|
|
 The Sources of Insecurity Network
Global-Local Database entry for
Sources of Insecurity Network Collaborators
The research nodes of the network are formed at the intersection
of two levels of collaboration, the institutional and the intellectual.
At the institutional level we have a range of individuals situated in
research institutes and centres involved in the network.
At the intellectual level we have clusters of researchers
who are working within the scope of each of the network’s research themes around the country
and around the world.
In a practical sense
these two levels intersect at the point where the
representatives
of the network’s research themes are based.
At the moment all the representatives of the research themes are at Australian
institutions.
While this is still a work in progress, several of the theme
representatives have been able to provide a prospectus of how the theme
with which they are associated fits into the overall framework of the
network. In particular they make clear the strengths that will be lent
to their field by working collaboratively across a network, and how that
will enhance both current research and the possibilities for future research
opportunities.
Theme: Nations, National Identity and Security
A key feature of most international conflict today is that it is not strictly ‘international’, at least in the conventional meaning of the term. That is to say conflict and resulting insecurity does not generally result from a breakdown in inter-national or inter-state relations. Most conflicts occur between non-state actors and are staged within or across national borders. The shift is reflected, for instance, in the dramatic retooling of state military forces, especially in high-income countries, to undertake peace-making or peace-keeping roles.
If it is indeed the case that the most severe instances of insecurity result from intra-state conflict then any inquiry into the sources of insecurity must look to non-state sources. The focus of this thematic group is on these non-state sources, and primarily on inter-cultural, rather than social or economic factors. We are particularly concerned with relationships between territory and identity, and in the collisions that arise between contending communalist and/or nationalist identifications.
In the immediate post-Cold War era there was a flowering of academic
research into the logic of nationalism. In many cases it was argued
the Cold War ideological ‘overlay’ had either accentuated or displaced
nationalism and nationalist conflicts. Territorial and ideological
realignments proliferated in ‘transitional’ post-communist societies
and in zones of former Cold War rivalry, creating an intense debate
about the role of nationalism. By the late 1990s this concern with
nationalism had subsided somewhat with the burgeoning literature on
transnationalism, deterritorialisation and globalisation. Since the
2001 attacks on New York and Washington, and the so-called ‘War on
Terror’, the focus has returned again to issues of territoriality
and identity, with a special concern for communualist and religious
identification.
The objective of this thematic group is to chart an emerging research paradigm connecting issues of territoriality, identity and insecurity. The central purpose is to bring together scholars and practitioners to address insecurities caused by nationalist, communalist and other inter-cultural conflicts. We aim to bring together diverse perspectives on these issues, informing current concerns about religious and communal conflict with debates about the role of nationalism and other forms of cultural identification.
A framing issue is the one of whether territoriality should be seen
as cause or symptom of insecurity. Do people embrace national exclusivism
and territoriality as a response or reaction to insecurities generated
elsewhere? Or is territorial identification, and conflict around it,
the primary cause of insecurity. More broadly, is the world of globalised
flows threatened by nationalism and communalism? Different answers
to these questions yield different perspectives on how to proceed.
Perhaps it is the affiliation to locality, nation or community that
drives conflict and creates insecurity–in which case the policy response
must be to supersede such affiliations. Or perhaps such affiliations
are the bedrock of security, that offer peoples a firm framework for
existence in a world of volatility and uncertainty.
More constructively, perhaps, we may ask whether and how territorial
identifications can be configured to foster human security. Under
what circumstance is territorial identification–such as identification
with a nation–a source of security? Equally–what is it that creates
those circumstances?
Dr James Goodman, UTS
|
 |
 |
| Sources of Insecurity ©Copyright
2004 |
|
