the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

218 widening and deepening securityPoststructuralismPoststructuralism was already, like Feminism, a distinct approach duringthe Cold War. As chapter 5 laid out, Poststructuralism was highlycritical of the way in which Strategic Studies had adopted a state-centricmilitary conception of security without problematising the historical,normative and political implications that, Poststructuralists held, wereembedded in this concept. Yet Poststructuralists also constituted themselvesas indebted to the Classical Realist tradition and, like Realism,argued that state sovereignty and security were not easily transformed.The parallels between Poststructuralism and Realism meant, furthermore,that while Constructivists had come to security mainly through generalIR debates, Poststructuralists had been engaged in debates on peace andsecurity since the early 1980s. Although critical of Western security policies,Cold War Poststructuralism had always maintained the possibilityof rethinking security, and hence was not faced by the crisis of traditionalapproaches when the Cold War ended. However, the ending of the ColdWar was, if not a ‘meta-event’, then at least a constitutive event that threwsome of its central analytical assumptions into question.The most important challenge that Poststructuralism confronted comingout of the Cold War was whether states needed enemies. The centraltext in this debate was Campbell’s study of American discourses of dangerfrom ‘its’ discovery to the end of the Cold War. Campbell’s Writing Security(1992) explicitly foregrounded the importance of the Other – thatis the construction of states, groups and other non-Selves – arguing thatwhile state identity could in principle be constituted through relations ofdifference, in reality the pressure to turn difference into radical, threateningOtherness was overwhelming (Connolly, 1991: 64–65, 209–210;Campbell, 1992: 55; Klein, 1994). ‘Security’ thus became an ontologicaldouble requirement: the state needed to be secure, but it also needed thethreatening Other to define its identity, thereby giving it ontological security.The problem with Campbell’s conception was, argued (sympathetic)critics, that it reified state identity (‘the state needs enemies’) and that iteffectively adopted the same view of the state as did Realism (‘the state issurrounded by potential enemies’). Both perspectives assumed an ontologicalinseparability between states and enemies, and a conception of theOther as monolithic and dangerous (Neumann, 1996a; Milliken, 1999:94; Rumelili, 2004; Hansen, 2006: 38–39). Methodologically, the problemof assuming state identity as radical Otherness was that, if this was takento be the only form of identity that states could adopt, this would be what