Rethinking Security in the Age of Migration Trust and Emancipation in Europe

207 Pages·2013·5.458 MB·English

by  Ali Bilgic

1
Introduction
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 ‘What were we meant to do? Let them drown?’1: security as
14 emancipation in the Age of Migration
15
f
In a recent study, aiming to reflect on Critical Theory in International Relations
16
(IR), the editors explain their motive for producing such a ocollection as follows:
17
‘We saw critical theory as having reached an impasse, after the highly successful
18
o
period in which its popularity surged – almost to the point of becoming “main-
19
stream” or common sense in some parts of the academic world’.2 However, as
20 r
the editors of the collection would agree, this is hardly the case with regard to
21
Security Studies, where critical works havep been flourishing during the last two
22
decades. The theory of securitization and the security- as-risk approach have not
23
become analytically or politically ‘common sense’. Analytically, these
24
approaches continually reflect on tFheir theoretical underpinnings and the tools
25
they employ to understand and explain the politics and sociology of security
26
27 relations.3 Politically, both ap&proaches have been successfully questioning what
28 has been done for the sake of security and how some security practices lead to
29 more insecurity andT less freedom in contemporary world politics. These,
30 however, certainly do not imply that the securitization and the risk approaches
31 do not suffer from particular setbacks. They indeed contribute to the formation
32 of ‘common sense’, but in a different way which will be discussed below. That
33 said, it is difficult to claim that they have become ‘mainstream’. After all, reflex-
34 ivity is the integral component of being ‘critical’.4 If any critical approach
35 becomes ‘mainstream’ or ‘common sense’ as implied above, the credentials
36 which render them ‘critical’ should be questioned in the first place.
37 If critical theory in Security Studies is taken as the Emancipatory Security
38 Theory (also known as the Welsh School or Aberystwyth School), the claim of
39 unpopularity, ‘mainstream’ or ‘common sense’ for this theory is problematic
40 too.5 As a response to the claim of ‘unpopularity’ of the emancipatory approach,
41 Pinar Bilgin successfully shows the ‘continuing appeal of critical security
42 studies’ in different parts of the world.6 The claim about being mainstream and
43 common sense is also unfounded. It would be very difficult to argue that eman-
44 cipatory security thinking, which accepts individuals as the ultimate referent of
45 security, has become ‘mainstream’ or ‘common sense’ in Security Studies. That
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 1 17/1/13 07:58:04
2 Introduction
said, not all ‘common sense’ is essentially undesirable.7 What is undesirable for 11
the emancipatory approach is the normalization of particular ideas and practices, 22
which (re)create insecurity for the majority of individuals in the world, while 33
strengthening the oppressive political and economic structures of the status quo. 44
Like other theories of security, Emancipatory Security Theory always needs 55
theoretical rethinking and new conceptual openings. One of the most useful ways 66
of engaging with such an enriching ideational amendment is the operationaliza- 77
tion of the theory in relation to different security issues in world politics. Valu- 88
able as they are, it is true that the existing studies remain insufficient. However, 99
referring to this as ‘impasse’ can be misleading as it defies the very spirit of Crit- 1100
ical Theory, which is to remind about indifference to problems in the world, 1111
apathy in thinking and passivity in politics. There are myriad security issues in 1122
contemporary world politics which have not been analysed from the perspective 1133
of emancipation. I would argue that many opportunities that world politics offers 1144
to the students of Emancipatory Security Theory remain unexplored. There is no 1155
f
impasse because emancipatory security analysis is still in its infancy. Bringing it 1166
o
to maturity requires operationalization of the theory. This book aims to contribute 1177
to the developing literature about Emancipatory Security Theory with specific 1188
o
reference to the issue of irregular protection-s eeking migration. 1199
The choice of irregular migration amongrst various other security issues in 2200
world politics results from the multifaceted insecurity it creates for different 2211
p
groups of individuals. Many contemporary irregular migrants seek protection 2222
beyond their regional communities. However, their irregular migration becomes 2233

a source of insecurity not only for these migrants, but also for the members of 2244
F
the receiving communities by increasing fear and anxiety about this type of 2255
human mobility. In spite of this, irregular migration continues in different parts 2266
&
of the world.8 This book, therefore, is an attempt to answer a politically and 2277
intellectually challenging question in the age of migration: how can a political 2288
community respondT to migrants who seek protection and security, when their 2299
migration is perceived as a source of insecurity by many in that community? In 3300
order to answer this question a new perspective to studying the security dimen- 3311
sion of irregular migration will be developed based on Emancipatory Security 3322
Theory. This new perspective offers an alternative security analysis concerning 3333
for whom security can be studied, and how it should be studied in relation to the 3344
issue of contemporary irregular migration. The central aim of this emancipatory 3355
analysis is to explore ideas and practices which can contribute to replacing the 3366
dominant security relations derived from political structures of insecurity with 3377
emancipatory structures, where individuals (both irregular migrants and 3388
members of the receiving communities) enjoy security together, not opposed to 3399
each other. It will thus look for emancipatory ideas and practices within the 4400
existing structures of politics. 4411
The emancipatory security analysis of irregular migration will be conducted 4422
through using the new security dilemma analytical framework. This framework 4433
will problematize security understandings and policies which reproduce insec- 4444
urity for receiving societies and irregular migrants and reconstruct a dichotomist 4455
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 2 17/1/13 07:58:04
Introduction 3
11 identity between the two groups. Alternative ideas and practices which are
22 embedded, albeit marginalized, in the political structures will be discussed and
33 prioritized in order to explore how new emancipatory political structures can be
44 constructed. It will be argued that the security dilemma caused by irregular
55 migration can be transcended through trust- learning. Consequently, a common
66 ‘we’ feeling between citizens and irregular protection-s eeking migrants can be
77 created, and thereby emancipatory political structures in which both groups
88 enjoy human rights and freedoms can be constructed. The conceptual framework
99 will be illustrated with special reference to irregular sub- Saharan protection-
1100 seeking migration into the European Union (EU).9
1111 This Introduction will clarify the answers to the following three questions:
1122 why irregular migration as a subject, and specifically why irregular sub- Saharan
1133 migration in the EU as an illustration; why emancipatory security approach as
1144 the security theory; and why the new security dilemma as the analytical frame-
1155 work. The Introduction will conclude with the outline of the book.
f
1166
o
1177
Why study irregular migration; why irregular migration
1188
from sub- Sahara to Europe?10 o
1199
2200 When individuals make choices they do not ornly consider what exists in the
2211 world, but they also take into account what ought to exist. According to Philip
p
2222 Allott, ‘the dyad of the actual and the ideal has allowed us to make human reality
2233 into a moral order in which the actual can pass judgement upon itself by refer-

2244 ence to its better potentiality, which is the ideal’.11 This book, which analyses the
F
2255 available choices of a political community in relation to irregular migrants in
2266 need of protection, will pass judgement on the actual by reference to the ideal
&
2277 already situated within the existing political structures in order to explore the
2288 potential for upholding human rights and freedoms as security for individuals.
2299 This perspective takeTs two groups of individuals as the referent of the security
3300 analysis: irregular migrants who seek protection beyond their regional com-
3311 munities and members of the receiving communities.
3322 The adoption of such an explicitly normative perspective partly stems from
3333 the specific migrant group studied in the book. A study of migrants who seek
3344 protection outside their countries of origin, and of the conditions under which
3355 they are entitled to protection, ‘requires a political choice and ethical judge-
3366 ment’.12 This is because, as will be discussed in Chapter 2, the content of protec-
3377 tion is closely related to human rights and their universal applicability.13 Some
3388 migrants are criminalized (become irregular) in their search for protection in the
3399 form of asylum. The criminalization of these migrants, however, does not
4400 suggest that they do not need protection or that their human rights can be vio-
4411 lated because they are considered ‘illegal’. Human beings have the universal
4422 right to seek protection beyond their national communities even if they enter the
4433 country of asylum irregularly.14 However, as will be illustrated in this book with
4444 reference to the EU’s externalization policies to prevent irregular migration, this
4455 right can often be undermined by the ostensibly receiving communities. This
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 3 17/1/13 07:58:05
4 Introduction
observation highlights that the international protection regime based on the 1951 11
Convention has not capably addressed the contemporary realities of protection- 22
seeking migration, which calls for new ideas and concepts to enhance the con- 33
ditions for the protection of individuals. 44
Migration itself is a highly politicized issue, especially in the EU, where it is 55
often discussed in conjunction with its security implications.15 The irregulariza- 66
tion of migration swells these discussions by adding another dimension to them. 77
The idea that an unknown number of irregular migrants violate border regula- 88
tions and continue their lives without registration, challenging the rule of law, 99
creates a sense of insecurity for the members of the receiving communities. 1100
Insecurity also has an economic aspect, although one of the most important 1111
reasons for irregular immigration has been a demand for unregistered cheap 1122
labour in some receiving states. Irregular migration feeds the underground 1133
economy, as has occurred in Italy and Spain.16 In the post 9/11 period, the issue 1144
linking ‘unprotected’ borders and terrorism has deepened fear and anxiety. 1155
f
Decision makers are, therefore, expected to address the insecurity caused by 1166
o
irregular migration. It must be noted here that the emancipatory analysis adopted in 1177
this book does not question the politically motivated incentive of actors in a polit- 1188
o
ical community to address irregular migration as a source of insecurity. However, it 1199
problematizes how insecurity is generally adrdressed in relation to the irregular 2200
migration phenomenon that involves many ‘protection-s eekers’. Some policies pre- 2211
p
venting irregular migration have also hindered protection- seeking migration. How 2222
to address irregular protection-s eeking is the central puzzle of this book. The per- 2233

spective in this book, underlined by the Emancipatory Security Theory, and fed by 2244
F
new conceptual tools, has the potential to offer a way of solving it. 2255
This new perspective will also be discussed through an illustration of irregu- 2266
&
lar sub- Saharan protection- seeking migration to Europe via North Africa (includ- 2277
ing the Mediterranean Sea).17 A event in this region that attracted publicity helps 2288
explain why this caTse was chosen. At the beginning of April 2009, news agen- 2299
cies announced a disaster in the Mediterranean Sea. Four boats sank, leaving 3300
more than 300 irregular migrants dead. After the disaster, Antonio Guterres, the 3311
head of the UN refugee agency, said ‘people need to move because they can no 3322
longer live in their countries of origin because of war, because of environmental 3333
degradation, because of poverty’.18 Patrick Taran, a migrant labour specialist 3344
with the International Labour Organization, concurred: 3355
3366
When there’s no job at home, when you have a family to feed, you will take 3377
risks to make sure that you and your family have food on the table. Those 3388
people will take risks if the doors aren’t open. They’ll go in by the back 3399
window if the front door isn’t open.19 4400
4411
Human catastrophes in the Mediterranean Sea are just the tip of the iceberg of 4422
human disasters during the irregular migration between sub- Saharan Africa and 4433
Europe. Deaths in the process of crossing the desert, abuse by smuggling net- 4444
works, violence at the hands of officials, racial discrimination, beatings, rapes 4455
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 4 17/1/13 07:58:05
Introduction 5
11 and insults in camps in North Africa point to a complex and alarming insecurity
22 for the people who have left their countries because of a chronic interaction
33 between political and economic instability.
44 Certainly there is no way to gather completely reliable statistics about the
55 level of irregular Mediterranean crossings due to the unregistered character of
66 this type of migration. The estimates of different organizations confirm that the
77 numbers of irregular migrants were increasing during the 2000s. In 2004 the
88 International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) estimated that
99 the overall irregular crossing of the Mediterranean from the Aegean Sea to the
1100 Atlantic Ocean was somewhere between 100,000 and 120,000.20 In 2006,
1111 however, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) increased
1122 the estimates to between 200,000 and 300,000.21 According to one of the latest
1133 works, around 200,000 head for Europe annually.22 Among these irregular sub-
1144 Saharan migrants to the EU are individuals who seek protection in the form of
1155 asylum or secondary protection.
f
1166 Although asylum applicants from sub-S aharan Africa do not constitute the
o
1177 majority, they represent an important proportion in the EU-2 7.23 In 2009 asylum-
1188 seekers from sub-S aharan Africa were the most populous group who were
o
1199 granted refugee status, subsidiary protection and protection for humanitarian
2200 reasons.24 In 2010 the number of asylum applircants in the EU countries from
2211 sub- Saharan Africa was 47,420.25 In 2011 the number of asylum applicants from
p
2222 sub- Saharan countries was either the highest or second highest category in
2233 Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Malta, Estonia, Sweden and Latvia, and in the non- EU

2244 countries of Norway and Switzerland. ‘The number of applications by citizens of
F
2255 Mali and Ghana almost doubled in the second quarter of 2011.’26 This implies
2266 that there is a certain level of migration for protection reasons from sub- Saharan
&
2277 Africa to Europe. However, not all migrants from sub- Saharan Africa who are in
2288 search of protection meet the Refugee Convention criteria to qualify for
2299 ‘refugee’ status. By stTudying sub- Saharan migration in Europe this book aims to
3300 look at migrants who linger outside the scope of the 1951 Convention but need
3311 protection nonetheless.
3322 As the legal channels of seeking protection in the EU have significantly
3333 decreased and become more expensive, more sub- Saharan migrants have found
3344 irregular migration to be the only way to achieve protection.27 This, however,
3355 causes insecurity in the EU, and prompts decision makers to adopt policies to
3366 stop this type of migration. By studying these policies it will be possible
3377 to analyse what type of security notion the EU has generally acted on in order to
3388 generate security for EU citizens, and how the policies underlined by this notion
3399 create insecurity for irregular protection-s eekers. Although the common political
4400 practices of the EU are frequently exclusionary and prioritize extensively the
4411 security of EU citizens over that of irregular sub- Saharan migrants, there are also
4422 alternative ideas and practices embedded in the political and social structures of
4433 the EU. By examining the irregular sub-S aharan protection-s eeking migrants
4444 heading to Europe, and the possible responses to it, alternative approaches to
4455 protection and more broadly to security will be explored.
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 5 17/1/13 07:58:05
6 Introduction
Why Emancipatory Security Theory? 11
22
In the last decade students of Critical Security Studies (CSS) have been increas-
33
ingly studying and interpreting the concept of security in negative terms; as
44
something to be avoided, something belonging solely to the states and institu-
55
tions, tasked by states to produce security. Their security practices are con-
66
sidered as the practices of security. The securitization approach and the risk
77
approach underlined by the notion of governmentality have been conducting this
88
type of critical analysis.28 The important contributions that these extensive
99
studies have made to the problematization of a particular understanding of
1100
security must be acknowledged. Because of these studies, students of Security
1111
Studies have a fuller grasp of the political implications of particular security
1122
ideas and practices. These implications not only negatively affect the target of
1133
these security practices (such as migrants and minorities) by contributing to their
1144
marginalization, but can also lead to restriction of freedoms and authoritative
1155
f
control of the societies for whom security is sought. Notwithstanding their crit-
1166
ical contribution, I argue instead that the way they chooose to analyse security
1177
does not reflect the pluralism of the politics of security. The politics of security
1188
o
involves multiple actors and their competing interests and visions. They, there-
1199
fore, instil a one- sided understanding of securrity which revolves around totaliz- 2200
ing material and ideational power of ‘the cold monster’ state, governing 2211
communities through doing security, exclpuding and destroying what is presented 2222
as the different. This problem stems from two analytical choices in these critical 2233
studies. 2244
F
Their first choice is state-c entrism. Whether security is understood as a speech 2255
act, or is articulated as a risk, or a way of governance to form subjectivities, both 2266
&
conceptual discussions and empirical research of contemporary critical 2277
approaches generally focus on the state and individuals affiliated with the states 2288
(policy makers, buTreaucrats, law enforcement agencies), or institutions which 2299
are tasked by states to ‘produce’ security. Sometimes using the language of exis- 3300
tential threat and danger, sometimes using the discourse of ‘risk’, sometimes 3311
employing policies that target the bodies of human beings, the institution of state 3322
continuously appears as the arena where the game of security is played. The state 3333
is conceptualized as an institution which exclusively defines what security and 3344
insecurity is, and how it should be pursued by generally normalizing and perpet- 3355
uating the state of exception, defined in the Agambenian sense. Many works fol- 3366
lowing from critical approaches have convincingly problematized how a 3377
particular security discourse and practice totalize individuals and groups and 3388
draw the boundaries between ‘the self ’ and ‘the other’. However, ‘adopting a 3399
state- centric approach in studying security may end up reinforcing statism by 4400
way of rendering invisible other potential referents and agents of security’.29 As 4411
the state-c entric approach to security is accepted as the approach to security, 4422
without paying analytical attention to alternative political actors, the concept of 4433
security is increasingly associated with exceptionalism and danger, with routi- 4444
nized practices of security professionals to manage ‘risk in order to discipline 4455
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 6 17/1/13 07:58:05
Introduction 7
11 the future’, and exclusion and oppression of ‘others’ for the sake of securing ‘the
22 self ’.
33 The second choice of these critical approaches is security professionalism.
44 When we look at security analyses derived from the later Copenhagen School
55 and the risk approach underlined by governmentality, it is possible to scrutinize
66 how security professionals (including policy makers ranging from the Home
77 Secretary to individuals working for the subcontracted private security com-
88 panies) shape the politics of security through their words and their actions.30
99 These studies rightly and extensively problematize these actions. However, they
1100 imply security professionalism which refers to the idea that only particular indi-
1111 viduals who have ‘necessary’ information and knowledge can exclusively talk
1122 about and do security. These individuals are either affiliated with and directly
1133 work for states (because they have intelligence and expertise) or they work for
1144 organizations which provide information to states (such as FRONTEX, which
1155 conducts risk analysis for member states of the EU in the area of migration).
f
1166 What they do and what they say is studied as if these actors constitute the only
o
1177 political group in a society that is entitled to talk about security, and others do
1188 not exist in the politics of security.31
o
1199 Notwithstanding their highly critical stance to what has been done by states in
2200 the name of security, these critical approaches tro security reinforce essentialism
2211 in relation to the concept of security. First, they do not pay enough attention to
p
2222 ideas which can substitute the dominant security thinking and policies, and
2233 second, by not reframing the language of security to include the marginalized

2244 voices. This leads to the spread of common sense knowledge that there is
F
2255 nothing good about security, and all types of security ideas and practices are
2266 about inherently dichotomist identities, about tools to construct dichotomist
&
2277 identities, based on the politics of exceptionalism.32 However, security is a
2288 research topic whereby what we neglect to study can be more important analyti-
2299 cally and politically tThan what we prioritize for study. A neglect of plurality in
3300 security thinking, and closing the analysis to new conceptual tools for the exami-
3311 nation of this plurality, can lead to a narrow scholarship. As a result particular
3322 concepts’ meanings are fixed with the meanings and practices of dominant polit-
3333 ical actors (states or tasked by states) which revolve around the logic of excep-
3344 tionalism, exclusion and destruction.
3355 It is a fact that critical approaches to security have so far successfully ‘denat-
3366 uralised the “objective” basis of the security game’, although state- centrism and
3377 security professionalism have prevented them from ‘convince[ing] others that
3388 multiple games are possible’.33 However, what this book pursues is an altern-
3399 ative security game which is not about threat construction, extermination of the
4400 different, destruction, the self–other dichotomy, or oppressive social and material
4411 power of the state, hegemony, exclusion, and suppression. On the one hand its
4422 analytical objective involves the problematization of what has been done for the
4433 sake of ‘security’. On the other hand it aims to examine the conditions where
4444 both irregular migrants in need of protection and members of the receiving com-
4455 munities can be secured together. Its objective is not to leave the realm of
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 7 17/1/13 07:58:05
8 Introduction
security to the logic of exclusion and destruction, but to transform it as a realm 11
of freedoms, inclusion and coexistence. This book aims to convince others that 22
multiple games are possible. This is not only an analytical objective but also a 33
political necessity in the age of migration. This is where Emancipatory Security 44
Theory is required. 55
The Emancipatory Security Theory conceptualizes security as a ‘derivative’ 66
concept. It means that ‘how one conceives security is constructed out of the 77
assumptions (however explicitly or implicitly articulated) that make up one’s 88
own theory of world politics’.34 Following this thinking, mainly based on the 99
political theory of the Frankfurt School, it conceptualizes security as emancipa- 1100
tion, which means ‘the securing of people from those oppressions that stop them 1111
carrying out what they would freely choose to do, compatible with the freedom 1122
of others’.35 This definition invokes four principles. First, emancipation, as 1133
Richard Devetak rightly argues, ‘is not simply to eliminate one or other abuses, 1144
but to analyse the underlying social structures which result in these abuses with 1155
f
the intention of overcoming them’.36 Therefore, emancipation is related to 1166
o
changes that can construct new structures conducive to human freedoms. 1177
Second, the object of emancipation is individuals who are insecured by oppres- 1188
o
sive structures. Third, the emancipation of one group of individuals should not 1199
be the security of another group. Lastly, emarncipation is a process, not an end 2200
point. Based on these principles the emancipatory security analysis in this book 2211
p
looks for ideas and practices that can contribute to the process of structural trans- 2222
formation through which both irregular migrants and members of receiving com- 2233

munities can enjoy freedoms (security) together.37 2244
F
Another implication of understanding security as a derivative concept is the 2255
possibility of the exploration of the political meanings attached to different con- 2266
&
ceptualizations of security. The critical approaches to security above have a 2277
normative tendency to leave the realm of security with the consideration of 2288
negative implicatioTns of what has been done for the sake of ‘security’. This 2299
eventually leads to the reification of the meaning of security as something unde- 3300
sirable. However, 3311
3322
Concepts do not have a fixed meaning that reality can be measured against. 3333
They cannot be separated from the context of meaning; they both represent 3344
and constitute the possibility of meaning and politics. Therefore, instead of 3355
proclaiming the concepts silent, one should investigate the meaning given to 3366
these terms in the political and corporate debates and analyze the ‘reality’ 3377
that constitutes the basis for politics.38 3388
3399
When defined in terms of destruction of the other and exclusion of the different, 4400
security can be undesirable. However, if security can be re- conceptualized dif- 4411
ferently as a realm of freedoms and coexistence, can it still be the case for a 4422
student of CSS? This rethinking and reconceptualization cannot be performed by 4433
simply focusing on particular actors and their practices as the way of thinking 4444
and doing security. As will be illustrated in the discussion about the EU, even in 4455
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 8 17/1/13 07:58:05
Introduction 9
11 one institution there can be conflicting ideas about how a political community
22 can be secured. In addition, beyond the institutions tasked by states to provide
33 security, there are different actors whose practices can be evaluated in relation to
44 security. The pluralism of the politics of security is one of the basic presump-
55 tions of the emancipatory approach.39 It opens up the security analysis to the
66 multiplicity of security ideas and practices of myriad actors. It does not accept
77 political institutions (including states) as monolithic structures speaking in one
88 voice, but attempts to reveal the pluralism in these institutions.
99 The Emancipatory Security Theory is criticized for being based on a prior
1100 political programme, which reduces the theory to a ‘political party’, as argued by
1111 Ole Waever.40 While accepting that theories have political implications, he
1122 argues that
1133
1144 the political quality of a theory is not to be assessed as though that theory
1155 were a political actor in the normal sense – that is, in terms of its ‘view on’
f
1166 x and y. We want to know how features of the theory systematically shape
o
1177 the political effects of using this theory.41
1188
o
1199 The Emancipatory Security Theory does have a political agenda: producing
2200 ideas which can contribute to the constructiorn of political structures where
2211 members of the global community coexist peacefully while enjoying freedoms
p
2222 extensively. The theory acknowledges this normative and political standpoint
2233 explicitly. In this sense, it has a ‘view on x and y’. So do other theories of

2244 security. Like other theories of security, the Emancipatory Security Theory
F
2255 expresses its political views through its ontological and epistemological choices
2266 and the way it studies the theory–practice relationship. Therefore, the Emancip-
&
2277 atory Security Theory is based on:42
2288
2299 Ontology (Being)T. This is about ‘what exists in the world?’ ‘An ontology of
3300 critical research depends upon purpose – whether to maintain existing
3311 values and structures or to transform them, whether to conceive the future
3322 world as homogenous or pluralistic.’43 Oriented towards transformation and
3333 pluralism, the Emancipatory Security Theory accepts individuals as the ulti-
3344 mate referent of security analysis. Individuals are not only the referent, but
3355 also the agents of security.44
3366 Epistemology (Knowing). This is about ‘how can we know?’ The Eman-
3377 cipatory Security Theory asserts that knowledge has interests. Therefore, it
3388 continually questions theoretical and conceptual knowledge in order to
3399 explore whether this knowledge provides a perspective to study the eman-
4400 cipatory potential. When a student of Emancipatory Security Theory recog-
4411 nizes that traditional knowledge reinforces existing structures that hinder
4422 individual emancipation, she seeks new conceptual tools.
4433 Praxis (Doing). This is about ‘how can we conceive the relationship
4444 between theory and practice?’ The Emancipatory Security Theory concerns
4455 ‘delineat[ing] and clarify[ing] the choices being faced in the practical realm
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 9 17/1/13 07:58:05
10 Introduction
and . . . examin[ing] and illuminat[ing] conflicts and contradictions between 11
them. In this way, theory can give direction to action; theory and practice 22
can be consciously unified in praxis’.45 In its analysis of the practical realm 33
the Emancipatory Security Theory looks for the imminent potential for 44
emancipation. It means that the emancipatory process is realizable only if 55
the transformative practices rise from within the existing relations and struc- 66
tures. That is why it is vital to study the pluralism of the politics of security 77
as comprehensively as possible. The seeds of transformation can be within 88
this pluralism with its conflicts and contradictions. 99
1100
If the Emancipatory Security Theory closes off its analytical scope to 1111
multiple actors and their ideas and practices in the politics of security, and if it 1122
starts to reify the meaning of concepts, then it risks becoming a ‘political party’. 1133
However, Emancipatory Security Theory 1144
1155
f
is not a recipe book. . . . [A primary responsibility of the critical theorist] is 1166
o
to try and stand outside the contemporary situation as far as possible and 1177
hold up a mirror – to try to show people what the world is like and what it 1188
o
will continue to be like if behaviour remains dominated by the traditional 1199
ideas that made us.46 r 2200
2211
p
This stance is not very different from exploring the political quality of theories 2222
through systematic analysis of the political effects of using those theories, as 2233

defended by Weaver. Theories produce, shelter and develop the ideas that have 2244
F
been making us. These ideas shape how a security analysis can be structured. 2255
For this very reason, it is very important to study ‘what [the theory] does’ politi- 2266
&
cally, as Weaver argues.47 For example, the political effects of security theories 2277
structured around the ideas of state- centrism and security professionalism by 2288
closing off the anaTlysis to alternative actors and alternative notions of security 2299
should be studied. If, as Weaver argues, ‘the politics of a theory is closely tied to 3300
. . . structural features of the theory that condition what can and cannot be done 3311
with it’,48 the politics of the Emancipatory Security Theory rests on a wider per- 3322
spective about what can be done with this theory. The Emancipatory Security 3333
Theory enables us to study the pluralism of the politics of security by revealing 3344
contradictions in world politics and exploring alternative ways of thinking and 3355
doing security. This book is an attempt to show what a security analysis of irreg- 3366
ular migration can do politically when the analysis is based on Emancipatory 3377
Security Theory. 3388
The Emancipatory Security Theory conducts its analysis through the method 3399
of imminent critique, which aims to explore ‘the unfulfilled potential that already 4400
exists within’ a social order.49 David Held’s explanation of the method is worth 4411
quoting at length: 4422
4433
Social theory, developed through immanent criticism, is concerned to inves- 4444
tigate (aspects of ) the social world ‘in the movement in its development’. It 4455
638_00b_Rethinking Security_intro.indd 10 17/1/13 07:58:05