The View from (T)Here: Perspectives on Security

Abstract The field of security studies largely focuses its gaze on the security provider without consideration of how security practice is perceived as legitimate by those it is meant to protect. This article presents a framework for categorizing how security is understood based on two viewpoints: first, the core responsibility of the state for providing protection and, second, the universality of rights beyond one’s core identity group. These two angles shape a person’s worldview, which then informs how different forms of security practice are seen as legitimate by those who constitute the referent object of that practice. In this article, we offer security studies scholars and practitioners a sorting tool that categorizes these worldviews in four ways: statist, federalist, nativist, and cosmopolitan. We examine each of these four categories and discuss how each perspective shapes practice by so-called security providers and the legitimacy of that practice by referent populations. We introduce four illustrative examples that demonstrate how these perspectives operate in practice. Finally, we discuss the implications of varied security perspectives as they relate to the current global security architecture.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Global Security Studies
Published
2024-10-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogae042
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.23
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The View from (T)Here: Perspectives on Security

David R. Andersen‐Rodgers, Kerry F. Crawford
1 citations
Journal of Global Security Studies
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
2.23
article

The View from (T)Here: Perspectives on Security

David R. Andersen‐Rodgers, Kerry F. Crawford
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract The field of security studies largely focuses its gaze on the security provider without consideration of how security practice is perceived as legitimate by those it is meant to protect. This article presents a framework for categorizing how security is understood based on two viewpoints: first, the core responsibility of the state for providing protection and, second, the universality of rights beyond one’s core identity group. These two angles shape a person’s worldview, which then informs how different forms of security practice are seen as legitimate by those who constitute the referent object of that practice. In this article, we offer security studies scholars and practitioners a sorting tool that categorizes these worldviews in four ways: statist, federalist, nativist, and cosmopolitan. We examine each of these four categories and discuss how each perspective shapes practice by so-called security providers and the legitimacy of that practice by referent populations. We introduce four illustrative examples that demonstrate how these perspectives operate in practice. Finally, we discuss the implications of varied security perspectives as they relate to the current global security architecture.

Journal of Global Security StudiesVol. 9(4)
James Madison University (US), California State University, Sacramento (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Global Peace and Security Dynamics
2.23
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The View from (T)Here: Perspectives on Security — David R. Andersen‐Rodgers, Kerry F. Crawford · Journal of Global Security Studies (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS