Concept group 1: Temporality and Securitization
second funding stage (2018-2021)
On the one hand, the concept group’s approach is based on the securitization concept extended by the SFB in its first funding phase, which especially highlights the capability to historicize the concept of securitization and elaborates the analytical terminology for the historical reconstruction of “Dynamics of Security” (definition of situation, heuristics, security repertoire). This concept defines the process how security developed throughout history and under which circumstances they gain access to political processes. On the other hand, the concept group follows the findings of the first funding stage concept group “Securitization and perceptions of the future” (Kampmann/ Marciniak/ Meteling 2017) which indicated the necessity to broaden the scope of research from “Future and Securitization” towards “Temporality and Securitization”. Not only concepts concerned with the future, but all notions of past, present and future and their possible developments in historical change are to be considered. The ideal-typical agent acts, firstly, assured that decisions taken in the present will influence the future and secondly, in the knowledge that decisions reached in the past determine the present. Thus, the past may also be negotiated in terms of futurity and is encoded in contemporary directives for action. This dualism of anticipation and recourse finds expression in the political communication of different groups of agents and is also subject to historical change. Concomitantly, agents understand security-oriented action as order-establishing (action) thereby objectivizing it as a gain of security in political communication. These observations lead to the concept group’s interest in temporality and time regimes, which have been developed and communicated within historic societies in order to adjust to change and temporal evolvement. Conversely, we assume that concurrent security concepts become apparent in conflicting modalization of time. Therefore the concept group’s work starts out from the parallelism of different, at times possibly competing time modalizations and asks how they are respectively encoded in situational definitions, security heuristics and repertoires. In doing so, we also address an idea which emerged during the first funding phase and which we conceptualized in the term of security paradox (see also Landwehr 2017): the refinement of security repertoires with a view to control the future often induce not a sense of security but rather insecurity in political communication (cf. Wendland 2017). However, some examples demonstrate that these communicative processes may be successful (cf. Kampmann 2017) and thus have a lasting effect. Accordingly, the concept group’s work aims to capture dynamics of (allegedly) successful security communication as modellings of time and at the same time wants to reveal discontinuities and contradictions within these processes. Thus central emphasis is put on the interrelation between securitization, order and different strategies for future management. Order, which is perceived, defined and implemented quite differently by varying groups of agents, can be understood as an important element of security conceptions and may also be circumscribed in terms of security heuristics. The same is true for political courses of action which aim to eliminate future insecurities and generate predictability by means of planning, calculating risks and prevention. We deem it necessary to systematize the various entanglements of security, order and temporality especially in view of the perceptions of different fields of study as history, sociology and political science. The aspect of temporality, in particular, enables us to focus on the relation of security and complementary concepts (risk, prevention etc.) as well as to renegotiate the correlation of (dis)order and securitization. The majority of relevant historical literature holds the opinion that disorder was continuously securitized throughout the premodern period, whereas order signified security. The question arises whether this gives justice to central development processes or if systems - conveying false securities - were perceived as security problems at crucial moments in time which then had to be overcome for the sake of security. This is strongly linked to the question regarding the historical recourse of future systems e.g. to an order declared as being natural.