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

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

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

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

Identification and Habitus

The ontological safety perspective’s give attention to the actors’ have to really feel as if they’ve steady identities is impressed by the psychoanalysis of Ronald Laing in ‘Self and Others’ (Laing 1960) and the sociology of Anthony Giddens in ‘Modernity and Self-Identification’ (Giddens 1991).[11] By conflating self with identification, the idea of ontological security-seeking is commonly lowered to considerations of identification preservation, arguing that “people have to really feel safe in who they’re, as identities or selves.[12]” Based on Mitzen, the power to expertise oneself as a complete, steady individual in time is essential in an effort to understand a way of company.[13] The truth is, it will be significant that people have assured expectations concerning the means-ends relationships to know the right way to act as a result of they know what to anticipate in return.[14] Briefly, identification is each sustained by motion and essential for motion. An essential element for identification stability is what Giddens has referred to as a “primary belief system.[15]” Primary belief is taken into account as essential for ontological safety because it refers to a sure sense of confidence within the nature of the world and thereby additionally to 1’s personal actions. What’s essential to notice right here, is that this primary belief system in addition to the person’s sense of its capability for company occurs outdoors the extent of acutely aware selection.[16]

In distinction, adopting a Bourdieusian strategy, the Paris College argues that company is influenced by a person’s “habitus”. Nonetheless, much like the identification and primary belief component of the ontological safety strategy, the habitus refers to a semi-conscious orientation that people should the world, which kinds a foundation for follow.[17] Furthermore, as Bourdieu describes it himself, the habitus is “a system of sturdy, transposable inclinations, which integrates previous experiences and features at each second as a matrix of notion, appreciation, and motion […].[18]” Tendencies could embody bodily orientations, for instance methods of standing or talking but in addition a set of moral precepts or behavioural inclinations. Bourdieu typically refers to it as a “really feel for the sport,[19]” that somebody “simply is aware of” what to do in a sure sort of state of affairs.

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

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

The Function of the State

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

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

Nonetheless, Bigo admits that the realm of safety professionals is dominated by professionals from public establishments, reminiscent of police and the army.[30] It will due to this fact be unsuitable to assert that the Paris College doesn’t attribute any position to the state of their idea of safety. Bigo would possibly argue that it’s not tenable to keep up the classical notion of the state due to the transnationalization of police and army bureaucracies, nevertheless, by adopting a Foucauldian strategy of governmentality, the Paris College nonetheless highlights the facility of the state and the top-down strategy of securitization that’s much like the top-down strategy of Mitzen’s and Steele’s ontological security-seeking of the state. Moreover, in considered one of Bigo’s earlier texts revealed in Tradition & Conflit, he acknowledged the position that state identification has performed for the American coverage response to 9/11 and worldwide terrorism extra usually.[31] He said that in that context, the self-representation of the USA as a mannequin of democracy has not solely performed an important position within the building of the enemy after 9/11 but in addition of their safety technique after the assaults, in addition to of their seek for allies within the struggle in opposition to terrorism.

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

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

Nervousness and Unease in World Politics

Other than the overlap on the subject of the influence of identification and habitus on securitization processes, the 2 approaches to safety present one other similarity which considerations their give attention to insecurity in addition to their assumption of a common feeling of hysteria and unease in world politics.

Mitzen and Bigo’s world of hysteria and unease will not be the primary formulation of the necessity to suppose safety by way of insecurity and/or uncertainty. Reviewing the monographs of Mary Kaldor, Mark Duffield and Frank Furedi from 2007,[33] Chandler observes a theoretic shift of the safety problematic from safety – “the inter-state risk of conflict” – to insecurity “the everlasting threat of instability.[34]” On the identical time, Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase word that there was a semantic shift after the tip of the Chilly Conflict of the sort of hazard that safety coverage addresses. It’s not extra concerning the avoidance of threats, however the administration of dangers that dominate the safety agenda.[35] This in flip contributes to a previous, multidisciplinary debate on ‘threat society’ that first emerged within the discipline of sociology within the late Eighties with Ulrich Beck as a distinguished consultant of the idea. Beck claimed that we now stay in a “threat society, a society during which there are uncontrollable and unpredictable risks in opposition to which insurance coverage is not possible.[36]

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

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

Lastly, the ontological safety strategy adopts the (in)safety terminology just like the Paris College, though this will solely be present in newer works on the European Union (EU).[43] Moreover, Browning and Joenniemi state that authors like Mitzen in addition to Rumelili have at all times empirically focussed on ontological insecurity relatively than ontological safety by in the beginning analysing circumstances the place actors leak a wholesome sense of primary belief.[44] One can due to this fact conclude that each faculties are analytically focussing on the query, “What does insecurity do?”, in distinction to, “What’s safety?” Moreover, each Giddens and Mitzen, in addition to Bourdieu and the Paris College, acknowledge the significance of stability for a person in addition to for states in a increasingly insecure world.

The Administration of Nervousness and Unease by means of Routinized Practices

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

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

This assumption of sensible, non-representational logics is the premise of Bourdieu’s habitus and Giddens’ ontological security-seeking. Mitzen’s and Bigo’s give attention to unconscious routines and practices can due to this fact be understood as a part of this idea of follow in social science. Based on Mitzen, the mechanism producing primary belief and thereby ontological safety is routinization primarily based on social interactions, which makes social life and the self knowable and reduces uncertainty.[52] Routines have usually two features: first, a cognitive perform, which is offering people with information of the world and of the right way to act and second, an emotional perform which is saving people from feeling deep worry of chaos.[53] As a result of routines present certainty, people can get connected to them. Utilized to the state degree, Mitzen argues that states can develop into connected to sure routines which could perpetuate bodily insecurity however maintain identification and thereby present ontological safety.[54] In such a state of affairs, it’s troublesome to unravel the safety dilemma due to states’ attachment to generally very harmful routines. Furthermore, for the ontological safety strategy, routines are sometimes unconsciously drawn from the cultural discipline that people inhabit.[55] This in flip corresponds with the idea of the Paris College, that people usually search to perpetuate sure practices which are a part of their habitus.

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

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

EU Migration Governance as Administration of Nervousness and Unease

Lastly, this final part now goals to show that Mitzen and the Paris College may be greatest reconciled on the subject of the case of the securitization of migration within the EU, sharing an analogous understanding of EU migration governance as a case of administration of hysteria and unease which ends up in a selected type of governmentality primarily based on narratives and routines.

Kinnvall, Manners and Mitzen state that the best safety challenges that folks throughout Europe these days face are for instance those associated to sovereign debt and monetary austerity, the rise of populist far-right events throughout Europe, uncertainty a couple of doable disintegration of the EU because of Brexit, and refugees coming from totally different conflictual areas reminiscent of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. The truth is, what’s behind these challenges are deeper insecurities about financial prospects, social well-being and a widespread worry that the EU will be unable to search out options to those modern challenges in world politics.[59] Equally, Bigo and Guild observe that the professionals of safety are increasingly perceiving the world as a world insecurity system.[60]

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

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

Regardless that each acknowledge the facility of narratives, the Paris College in addition to the ontological safety strategy attribute an much more essential position to routines and practices for the securitization of migration. Mitzen argues that “EU member states search ontological safety by means of routinising relations with their main strategic companions.[68]” The truth is, European identification is constituted by a sure session reflex and intra-European routines of multilateral safety cooperation. The Paris College is analysing these routines on the degree of the safety professionals. Based on Bigo, Bonditti and Olsson, routines of management and surveillance of people, in addition to of alternate of know-how and mass-data between and inside EU member states is on the core of the administration of unease on the subject of migration.[69]

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

Conclusion

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

Though, the broader intention of this essay was to provide a primary perception into the overlaps of the 2 approaches to safety, this essay additionally acknowledges that there are elements of their conceptualization of safety that will make it relatively troublesome to reconcile them. This considerations, for instance, the robust focus of the Paris College on the notion of the transnational discipline of safety professionals in addition to on Foucault’s governmentality and using applied sciences, whereas the ontological safety strategy is relatively focussing on the emotional and psychological implications of threats to identification. Nonetheless, Mitzen herself admits that a lot work stays to be accomplished on the idea of ontological safety, as an example on the operationalisation of the modes of routinization.[72] This essay due to this fact means that this could be a purpose to think about the work of Bigo and different students of the Paris College, who already performed substantial analysis on the operationalisation of safety practices.

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., p. 345.

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

[16] Ibid.

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

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

[19] Ibid., p. 275

[20] Ibid., p. 274.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[30] Ibid.

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

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

[33] See Kaldor, M. Human Safety: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention (Polity, London, 2007); Duffield, M. Improvement, Safety and Endless Conflict: Governing the World of Peoples (Coverage, London, 2007), Furedi, F. Invitation to Terror: The Increasing Empire of the Unknown (Continuum, London, 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[42] Ibid.

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

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

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

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., p. 258.

[48] Ibid., p. 257.

[49] Ibid., p. 258.

[50] Ibid., p. 267.

[51] Ibid., p. 269.

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

[53] Ibid., p. 347.

[54] Ibid., p. 354.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63] Bigo and Guild, Policing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations