Hi, there!
Hope that the news section on the right had somehow filled the absence of posts.
Next month, I plan to concentrate in the theoretical section of my research while I exchange ideas some where in Europe - if volcanoes allow us. Thus, there are tons of papers I must read before leaving, so I thought it would be a nice opportunity to use this space. Here is the first try:
+ Gasper & Truong (2008) "Development Ethics through the lenses of Caring, Gender, and Human Security" And Gasper & Truong (2005) "Deepening Development Ethics: From Economism to Human Development to Human Security"
Both papers attempt to establish a common ground to enhance human security through development ethics, partly based in the latter characteristics, and partly in the holes on human development theory that human security has the opportunity to cover. From this composed view, the authors provide the following description of the concept:
‘human security’ is a return to the substantive agenda of basic human needs, but better grounded in an ethnography of the risks and pressures, hopes and fears, of ordinary lives rather than only an abstracted accounting of deficiencies or an elevated language of opportunities.
There are two elements to comment about in this depiction. First, the contextual sense entailed by human security is given top importance. Through the paper, the authors underscore this characteristic under the light of its substantive content, opposed to a reductionist understanding of the human, and the consequent necessity of deep understanding of the populations studies. This characteristic helps the authors to bridge feminist theory and the ethics of care, a branch of ethics that also supports situated ethics, and situated knowledge, as necessary to reference the principles of caring. Some values derived from the ethics of care cited in the article are attentiveness, responsiveness and responsibility, which authors relate to citizenship, though it would be interesting to explore how those transform security in a positive endeavor.
The other element that is key in the description of the concept is the importance conferred to "hopes and fears", which I associate to the subjective side of security and perception. This element is present in many sections of the paper, supporting criticisms to human development as "the danger that thinking can be displaced by counting", or them importance of highlight ethics and perceptions as well as objectives in initiatives as the MDGs. Authors affirm that human security requires an methodological broadening, in order to include emotive dimensions, and propose the arts and the humanities as possible sources. In this sense, it will be interesting to explore the recent advances in perception that have been discussed in economics, or the experience of criminology addressing fear.
There are several references in the works about identity that are still to be threaded together in a more harmonic way. Concepts as ontological security, the conception of self, belonging are part of the complements that ethics has to offer to an over protective vision of security. However, it has not being considered how do the threats define the individual or the community, and the possible positive or negative consequences of this definition, something already observed by some authors from security studies (Civilizing, Booth). An additional question that emerges with the issue of identity is the boundary of what should be considered security. Some concern is express about the problem of co-option of human security by the psychic insecurities of the rich, but not discussed whether the psychic insecurities are relevant at all. This problem of levels is somehow considered while explaining how feminist bridge from the personal to the political, but a critical appreciation of this transition is well deserved.
It is not very clear the authors' position regarding democracy. On the one hand they straightly criticize Sen's maxim about famines and democracies, noting that the latter does not increase sympathy nor willingness to help, elements that the authors regard as important as the information flow behind Sen's stand. Nonetheless, on the other hand, the authors keep supporting democracy in the rest of the paper. Most probably, their position is one of "necessary but not sufficient", though it will be interesting to contrast the position with views as the one of Kaldor (2008), who does not conceive democracy as a requisite for human security as long as there is political stability.
Finally, I have some concerns about the tensions among academic disciplines that emerge through the analysis proposed from the development ethics perspective. As it is expected, the authors have to deal with the broad range of expertise that contributes to development studies: economics, international relations, politics, sociology, and so. Research in the field does not even fix in just one discipline, and mixed theories are common - and appreciated. However, when issues like the people-centeredness or context specificity of human security are at stake, I think it is vital to leave clear the deep ontological differences that condition the knowledge produced. In other words, I have problems to lambaste distorted visions of the "human" derived from theories that have as referent "the state", or other entities, without pointing out the initial limitations the starting point ensues. For example, it is somehow problematic when the argumentation jumps from the contextual requirements of caring - i.e. personal encounters - to care as a moral orientation for global social justice, without a more elaborated quilting in the middle. again an issue of level, now from the outer realms to the micro-politics of the population of the selected context. More elaboration in this boundaries will be of help to better understand the positive side of (human) security.