Even though the ascendancy of far-right parties, increasing xenophobia, especially around the issue of migration, and racist violence have been dominant features of the European political landscape for several years, they have not lost their immediacy and urgency. Correspondingly, the portrayal of migrants as a “dangerous” threat and security problem and the violent border politics on behalf of the EU and its member states both have been long-standing issues in the field of critical security studies (CSS).1 They nevertheless demand further research. For the last three years, the Jean Monnet-funded network “SECUREU” has examined these securitization processes by combining CSS approaches with ethnic and migration studies. The network not only explored security concerns of (ethnic) majorities and minority responses to their securitization, but focused on the connections between minority securitization and the rise of xenophobia and its political manifestation in right-wing populism in particular. The network’s closing symposium in Berlin brought together researchers from network partners – Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI), University of Amsterdam, European Academy of Bozen-Bolzano (EURAC Research), University of Glasgow, Herder Institute for Historical Research on East Central Europe Marburg, Koç University Istanbul, Council for European Studies at Columbia University – with leading scholars in the field to discuss the current state of research and explore areas for further study.
Bridging different strands of security-related research, one of the main conceptual talking points revolved around the notion of “Ontological Security”. The concept, in short, refers to the need for stable identities as a way to counter uncertainty and alienation and has, therefore, been described as a “security of being”.2 Presenting their upcoming special issue on the “Ontological (In)Security of Majorities”, FEDERICA PRINA (Glasgow) and ANDREA CARLÀ (Bolzano) underlined the concept’s potential to deepen research on the anxieties of majorities in multi-ethnic societies. As these occur despite low levels of physical risks and a (relative) position of dominance, particular attention was given to the question of why majorities perceive minorities as threats in the first place, and then, how various actors mobilise such anxieties and fears by means of populist and ethnocentric narratives. Here, the manipulation of threat perceptions and forms of “othering” in identity building, e.g. by creating the illusion of a stable sense of self through the marginalisation of an unwanted “other”, is employed as an instrument for political legitimation.
JAN WILLEM DUYVENDAK (Amsterdam) brought “Ontological Security” into dialogue with conceptualisations of “home” and “homeland” to discuss the emergence of Nativism and the rise of far right political parties in the Netherlands. As Duyvendak argued, the concept of home contains notions of familiarity and exclusivity by constructing it as a secure, safe and comfortable place. Feeling at home can therefore be seen as a selective and discriminating emotion. In this context, nativist thought draws a sharp and hierarchical distinction between insiders and outsiders, autochthones and allochthones. It casts the nation as the “home” of the “natives”, who have the prerogative to define national norms, values, and emotions, which, in turn, are perceived as being threatened by internal minorities. Taking such observations into account, Duyvendak proceeded to ask, what actually is “ontological” about “Ontological Security”. According to him, the framework not only demonstrates the shared need to feel at home and to belong, but also underlines that a place has to be secure in order to serve as a “home”. This would imply a certain logic of inclusion and exclusion and poses the question of the impossibility of mixed or shared spaces at the same time.
Discussing ontological (in)securities of South Africa’s black majority, MARIKA DJOLAI (Bradford) explored notions of identity and the self within the conceptual framework. As a system of domination and total segregation, apartheid led to deep anxieties and uncertainties about an individual’s own existence and position in the world. Efforts to establish a public memory culture around its legacies can be seen as a social practice to counter these ontological insecurities and reassure the self, be it in relation to oneself or as citizen in relation to the state. Such efforts, however, are complicated not only by distrust between different racial groupings, which are a result of apartheids radically separated nature, but also by the stark inequalities within the black majority itself.
By contrasting “Ontological Security” with the concept of “Societal Security” as it is most commonly associated with the Copenhagen School of Critical Security Studies, RITA FLOYD (Birmingham) explored the relationship between different frameworks of security. She argued that while the later posits a given society’s sense of identity as a potential referent object of securitisation processes, the former can explain, why individuals assent to the securitization of identity. WERNER DISTLER (Groningen), on the other hand, remarked that the concept of securitization does not present an overarching societal theory. According to Distler it refers to specific moments in which notions of security are addressed and worked with and the role of the audience does not suffice to link the two approaches. In this sense, the theoretical implications of “Ontological Security” should be further explored, especially in relation to other concepts in CSS research.
The symposium addressed another long-standing issue in security studies by highlighting the importance of history and historicization.3 Examining geographical imaginations of Australian security actors like government and police officials, Werner Distler demonstrated how ideas about a so-called “Pacific Arc” that originated in the years after the Second World War resurfaced in the 1990s. Initially informed by the threat of a potential Japanese invasion in the 1940s and centred around fears and uncertainties brought on by the process of decolonization, the re-configurated discourse painted the picture of an unstable region consisting of “weak” and “failing” neighbouring states. As a consequence, constant policing of the “arc” emerged as a central feature of Australian security practices. According to Distler, meanings and practices activated in security situations re-emerge and are translated from the past to the present.
In a similar vein, PETER HASLINGER (Marburg/Gießen) argued that every securitizing move leaves behind a mark within a community’s collective memory. As a consequence, achieving full desecuritization remains an impossibility. EAMONN BUTLER MCINTOSH (Glasgow) further explored the relationship between securitization and memory studies. Analysing speeches and other source materials from Hungary’s political leadership under Viktor Orbán, he showed in what ways references were made to both distant and recent past events in order to (re)frame migration as „threatening“ and „dangerous“. Reimagining Christian Democracy in Hungary, Orbán consciously invoked collective memory to construct narratives of a nation in need of defending from external forces.
As Distler’s arguments show, the legacies of colonialism and imperialism were granted a substantial amount of time and attention. TUĞBA BAŞARAN (Cambridge), for example, used the lens of empire to examine classic liberal storytelling about the rise of the state and the dynamic relationship between liberty and security. Legal codifications of racism and slavery, in this instance, served as a constant reminder of liberalism’s illiberal side. Consequently, Başaran stressed the necessity to look at liberalism from the margins in order to unveil the structuring procedures that were and are made invisible within the dominant liberal story.
JANE FREEDMAN (Paris) argued to situate current European border practices within the larger framework of the continent’s colonial history. As European arrangements to “secure” its borders increase the levels of insecurity for those trying to cross them, they produce traumatic experiences with violence, bodily harm and premature death being a constant risk. Informed by preconceived notions of racialized and gendered hierarchies, people on the move are portrayed as an “other” and mere objects of European engagement. Furthermore, the mass displacement of communities itself can be seen as a result of asymmetrical global power relations. Thus, the European securitization of borders, reproduces not only a Western understanding of global mobilities but also a continuum of violence in countries of origin, transit, destination, which is rooted in underlying structures of inequality.
Freedman showed that those on the move deploy a diverse set of resistance strategies like evading border patrols, studying languages and legal procedures or using attributions and categorisations for their own purposes. The fact that women, for example, are often reduced to the role of the vulnerable victim can be interpreted as a form of symbolic violence, while the concept of vulnerability can also be used strategically by the women themselves. Highlighting the agency of people on the move, Freedman not only undermined the objectification of migrants, but also addressed a vital conceptual issue. The importance of including the agency of securitized people to strengthen our appreciation of security dynamics was also emphasized by TUTKU AYHAN (Barcelona) in her research on Yezidi women in Germany and MATTHIAS VOM HAU’s (Barcelona) discussion of the secessionist movement in Catalonia.
The symposium further stressed the importance of understanding securitisation as a multi-layered and entangled process. HEIDI HEIN-KIRCHER (Marburg) used the example of Galician cities under Habsburg rule in the 19th century to show how local histories can function as a lens for an analysis of more general themes and questions, e.g. the governance of multi-ethnic societies. Cities are especially helpful in this context as they constitute places of dense communication, where people have daily experiences of their communities and the state. Using the Jewish minority as a case study, Hein-Kircher argued that Anti-Semitism could be seen as both an outcome and a tool of securitisation processes. In his discussion on security concerns revolving around Baltic Russian-speakers before and after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, JURIS PUPČENOKS (New York) demonstrated how strategies of resecuritization and desecuritization are pursued simultaneously. He also underlined the potential differences between threat perception and security perception, showing that people can both perceive a threat and feel secure at the same time.
Going even beyond the network’s main research focus on the securitization of migrants and ethnic minorities, the symposium addressed central features of contemporary politics. These included the current state of liberalism and “liberal values”. What remains of liberalism when confronted with its illiberal components? How, on the other hand, does it relate to (political) actors which are consciously branding themselves as illiberal? In addition, demands to take the legacies of colonialism and imperialism seriously have also been raised by movements like Black Lives Matter. This leaves important questions about what these legacies are and how they can be addressed, but also how we view and conceptualize colonialism and imperialism in the first place. Do we see them as a broad relation of unequal power and an epistemological phenomenon, centred around systems of knowledge and identity formation? Do we look at and investigate concrete historical situations, areas of exploitation and structures of socioeconomic inequality, the legacies and continuations of colonial violence?
Conference Overview:
Matthias vom Hau (Barcelona): Welcome, aims and outcomes of the SECUREU network
Keynote I
Chair: Matthias vom Hau
Jane Freedman (Paris): “Securitisation, Gender and Violence”
Towards synthesis I: SECUREU Activities on Migration and Security
Andrea Carlà (Bolzano): Summer School 2023 “Governing migration and migrant integration in minority regions”
Eamonn Butler McIntosh (Glasgow): Council for European Studies, Panel 2023 “The Securitization of Migration and the Role of Memory”
Tutku Ayhan (Barcelona): The intersection of gender and religion in the securitization of migration in the EU
Keynote II
Chair: Georgios Karyotis (Glasgow)
Tuğba Başaran (Cambridge): “Liberal statecraft, law and violence: Securing through legal borders”
Towards synthesis II: SECUREU Activities on diversity and ontological security
Jan Willem Duyvendak (Amsterdam): "Ontological security and
nativism"
Federica Prina (Glasgow), Andrea Carlà: CES 2023 panel and special Issue on “Ontological (In)security of Majorities”
Rita Floyd (Birmingham): “Ontological vs. societal security: Same difference or distinct concepts?”
Peter Haslinger (Marburg/Giessen): “Securitizing linguistic and ethnic diversity”
Marika Djolai (Bradford): “A Tormented nation. Ontological (in)security of the South African majority”
Discussion
Keynote III
Chair: Federica Prina
Juris Pupčenoks (New York): “Baltic Russian-speakers before and after Russia's Invasion of Ukraine: Securitization and Views on Security.”
Towards synthesis III: SECUREU Activities on the securitization of and by minorities
Tutku Ayhan / Matthias vom Hau: “Legacies of nation-building and the (de-)securitization of ethnic minorities”
Werner Distler (Groningen): “Geographies of Security”
Heidi Hein-Kircher (Marburg): “National minorities and dynamics of securitization in urban areas”
Matthias vom Hau: “Securitizing like a state. The secessionist movement in Catalonia”
Discussion: “SECUREU: Insights and Open Frontiers”
Notes:
1 See for example Jef Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU, London 2006.
2 Catarina Kinnvall / Ian Manners / Jennifer Mitzen, Introduction to 2018 special issue of European Security: “Ontological (in)security in the European Union”, in: European Security 27,3 (2018), S. 249-265.
3 Thorsten Bonacker / Horst Carl / Andreas Langenohl / Angela Marciniak, Republican Freedom and Committees of Safety. Notes on Historicization in Critical Security Studies. Journal of Global Security Studies 8,2 (2023), S.1-16.