See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341277625

Security State

Article · May 2020

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_126-1

CITATIONS READS

0 1,524

2 authors, including:

Salvador Santino Jr Regilme

Leiden University
87 PUBLICATIONS 424 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Salvador Santino Jr Regilme on 10 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cite as:
Regilme S.S.F., Beller B. (2020) Security State. In: Romaniuk S., Thapa M., Marton
P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham

Security State
Security State particularly by not employing violent and coer-
Salvador Santino F. Regilme, Jr. and Beate Beller cive modes of control in order to provide such
History and International Studies, Institute for public goods. Domestically, a security state may
History, Leiden University, Leiden, The frame a particular group of individuals – for exam-
Netherlands ple, users and traffickers of illegal drugs – as an
existential threat to state and public security. In so
Keywords doing, while a non-security state, in principle,
State · Security · Violence · Securitization · may treat the proliferation of illegal drug use as
Coercion a public health menace that primarily requires
non-militaristic approaches, a security state,
meanwhile, may employ police and military
Introduction forces to implement an intensified and violent
state crackdown of drug users and traffickers.
Security state refers to the mode of the state, Transnationally, the 9/11 attacks and the policy
particularly when it wholeheartedly posits the responses of American leaders since then facili-
importance of defending and maintaining its onto- tated the expansion of the security state, which
logical existence from perceived threats within now includes a vast security apparatus responsible
and beyond its claimed territorial as well as sub- for surveillance, intelligence gathering, and
stantive spheres of influence. A security state counterterror operations – all of which operate
ensures the intensification and enhancement of within and beyond United States borders (Priest
its instruments of political violence, repression, and Arkin 2011).
and coercion as a core strategic response to an
overall perception of increasing threat within its
domestic territory and from outside its borders. Defining State and Security
A security state places all other non-militaristic
policy concerns – including economic develop- The academic discipline of security studies deals
ment, social services, public health, etc. – under with the fundamental questions of security and
the overarching goal of military security. On the organized violence, with states as the traditional
other hand, absent such a perceived existential holders of legitimized form of violence in many
threat, a non-security state may proceed in its political communities worldwide. The role of the
regular state of affairs, particularly by treating state as the object as well as the provider of secu-
each non-militaristic policy concerns as they are, rity has thereby been one of the central debates in
the field. For traditional security scholars, the field
S. Romaniuk et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_126-1
2 Security State

of security studies focuses mainly on the realm of Bryan Mabee (2003) criticizes that a historical
interstate war and the use of military force abroad. understanding of the state fails to consider that
Consequently, the main concentration of the field its setup is subject to change and modification.
was on the deployment of military forces outside Furthermore, there might arise a variety of differ-
the state for purposes of expansionism or military ent expectations and connotations regarding the
defense (Mabee 2003). The attention to non- state and state power as such. This is particularly
traditional security issues and threats has reshaped relevant when state making is associated with a
the field as a whole and provided new perspec- historicity of violence such as colonization or
tives and areas of inquiries. This alteration in the contentious in terms of its geographic or political
approach to security studies suggests that security makeup. As with other concepts, there exists a
is an important but only partial element in terms of certain difficulty to generalize about the security
state functions and responsibilities. state as there remains a discrepancy in terms of the
The conceptualization of security has seen a theoretical idea and its implementation in various
remarkable reorientation after the Cold War as the differing political contexts.
end of the bipolar world order gave rise to critical
voices claiming that threats to national security go
beyond the military sphere. Issues such as terror- The Weberian State and the Provision of
ism, international crime, or drug smuggling but Security
likewise environmental degradation, climate
change, epidemics, and the trafficking of humans Max Weber’s definition of the state places an
might be considered as threats to a state’s emphasis on the “monopoly of the means of phys-
security. Notably, this change implies a ical violence” within a “territorially demarcated
transformation of the field regarding security as a area” (see Mann 1984). It is argued that this
broader, multiplex realm that involves not only monopoly of violence stems from the state’s
states but also indi- viduals, groups, and capacity to provide protection to its citizenry.
networks. It has furthermore stimulated Further scholars on state making such as Michael
discussions of who is to be protected by security Mann (1984) break down Weber’s original defi-
measures and who is to provide the security nition into more differentiated elements. Not only
desired. Therefore, the diversification of security the legitimate use of physical violence is central to
threats has enlarged the field of security studies the concept of the state but also its more
and went hand in hand with an expanded notion encompassing institutional arrangements. Mann
of security referents. distinguishes between despotic and infrastructural
This shift in the traditional agenda of security powers of the state in which the former describes a
studies is crucial in understanding the emergence situation in which a state elite acts in neglect of the
of the security state. This concept refers to a more demands of civil society. Infrastructural power, on
extensive internal security agenda by the state the other hand, is connoted more positively with
exemplified by intensified patrolling, policing, the state’s ability to arbitrate social relations.
surveillance, and militarization of the domestic The twentieth century paved the way for the
sphere. Thus, while interstate war is diminishing, rise of the modern national security state, which
domestic state policing is argued to be on the rise. must not be confused with the concept of the
Regarding this development, Peter Andreas and security state of the twenty-first century. In regard
Richard Price (2001) add that security concerns in to this notion of national security, the state
a security state are moving from the previous expands its power over its citizenry and thereby
focus on external warfighting with other states to becomes the main entity of security provision. In
an ongoing practice of internal crime fighting. return, the citizenry of the state is offered a variety
Lastly, the conceptualization of the state and of rights and protection as well as social and
the process of state making is an ongoing devel- physical goods. This form of state organization
opment closely related and determined by tempo- is usually associated with the development of the
ral, geographic, historical, and political factors.
Security State 3

welfare state. In terms of security studies, the idea control are increasingly being subjected to the
of a national security state entails the defense of coercive agencies of the state, including the mili-
the state against external threats as well as ensur- tary and intelligence agencies – an outcome that
ing a satisfactory level of domestic well-being ultimately expands the state’s range of control
(Mabee 2003). However, there exists a trade-off over its citizens and subjects as well as enhances
between the provision of security by the state on the capabilities for organized violence.
the one hand and citizens’ rights and freedoms on The 9/11 attacks in the United States not only
the other. The topic of how security provision by motivated the dramatic expansion of the Ameri-
the state should look like and to which extent it is can security state but also intensified the interest
legitimate is open to debate and contestation. of scholars in studying the causes and conse-
The process of securitization leads to a situa- quences of the expansion of security states world-
tion in which issues usually not associated with wide, particularly when counterterrorism has been
security questions are now interpreted in this con- used to justify an increase in the level of state
text (Regilme 2018). As a result, a trend evolves repression. This increase in state repression and
in which even ordinary members of society think ultimately the proliferation of security states in
and act more and more in terms of security con- many polities worldwide profoundly undermined
siderations and public protection arguably at the civil liberties and human rights. The emphasis on
cost of civil rights and liberties. This development militaristic approaches to public policy illustrates
produces a condition in which an increasingly the paradigm of coercive and punitive gover-
more regulatory and controlling state is widely nance, which also includes co-opting the justice
accepted as a necessary means to ensure public system in ways that they systematically and
order and security (Zedner 2010). The curtailment unduly punish individuals and groups deemed as
of civil liberties and intrusion into the private security threats (Hallsworth and Lea 2011).
sphere is facilitated by a sense of insecurity and
fear spurred by international terrorism and per-
ceived ascending crime rates. This also affects The National and Transnational Dimensions
the domestic use of force by states whereby an of the Security State
increased militarization of public spaces can be
observed. A security state usually harnesses various instru-
A security state’s deployment of coercion and ments of violence and repressive policies in order
influence also permeates the sphere of the civil to fight crime, terrorism, poverty, and other public
society. It exceeds a Weberian notion of the policy issues. In a lot of ways, a security state
“monopoly of legitimate violence” toward a places traditionally non-militaristic issues as part
state’s deep penetration and management of of an overarching counterterror or military secu-
vari- ous aspects of public life. The national rity strategy. As criminal law theory suggests, a
security or welfare state that has emerged in the form of “enemy penology” emerges that privi-
aftermath of the Second World War is now leges the pursuit of security against those deemed
argued to be replaced by a more coercive form dangerous or persistently defiant. Part of this
of state gover- nance. In view of this, the development includes the prospective punishment
traditional paradigm of security becomes of suspects, disproportionate measures for the
interwoven in various forms of domestic security sake of security and a hoped-for deterrent effect,
strategies. A main characteristic of the security as well as the departure from conventional proce-
state is thus a shift in a state’s organization of dure protection. Such preemptive criminalization
violence. Particularly, security states is based on suspicious activity or speech for which
dramatically adopt a more extensive domes- tic the most commonly referred examples are terror-
security agenda involving an intensified penal ist suspects (Zedner 2010). However, this method
system and police and military apparatus. In many in criminal law commences to transcend other
ways, traditionally non-militaristic issues such as areas in which citizens are considered as
urban crimes, poverty, immigration, and border
4 Security State

presumptive enemies and become targets of con- states such as the United States. The conceptual
tainment and regulation. In that sense, the distinction between external and internal security
“enemy population” constitutes those who are has been blurred: as techniques usually associated
deemed dangerous or irrelevant to the security with domestic policing continue to be adopted in
state, including those engaged in criminal or the external security strategies, while militaristic
antisocial behavior, drug addicts, the homeless, approaches from an external security paradigm
the unem- ployed individuals, as well as begin to be deployed in domestic security man-
undocumented migrants. agement. Andreas and Price (2001, p. 45) stress
The security state deploys an intensified sur- that the military paradigm is introduced to
veillance system that is legitimized by a state of national policing strategies and “the deployment
exception often following disruptive incidents of US armed forced abroad has also increasingly
such as terror attacks. Consequently, the entire resembled policing rather than traditional soldier-
population is subjected to intensified levels of ing,” particularly in the war on drugs, whereby the
control and policing. These interventions of the American military became more heavily involved
state in certain areas of public life are in international law enforcement operations.
implemented with the help of intelligence services The war on drugs has substantially contributed
and surveillance technology. A state-led form of to the emergency of the security state in the United
intensified social control over individuals and States, both on a domestic level as well as
groups along with the deployment of punishment concerning their foreign policy with their south-
as a form of governance strategy highlights some ern neighboring countries (Andreas and Price
of the most problematic aspects of the security 2001). The “tough on crime” rhetoric and the
state. The infringement of civil liberties and rights reproduction of societal problems of inequality
as an accepted outcome of the advancement of the have led to coercive and punitive forms of gover-
security state questions the legitimacy of this form nance. The dramatic expansion of the penal state
of state organization and the trade-off against system constitutes a crucial feature of the Ameri-
security provision. can security state. The persistently high incarcer-
A culture of fear and marginalization makes ation rates, particularly among African American
the subjection of certain groups of society even and Hispanic communities, have led scholars to
more pronounced and likely. Members of ethnic suggest that the American penal system has devel-
and religious minorities as well as socially and oped into a system of institutional and social
economically disadvantaged groups are usually control whose primary targets can be identified
the ones most detrimentally affected by such by race and ethnicity (Alexander 2010).
form of disciplining and discrimination. A global Another dimension of the security state has
trend of Islamophobia has been observed resting been found in the management and disciplining
upon anti-Muslim stereotypes. Moreover, in the of impoverished and disadvantaged populations.
United States and elsewhere, people of color have Loïc Wacquant (2009) argues that the security
been found to be disproportionately targeted by a state’s violent repression of the most destitute
more vigorous American penal system resulting sections of society debunks the idea that the secu-
in overcrowded prisons and shattered community rity state enables social cohesion and integration.
structures (Alexander 2010). Similar to the con- He maintains that the security state seeks to
cept of “enemy penology” in criminal law, this achieve “relief not to the poor but from the poor
form of restrictive governance has been termed as resulting in a wide-reaching expulsion of this
“the policing of a suspect community” (Fekete population group from public concern and space.
2016). The penalization and criminalization of poverty is
In terms of foreign policy, Andreas and Price enabled through the normalization of social inse-
(2001) argue that the security state has implica- curity and exclusion on the one hand, and the
tions for the implementation of military opera- assumption that poverty stems from a lack of
tions abroad, particularly for the most powerful work ethic and personal responsibility on the
 Security State 5

other. Similarly, John Lea (2002) speaks of a ▶ Small States

“debilitated authoritarianism” in which the state ▶ Societal Security
fulfils new aspects of controlling and regulating ▶ State-Centric Paradigm
particular groups, especially segments of society ▶ State Legitimacy
that do not seem to conform to or benefit the ▶ Surveillance States
economically productive state. The role of the ▶ Traditional Security
welfare system in the conservation of social
order is therefore replaced with a rigorous puni-
tive and controlling system that uses the police,
References
courts, and prisons in fulfilling its mission.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow – Mass incar-
ceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The
Conclusion New Press.
Andreas, P., & Price, R. (2001). From war fighting to crime
fighting: Transforming the American National Security
In sum, the security state embodies a mode of State. International Studies Review, 3(3), 1–23.
institutionalized and intensified control, coercion, Fekete, L. (2016). Anti-Muslim racism and the European
and violent regulation of marginalized groups security state. Race and Class, 46(1), 4–29.
Hallsworth, S., & Lea, J. (2011). Reconstructing leviathan:
through the state’s instruments of political vio-
Emerging contours of the security state. Theoretical
lence. The security state’s employment of Criminology, 15(2), 141–157.
violent modes of control, repression, and Lea, J. (2002). Crime and modernity – Continuities in left
coercion emerges from its self-perception that it realist criminology. London: SAGE.
Mabee, B. (2003). Security studies and the “security
is facing existential threat from an external
state”: Security provision in a historical context.
enemy. In many cases, such a response to a International Relations, 17(2), 135–151.
perceived threat is likely to lead security state Mann, M. (1984). The autonomous power of the state: Its
leaders to suspend constitutional guarantees on origins, mechanisms and results. European Journal of
human rights and civil liberties; to reduce, if not Sociology, 25(2), 185–213.
Priest, D., & Arkin, W. M. (2011). Top secret America: The
totally eliminate, various forms of checks and rise of the new American security state – Dana Priest,
balances between government branches; and to William M. Arkin – Google books. New York: Little,
further empower the institutional prerogatives Brown, and Company.
and scope of power of the executive government Regilme, S. S. F., Jr. (2018). Does US foreign aid under-
mine human rights? The “Thaksinification” of the
as well as the state’s coercive agencies including war on terror discourses and the human rights crisis
military and police institutions. in Thailand, 2001 to 2006. Human Rights Review,
19(1),
73–95.
Wacquant, L. (2009). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal
Cross-References government of social insecurity. Durham: Duke Uni-
versity Press.
▶ Failed States Zedner, L. (2010). Security, the state and the citizen: The
changing architecture of crime control. New Criminal
▶ Legitimacy in Statebuilding Law Review, 13(2), 379–403.
▶ Securitization and Desecuritization

View publication stats