand PoweroverLife," he final hapter f TheHistoryf exuality,ol. 1. He charac-terizestsemergence, rom heseventeenthentury,s a shift rom hesovereign'sighto kill reasonousersons o "the alculatedmanagementof ife" ocused round wopoles: disciplinendthebody smachine,ndthebodyof thespecies all theopaque processes fpublichealth ndpopulation.With t came a mutationnpower,choed nBentham:The growingmportancessumedbytheactionofthenorm, ttheexpenseof theuridical ystemfthe aw .. a powerwhosetask s to takecharge f iferequires ontinuous orrectivendregulatorymechanisms. t is no longera matter f bringingdeath ntoplay nthefield fsovereignty,utofdistributinghelivingnthedomain fvalue andutility.MichelFoucault,TheHistoryf exuality,ol.1 (NewYork: eregrine,1987),p. 144.39. Forexcellentwritingn theproduction fspace bygeopoliticalreason, eeGearoidO'Tuathail,CriticaleopoliticsMinneapolis: niversityofMinnesotaress, 996), ndGearoidO'Tuathail nd SimonDalby,ds.,RethinkingeopoliticsLondon:Routledere,998).40.G. W.F.Hegel, henomenologyf piritOxford: larendon,977), .4.41.JrgenHabermas, ThePhilosophicaliscourse fModernityLondon:Polity, 987), p. 12.


27/28

26 Aporiasf ecurity

42. Elizabeth Anscombe, ed., Descartes:PhilosophicalWritingsMel-bourne:Nelson, 966),p. 153.43. CostasM.Constantinou,Poetics fSecurity,"lternatives5,no. 3(2000): 288.44. Burke,note 1; George W. Bush,Address oJoint ession f Congressand theAmericaneople, ept. 20, 2001.45. Ibid.,p. 156.4b. Lr.w. t. Hegel, l nernilosopnyj Historyfslew ork: rometneus,1990),pp.91-99,80-87.47. Ibid.48.Pierre lastres,OnEthnocide,"rans. ulian efanis, rt ndText,no.28 (May1988):53.49.Hegel,pp. 151-152.50. MoiraGatens, maginary odies: thics, ower,nd CorporealityLon-don:Routledge, 996),p. 25.51. G. W. F. Hegel, Elementsfthe hilosophyfRight Cambridge,UK:Cambridge P,1991 1821]),p. 114.52.Gatens, ote50,p. 25.53. lickner, ote9,p. b.54.J.AnnTickner itesSandraHarding's rgumenthat n Africanworldviewinwhich heeconomicbehaviour f ndividualss embeddedin a socialorder,s a communal rientationeen as deviant' yneoclassi-cal economic heory; et t s one that epresents differentype f eco-nomicbehaviourpecifico other ultures":ickner,ote9,p. 73.55. GeneviveLloyd,TheMan ofReason: "Male" nd "Female"n WesternPhilosophyLondon: Routledge, 993),p. 44.56.Dillon,note7,p. 16.57.Gatens, ote50,p. 23. It iseasy o demonstrateow uch forma-tions re also ruptured y multipleronies.The role of women n thearmed ervices s stillhighlymbiguous somestates tillbarring hemfromombat oles, thers ow ncludinghem), hegeneralpresence fwomen estabilizingong-standingender conomiesnthemilitary.ike-wise,womenhave often ad closeexperience f combat as nurses, oc-tors, nd civilians), nd theexperience f combat nd injury an alsodestabilizemen's xperience fmasculinity,xposing hem o a traumaticand terrifvineronsciousnessffrailtvnd embodiment.58. E. H. Carr,TheTwentyears'Crisis:1919-1939 (New York:Harper&Row, 1978),p. 109.59.Tickner,ote9,p. 9. One terriblexample f this conomynac-tionwas the ndonesian nvasion f East Timor n 1975. Indonesiade-fended ts ctions which ncluded series fbrutal ounterinsurgencyf-fensiveshroughhe ate 1970s ndearly 980s hatkilled smany s twohundred housandpeople by portrayinghe Fretilin esistancemove-ment s threat othe ecurityf the ndonesian tate. n 1974,AustralianPrimeMinister oughWhitlam,nrhetoric choedbySoharto he nextyear,rgued hat n independentastTimorwouldbe "anunviable tateand potential hreat o the stabilityf thearea":NancyViviani, Aus-traliansnd theTimor ssue,"Australianutlook0 (Aug. 1976):97.60.Gordon, ote26,p. 48.61. MichelFoucault, ited n PaulRabinow, d., The oucault eader(NewYork: antheon, 984).62. Roland Bleiker,PopularDissent,HumanAgency,nd GlobalPolitics(Cambridge,K:Cambridge P,2000),pp. 187-188; ee alsoTobyMiller,


28/28

Anthonyurke 27

TheWell-Temperedelf:Citizenship,ulture,nd the ostmodernubjectBalti-more:JohnsHopkinsUP,1993); andAnthony urke, n Fearof ecurity(Sydney:lutoAustralia,001).63.Gatens, ote50,p. 27;Rosalyn iprose,The odiesfWomen:thics,Embodiment,ndSexual ifferenceLondon:Routledge, 994);William .Connolly, he thos f luralisationMinneapolis: niversityfMinnesotaPress, 995).For furtherritingsn ethics, esponsibility,nd world oli-tics, eeAnthonyurke, Strangers ithouttrangeness:thics ndDif-ference etweenAustralia nd the ndonesianNewOrder,"Communal/Plural:Journal fTransnationalnd Cross ultural tudies , no. 2 (Oct. 2000);JimGeorge, Realist thics,nternationalelations,ndPost-Modernism:Thinking eyond heEgoism-Anarchyhematic,"Millennium4, no. 2(1995); David Campbell, NationalDeconstruction:iolence,dentity,ndJus-tice n Bosnia Minneapolis:MinnesotaUP, 1998); DavidCampbell ndMichael Shapiro, Moral Spaces:Rethinkingthics and World olitics Min-neapolis:Minnesota P,1999).

Documents

Aporias of Security