In this lecture, we will introduce the course structure and content. We will then briefly introduce security studies and war studies as fields and delve a bit deeper into the question of criticality, using critical security studies as our point of entry.

Study questions:

Peoples, Columba & Nick Vaughan-Williams (2021) write about the metaphor of 'the map' in making sense of the field of critical security studies. Explain the main ways of 'mapping' the field that they present; what, according to them, might be some of the benefits and 'drawbacks' of such mapping exercises?
Explain the four security questions presented in Williams, Paul and McDonald, Matt (2018). How might we see the different answers to these questions as political, that is, having to do with power?
Choose a 'commentary' in Salter et al. (2019). Summarize and reflect on the main argument presented.
Stavrianakis and Stern (2018) argue that militarism and security-- as concepts-- do different analytical and political work. Discuss some of these differences.

Mandatory Reading:

Peoples, Columba & Nick Vaughan-Williams (2021). Chapter 1: “Introduction: Mapping critical security studies and travelling without maps” in Columba Peoples & Nick Vaughan-Williams. Critical Security Studies. An Introduction. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.
Williams, Paul and McDonald, Matt (2018). ”An Introduction to Security Studies” in Paul Williams and Matt McDonald (Ed), Security Studies. An Introduction, 3rd edition. London: Routledge.
Salter, Mark B, et al. “Horizon Scan: Critical Security Studies for the next 50 Years.” Security Dialogue 50, no. 4_suppl (August 2019): 9–37. doi:10.1177/0967010619862912.
Stavrianakis, Anna. and Stern, Maria. (2018) ‘Militarism and security: Dialogue, possibilities and limits’,Security Dialogue, 49(1–2), pp. 3–18. doi: 1177/0967010617748528.

Maria Stern

Previous pp on security

today's powerpoint