calledges.com 
Ontological security refers to an individual's or group's sense of stability and continuity in their identity and environment, essential for psychological well-being and social order. Securitization, by contrast, is the process by which state or institutional actors frame certain issues as existential threats, legitimizing extraordinary measures beyond normal political procedures. Explore the implications and distinctions of ontological security and securitization to understand their impact on international relations and policy-making.
Main Difference
Ontological security refers to the stability of an individual's or state's self-identity and sense of continuity, emphasizing psychological and existential dimensions. Securitization is a political process where an issue is framed as an existential threat, justifying extraordinary measures beyond normal political rules. Ontological security focuses on maintaining a coherent identity over time, whereas securitization concentrates on the discursive construction of threats for political purposes. Both concepts are central in security studies but address different aspects of security: internal identity stability versus external threat management.
Connection
Ontological security refers to the stable sense of self individuals or groups maintain through consistent social environments, while securitization is the process by which state actors frame issues as existential threats to justify extraordinary measures. The connection lies in how securitization can disrupt ontological security by introducing fear and uncertainty, compelling societies to reaffirm their identities and social orders. This dynamic interplay influences policy decisions and public behavior in response to perceived security threats.
Comparison Table
| Aspect | Ontological Security | Securitization |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Ontological security refers to the stable mental state derived from a sense of continuity and order in events and identity, often related to how individuals or states maintain a consistent sense of self. | Securitization is the process by which political actors transform subjects into matters of "security," legitimizing extraordinary measures to address perceived threats. |
| Origin | Rooted in sociology and psychoanalysis, particularly the work of Anthony Giddens on the self and security. | Developed within the Copenhagen School of security studies, notably by Ole Waever and Barry Buzan. |
| Focus | Focuses on identity stability and the need for a continuous self-concept, either at individual or state level. | Focuses on speech acts and political discourse that designate issues as security threats, requiring exceptional responses. |
| Key Mechanism | Maintenance of routines and symbolic systems to reduce existential anxieties and preserve a coherent identity. | Political actors "securitize" issues by framing them rhetorically as existential threats. |
| Role in Politics | Helps explain behavior of states or groups seeking consistent identity amid uncertainty or change. | Provides a framework for understanding how political agendas prioritize certain threats and justify emergency policies. |
| Examples | States maintaining identity narratives during conflicts or crises to avoid ontological insecurity. | Government declaring immigration or terrorism as security issues to pass stricter laws. |
| Criticism | May overemphasize psychological dimensions, underplaying material factors. | Criticized for enabling political manipulation and securitization overreach. |
Ontological Security
Ontological security in politics refers to the stable mental state derived from a consistent sense of self-identity and predictable social environments for states and political actors. It emphasizes how governments prioritize maintaining continuity and control over their identity to reduce existential anxieties amid international uncertainties. Research highlights that states engage in narrative-building and symbolic actions to reinforce their ontological security, influencing foreign policy decisions and international relations. This concept is crucial for understanding behaviors in conflict zones and diplomatic negotiations, where disruptions to identity can trigger defensive political responses.
Securitization Theory
Securitization Theory, developed by Ole Waever and the Copenhagen School, examines how political actors construct certain issues as existential threats to justify extraordinary measures. The theory emphasizes the role of speech acts in transforming subjects into security concerns that transcend normal political procedures. Its application has expanded across international relations, security studies, and political analysis to understand how states and institutions frame threats like terrorism, migration, or environmental risks. Scholars analyze securitization to explore power dynamics, legitimacy, and the impact of security discourses on policy-making and societal responses.
Identity Construction
Identity construction in politics shapes how individuals and groups perceive themselves and are perceived by others, influencing political behavior and policy preferences. Political identity often aligns with factors such as ethnicity, nationality, religion, and social class, creating a sense of belonging and collective purpose. This construction is reinforced through political rhetoric, media representation, and institutional frameworks that delineate in-groups and out-groups. Understanding identity construction helps explain political polarization, party alignment, and the mobilization of social movements.
Existential Threat
Existential threat in politics refers to risks or dangers that could fundamentally undermine or destroy a nation, political system, or civilization. Examples include nuclear war, climate change, and global pandemics, each capable of causing widespread societal collapse. Political strategies often focus on mitigation, defense, and international cooperation to manage these threats. Understanding existential threats is crucial for policymakers to ensure national security and long-term stability.
Speech Act
Speech acts in politics function as strategic tools to influence public opinion, frame policy agendas, and assert authority. Politicians use various speech acts such as promises, commitments, declarations, and threats to shape legislative outcomes and diplomatic relations. The effectiveness of these acts depends on their performative force, context, and the perceived credibility of the speaker within political institutions. Understanding speech act theory provides insight into political communication, negotiation tactics, and power dynamics in governance.
Source and External Links
The Pitfalls of Conflating Ontological and Physical Security - This article distinguishes between ontological and physical security, highlighting how securitization can impact both forms of security by framing threats differently.
Routines Die Hard: Ontological Security and Audience Agency in Securitisation - This piece explores how ontological security, through everyday routines, influences audience reactions to securitization processes.
(De)securitization and Ontological Security - This paper examines how the US elite attempted to re-establish ontological security following the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan.
FAQs
What is ontological security?
Ontological security is the stable mental state derived from a consistent sense of self-identity and the predictability of one's social and physical environment.
What is securitization in security studies?
Securitization in security studies is the process by which state actors transform subjects into matters of security through speech acts, enabling extraordinary measures to address perceived existential threats.
How does ontological security differ from physical security?
Ontological security refers to a person's or entity's stable sense of identity and continuity over time, while physical security focuses on protection against tangible threats to bodily safety or physical assets.
What are the main goals of securitization?
The main goals of securitization are to improve liquidity by converting illiquid assets into marketable securities, transfer credit risk from originators to investors, reduce funding costs, diversify funding sources, and enhance balance sheet management.
How does ontological security influence state behavior?
Ontological security influences state behavior by driving states to maintain a consistent identity and predictable routines, which shapes their foreign policy decisions and responses to international uncertainty.
Can securitization impact ontological security?
Securitization can impact ontological security by shaping collective identity and existential stability through framing existential threats and justifying extraordinary measures.
Why are ontological security and securitization important in international relations?
Ontological security stabilizes states' identities and behaviors, while securitization enables the framing of issues as existential threats, justifying extraordinary measures in international relations.