SAIC Final Exam - AI Notes PDF

SAIC Final Exam - AI Notes Week 1: A Brief History of Security Studies and Thematic Guideposts for Going Forward Evans, Weiss, Leese (2021): “Science, Technology, Security: Towards Critical Collaboration” Fritsch, Stefan (2011): “Technology and Global Affairs” Gheciu, Alexandra & Wohlforth, William (2018): "The Future of Security Studies" Krause, Keith, and Williams, Michael C. (2018): "Security and ‘Security Studies’: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation" Week 2: Security, Actors, Institutions, and Constellations Di Marco, Martín Hernán, and Sandberg, Sveinung (2024): "Fear, Helplessness, Pain, Anger: The Narrated Emotions of Intimate Femicide Perpetrators in Latin America" Gill, Carmen, Campbell, Mary Ann, and Ballucci, Dale (2021): "Police Officers’ Definitions and Understandings of Intimate Partner Violence in New Brunswick, Canada" Graham, Laurie M., Macy, Rebecca J., Rizo, Cynthia F., and Martin, Sandra L. (2022): “Explanatory Theories of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetration: A Systematic Review” Evans, Weiss, Leese, Matthias, and Rychnovská, Dagmar (2021): “Science, Technology, Security: Towards Critical Collaboration” Week 3 Lecture: Research, Disengagement, and Deradicalization Work (Joana Cook) Readings: Cook, Joana (2023): “Distinguishing Children From ISIS-Affiliated Families in Iraq and Their Unique Barriers for Rehabilitation and Reintegration” Horgan, J., & Braddock, K. (2010) – "Rehabilitating the Terrorists? Challenges in Assessing the Effectiveness of De-Radicalization Programs" Koehler, Daniel (2016) – Understanding Deradicalization: Methods, Tools, and Programs for Countering Violent Extremism (Introduction) ICSR Team (2024) – “The Status of Iraqi Children of ISIS-Affiliated Families Outside of Jeddah 1 Rehabilitation Center” WEEK 4 The EU, the Governance of Security, and the Case of Ukraine 1 Readings Dimitrova & Dragneva (2023): "How the EU–Ukraine Association Agreement Necessitated Adaptation and Drove Innovation in the EU" Koval & Vachudova (2024): "EU Enlargement and Geopolitical Power in the Face of War" Michaels & Sus (2024): "(Not) Coming of Age? Unpacking the European Union’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy in Security and Defence" Week 5: Crisis Management Governance When It Matters Most Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. & Rykkja, L. H. (2016) – "Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy" (Introduction) Ansell, C. & Boin, A. (2019) – “Taming Deep Uncertainty: The Potential of Pragmatist Principles for Understanding and Improving Strategic Crisis Management” Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., Müller-Seitz, G., Raab, J., & Sydow, J. (2017) – “From High-Reliability Organizations to High-Reliability Networks: The Dynamics of Network Governance in the Face of Emergency” Wolbers, J., Boersma, K. & Groenewegen, P. (2018) – “Introducing a Fragmentation Perspective on Coordination in Crisis Management” Week 6: Intelligence Failures, Decision Makers, and New Actors READINGS: Van Puyvelde, D., & Rienzi, E. (2024) – “The Rise of OSINT: Open Source Intelligence in Security and Crisis Management” Aldrich, R. & Cormac, R. (2018) – “Grey is the New Black: Covert Action and Implausible Deniability” Aldrich, R. J. & Kasuku, J. (2012) – “Escaping from American Intelligence: Culture, Ethnocentrism and the Anglosphere” Wirtz, J.J. (2024) – “Are Intelligence Failures Still Inevitable?” Week 7: Sanctions, Power, and Global Governance READINGS: Hoye, J. M. (2024) – “OFAC, Famine, and the Sanctioning of Afghanistan: A Catastrophic Policy Success” Farrell, H., & Newman, A. (2019) – “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic 2 Networks Shape State Coercion” de Goede, M., & Westermeier, C. (2022) – “Infrastructural Geopolitics” Drezner, D. W. (2022) – "How Not to Sanction" 3 Week 1: A Brief History of Security Studies and Thematic Guideposts for Going Forward Lecturers: Matthew Hoye and Vlad Niculescu-Dincă Key Readings: Fritsch (2011): On technological determinism—vital for exams. Gheciu and Wohlforth (2018a, 2018b): IR and security studies frameworks. Krause and Williams (2018), Rossi and Riemann (2024), Evans, Leese, and Rychnovská (2021): Security studies overviews. Main Arguments 1. The Fear of Violent Death and the Birth of Statism (Hoye): ○ Hobbes’ Theory: In a state of nature, individuals experience radical interpersonal insecurity—endless battles against all others for survival. The creation of the sovereign (state) centralized violence, establishing legitimacy, hierarchy, and accountability to mitigate violence and chaos. ○ Output of Statism: Creation of three agents: the individual, the people, and the sovereign. Legitimacy, purpose, coordination, and accountability became central to governance. 2. Technology’s Role in Security Studies (Niculescu): ○ Technology has always been key for security actors, evolving alongside societal and governance needs. ○ New technologies like AI, drones, and surveillance have shifted security practices from reactive to proactive, creating data-driven systems and partnerships. ○ The dominant paradigms of technological determinism (TD) and instrumentalism are inadequate for explaining how technologies mediate power, politics, and societal norms. 3. Problematizing IR and Security Studies: ○ Why is IR "boring"? IR is stagnated by old paradigms, sociological inertia, and resistance to innovation. Professors and researchers favor "safe," incremental ideas to maintain career security, avoiding risks that challenge the status quo. ○ Security studies as a centrifugal field: Unlike IR, it embraces new agents, levels of analysis, and topics. Paradigm shifts allow for explosive intellectual growth, whereas IR remains centripetal and paradigmatically constrained. 4. The Fear of Violent Death 2.0 – New Dark Ages: ○ Today’s global challenges, such as brutalism, fanaticism, and mass meaninglessness, reflect a return to Hobbesian fear. ○ Academics and practitioners must confront this era with critical inquiry and interdisciplinary approaches. 4 Theoretical Frameworks 1. Hobbesian Statism (Hoye): ○ Hobbes provides a framework for understanding how insecurity creates the conditions for centralized governance. ○ Viewed as a postmodern critical theorist, Hobbes critiqued divine monarchy, imperialism, and rigid gender norms. ○ Statism has evolved over centuries into the dominant model for organizing political life, culminating in its near-universal adoption by 1990. 2. Technological Determinism (TD) (Niculescu): ○ TD views technology as an autonomous force driving societal changes, independent of human input. ○ Critiques of TD: Reductionist: Ignores the interplay between technology and social, cultural, or political forces. Politically debilitating: Suggests technology evolves independently, discouraging efforts to shape it ethically. 3. Instrumentalism (Niculescu): ○ Technology is seen as a neutral tool, with outcomes determined solely by users. ○ Critiques: Ignores the biases embedded in the design and use of technology. Fails to recognize the non-neutrality of technology, which often embodies norms, politics, and ideologies. 4. Mutual Shaping Paradigm (Niculescu): ○ Rejects TD and instrumentalism, positing a bidirectional relationship between technology and society. ○ Actor-Network Theory (ANT): Technologies act as "actants" influencing social systems alongside users and institutions. ○ Technological Mediation Theory: Technologies mediate human relationships with the world, altering perceptions and behaviors. Methods 1. Hoye’s Critical Genealogy of IR: ○ Explores how IR paradigms (realism, liberal internationalism, constructivism) emerged from philosophical traditions, such as Hobbesian statism. ○ Challenges IR’s stagnation and reliance on “safe” academic practices. 2. Niculescu’s Interdisciplinary Approach to Technology: ○ Combines philosophy, sociology, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) to analyze the embedded politics and ethics of technology. ○ Case studies include: AI ethics in law enforcement. Virtual reality and deepfake technologies in police training. ASML’s lithography systems in global semiconductor politics. 5 3. Empirical Analysis of Security Actors: ○ Focuses on how security actors deploy and conceptualize technologies, examining their legitimacy, accountability, and effectiveness. Key Concepts 1. The Securitization of Academia (Hoye): ○ Academia perpetuates "safe" ideas to protect institutional and individual interests, discouraging innovative or radical thinking. ○ IR’s stagnation reflects its resistance to paradigm shifts, unlike security studies, which embraces new agents, topics, and levels of analysis. 2. Bias in Security Technologies (Niculescu): ○ Technologies often embed biases that reflect the values and assumptions of their designers. ○ Examples: Algorithmic discrimination in predictive policing, ethical dilemmas in AI development. 3. Pluralization of Security (Niculescu): ○ Security is no longer the sole domain of states but involves partnerships between private companies, civil society, and international networks. ○ This requires new governance models to ensure transparency and accountability. Key Takeaways 1. Rethinking IR and Security Studies: ○ IR’s reliance on outdated paradigms limits its relevance in addressing modern challenges. ○ Security studies, with its centrifugal focus, offers a more dynamic and inclusive framework for analyzing contemporary threats. 2. Critical Engagement with Technology: ○ Dominant conceptions like TD and instrumentalism oversimplify technology’s role in security. ○ The mutual shaping paradigm provides a robust framework for understanding how technologies and societies co-evolve. 3. The Role of Security Actors: ○ Security actors must address the ethics, legitimacy, and inclusivity of their practices. ○ Value-sensitive design methodologies and robust oversight are essential for ensuring technologies align with societal norms. 4. Addressing the Fear of Violent Death 2.0: ○ The return of global insecurity demands a renewed focus on coordination, accountability, and legitimacy. ○ Academics and practitioners must engage critically with these challenges, embracing uncertainty and complexity. 6 Limitations 1. Fragmentation in IR and Security Studies: ○ IR’s paradigmatic rigidity contrasts with the openness of security studies but creates challenges in integrating the two. 2. Oversight of Technologies: ○ Governance structures often lag behind technological advancements, leaving gaps in accountability and transparency. 3. Ethical and Political Barriers: ○ Institutional and political resistance to change limits the ability to address biases and inequalities embedded in security technologies. Conclusion The Week 1 lecture and readings highlight the evolution of security studies and the critical role of technology in shaping modern governance. Hoye critiques IR’s stagnation and reliance on outdated paradigms, while Niculescu calls for a nuanced understanding of technology that recognizes its socio-political impacts. Together, they emphasize the need for interdisciplinary approaches, ethical oversight, and critical inquiry to navigate the complexities of contemporary security. Readings: Evans, Weiss, Leese (2021): “Science, Technology, Security: Towards Critical Collaboration” Main Arguments 1. The Interplay of Science, Technology, and Security: ○ Science and technology are foundational in shaping modern security practices, serving as both tools for ensuring security and as areas of concern requiring governance. ○ The article addresses the challenge of bridging Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Critical Security Studies (CSS) to examine how these fields can mutually benefit through collaboration. 2. Technoscientific Assemblages: ○ Security is increasingly mediated by technoscientific assemblages, where tools and processes co-produce societal imaginaries and enforce specific social orders. ○ The authors highlight the co-production framework (Jasanoff) to show how science and technology intertwine with social and political systems to shape security practices. 3. Engagement with Security Communities: 7 ○ The paper proposes ways for STS scholars to work collaboratively with security practitioners, emphasizing the importance of reflexivity, shared responsibility, and ethical governance. ○ Collaboration with security practitioners is viewed as critical for uncovering the implicit values embedded in technologies and addressing the unintended consequences of their deployment. 4. Critical Reflection on Security Practices: ○ Security is not merely a condition but a process involving the identification of threats, protection of reference objects (e.g., values, people, resources), and the selection of appropriate means of response. ○ The authors critique the tendency of policymakers to treat security issues as "taken-for-granted" problems solvable by technoscientific tools, ignoring their inherent social and political dimensions. Key Concepts 1. Socio-Technical Collaboration: ○ This involves the interaction between publics, policymakers, technoscientific experts, and social scientists to produce socially responsible solutions. ○ Central values include democracy, inclusivity, social justice, and ethics. ○ Reflexivity is highlighted as essential for addressing ambiguity and fostering mutual understanding. 2. The Ontological Multiplicity of Security: ○ Security is an ambiguous and contested concept whose meaning shifts depending on what is considered a threat and what needs protection. ○ It extends beyond traditional military concerns to include issues like migration, public health, and the environment. 3. Security as a Process, Not a Condition: ○ Security requires continuous efforts to anticipate threats and take appropriate actions, often leading to the entrenchment of power structures. 4. Boundary Work: ○ The interactions between researchers and security communities often blur lines between critique and complicity. ○ Proximity risks include co-option by political agendas and reinforcement of dominant security narratives. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Co-Production of Science and Social Order (Jasanoff): ○ Technoscientific tools are not neutral; they embody specific values and imaginaries that influence and are influenced by societal norms. 2. Critical Security Studies: ○ CSS examines how security discourses produce power dynamics, often marginalizing vulnerable populations. 8 ○ Scholars advocate for desecuritization, treating security issues as ordinary political problems requiring transparency and accountability. 3. Actor-Network Theory (ANT): ○ Security tools are understood as actants in networks that co-construct societal responses to threats, emphasizing the relationality of technoscience. Methods 1. Case Studies: ○ The authors use three case studies to explore the dynamics of socio-technical collaboration: Development of surveillance tools. Engagement with policymakers on cyber-security. Analysis of public-private partnerships in border control technologies. 2. Ethnographic Approaches: ○ These involve close observation and participation in security practices to uncover the socio-political assumptions embedded in technologies. 3. Reflexivity in Research: ○ Scholars are encouraged to critically examine their positionality and avoid reinforcing dominant security discourses. Key Takeaways 1. Collaborative Potential: ○ Bridging STS and CSS provides a richer understanding of the social, political, and ethical dimensions of security technologies. 2. The Role of Reflexivity: ○ Collaboration must involve continuous reflection on power dynamics and the unintended consequences of technoscientific solutions. 3. Security Practices and Social Order: ○ Security logics often justify exceptional measures, perpetuating inequalities and exclusionary practices. 4. Challenges of Engagement: ○ Proximity to security practitioners risks reinforcing dominant narratives or legitimizing harmful policies. Scholars must navigate this carefully. Limitations 1. Tension Between Critique and Collaboration: ○ Scholars must balance their critical stance with the need to engage constructively with security practitioners. 2. Ambiguity of Security Concepts: 9 ○ The contested nature of security complicates efforts to develop universally applicable frameworks or solutions. 3. Ethical Challenges: ○ Collaboration may inadvertently support political agendas or reinforce systemic inequalities. Conclusion Evans, Weiss, and Leese advocate for a more integrated approach to understanding the interplay of science, technology, and security. By fostering critical collaboration between STS and CSS, the authors highlight the potential for developing ethically grounded and socially responsible security practices. However, they caution against the risks of co-option and emphasize the importance of reflexivity in navigating the complexities of socio-technical systems. Fritsch, Stefan (2011): “Technology and Global Affairs” Main Arguments 1. Technology as a Central Force in Global Affairs: ○ Fritsch establishes that technology is not just a tool or byproduct of global change but a fundamental driver and an integral aspect of globalization, political transformation, and economic restructuring. ○ Technology is a double-edged sword, enabling state power and sovereignty while simultaneously challenging these traditional concepts by shifting authority, creating interdependencies, and exacerbating vulnerabilities. ○ The role of technology is dual: As a catalyst: Drives changes in global power dynamics and enables innovation. As a context: Shapes the structural environment of global interactions and how actors respond to crises. 2. Critique of Traditional IR Approaches to Technology: ○ Dominant IR theories tend to ignore or oversimplify the role of technology, treating it as neutral or passive. Fritsch critiques this oversight and argues for an approach that recognizes technology as an active agent in global affairs. ○ The article calls for rethinking IR paradigms to account for the socio-political and normative dimensions of technology. 3. Constructivist Approach to Technology: ○ Fritsch adopts a constructivist perspective, emphasizing that technologies are socially constructed artifacts imbued with political values, cultural norms, and economic agendas. ○ Technology both reflects and reinforces power structures, while also enabling resistance and innovation. 4. Technological Revolution as a Structural Driver of Change: 10 ○ Major technological revolutions (e.g., industrialization, digitalization) act as transformative forces, reshaping political, economic, and social orders globally. ○ These shifts have implications for the distribution of power, the emergence of new actors, and the reconfiguration of sovereignty. Key Concepts 1. Technological Determinism (TD): ○ Definition: TD views technology as an autonomous force that drives societal changes in a linear and inevitable manner. ○ Critique: TD oversimplifies complex socio-political interactions and reduces human agency. It assumes that technological progress is unidirectional and unavoidable, discouraging efforts to shape or govern technological change. As Bijker (2010) highlights, TD is “politically debilitating” because it frames technological evolution as inevitable, thus undermining ethical interventions. 2. Instrumentalism: ○ Definition: Instrumentalism regards technology as a neutral tool, used to achieve human ends without influencing its users or their contexts. ○ Critique: Instrumentalism ignores how technologies shape behavior, influence decisions, and embed values. It overlooks the inherent non-neutrality of technology, which often reflects the interests and biases of its creators. 3. Constructivism in Technology: ○ Definition: Constructivism challenges both determinism and instrumentalism, positing that technologies are socially constructed and evolve through interactions with social, political, and cultural systems. ○ Technologies are not independent forces but are shaped by and shape the world they operate within. ○ Jasanoff’s Co-Production Framework (2004): Demonstrates how science, technology, and society mutually construct each other, shaping governance and societal norms. 4. Technological Dual-Use Dilemma: ○ Many technologies serve dual purposes, creating ethical and political challenges. For example: Nuclear technology: Energy generation vs. weapons development. AI: Enhancing security vs. enabling mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. ○ The dual-use nature demands robust governance frameworks to mitigate risks and ensure ethical applications. 5. Techno-Economic Paradigm Shifts (Perez): ○ Major technological innovations trigger paradigm shifts in global economics and politics. Examples include: The steam engine and industrialization. 11 The digital revolution and the rise of the information economy. ○ These shifts restructure industries, redistribute power, and create new forms of interdependence. 6. Technological Sovereignty: ○ The concept of sovereignty is evolving due to technology’s transnational nature. ○ States must navigate the tension between controlling technological systems and relying on global networks for innovation and security. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Constructivism in IR and Technology: ○ Fritsch emphasizes the importance of understanding technology through the lens of constructivism: Technologies are embedded with human values and are not neutral or apolitical. They shape global power structures and influence how states and non-state actors interact. 2. Critical Theory: ○ Drawing from Habermas and the Frankfurt School, Fritsch critiques the commodification of technology, arguing that it often reinforces existing inequalities and systems of domination. ○ Critical theory emphasizes the emancipatory potential of technology, advocating for its ethical and equitable use. 3. Technological Mediation (Ihde): ○ Technologies mediate human experiences and perceptions, influencing how individuals interact with the world. ○ For example, digital surveillance technologies mediate relationships between citizens and states, altering notions of privacy and security. Methods 1. Historical Analysis: ○ Fritsch traces the historical role of technology in shaping global affairs, highlighting key moments such as: The Industrial Revolution’s impact on state-building and imperialism. The role of nuclear technology during the Cold War. The transformative effects of digital technologies on global governance. 2. Case Studies: ○ Examines specific technologies and their impact, including: Nuclear technology: How it shifted global power dynamics and introduced the concept of mutually assured destruction. Digital communication: Its role in democratizing information while enabling surveillance and disinformation campaigns. Biotechnology: Its potential to address global health challenges but also its capacity to exacerbate inequalities. 12 3. Interdisciplinary Approach: ○ Integrates insights from sociology, political science, history, and technology studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of technology’s role in global affairs. Key Takeaways 1. Technology as a Political Actor: ○ Technologies are not passive tools; they actively shape global systems, redistribute power, and influence governance. 2. Globalization and Interdependence: ○ Technology drives globalization by facilitating interconnectedness, but it also creates vulnerabilities, such as cyber-attacks and digital inequality. 3. Dual-Use Dilemmas: ○ Technologies like AI and nuclear energy exemplify the challenges of managing innovations with both beneficial and harmful applications. 4. Limits of Traditional IR Paradigms: ○ Mainstream IR theories fail to account for the dynamic and constitutive role of technology in global politics. ○ Constructivist and critical approaches offer more nuanced frameworks for understanding these complexities. 5. Technological Inequalities: ○ Technological advancements often exacerbate inequalities between states, corporations, and individuals, creating ethical and governance challenges. Limitations 1. Complexity of Technology: ○ The diversity of technologies makes it challenging to develop universal theories or frameworks. 2. Inadequate Governance: ○ Global institutions struggle to keep pace with technological innovation, leaving gaps in regulation and accountability. 3. Ethical Challenges: ○ Efforts to govern technology face resistance from powerful actors, such as corporations and states, who prioritize profit or strategic advantage. Citations and Critical Perspectives 1. Bijker (2010): Critiques deterministic views of technology, emphasizing the importance of human agency and governance. 2. Perez (2002): Highlights the transformative effects of techno-economic paradigm shifts on global systems. 13 3. Jasanoff (2004): Explores the co-production of technology and society, emphasizing their mutual influence. Conclusion Fritsch’s article serves as a critical intervention in the study of technology and global affairs, challenging traditional IR frameworks to account for the active and constitutive role of technology. By adopting a constructivist and interdisciplinary approach, Fritsch highlights the need to critically engage with the ethical, political, and socio-economic dimensions of technological change. The article underscores the importance of robust governance and reflexivity to address the challenges posed by emerging technologies in global politics. Gheciu, Alexandra & Wohlforth, William (2018): "The Future of Security Studies" Main Arguments 1. Security Studies at a Crossroads: ○ Gheciu and Wohlforth argue that security studies has evolved significantly over the decades, integrating diverse theoretical approaches and responding to new global challenges. ○ However, the field is at a critical juncture where traditional paradigms must adapt to address emerging issues like cyber threats, climate change, and non-state actors. 2. The Expansion of Security: ○ The concept of security has broadened from traditional military concerns (e.g., inter-state war) to include human security, environmental threats, and technological risks. ○ This expansion has led to greater interdisciplinarity but also risks diluting the field’s focus. 3. The Need for Analytical Rigor: ○ Despite the field’s expansion, Gheciu and Wohlforth emphasize the importance of maintaining analytical rigor, distinguishing between descriptive breadth and analytical depth. 4. Integration of New Theoretical Frameworks: ○ Security studies has increasingly incorporated critical theories, constructivism, and postcolonial approaches to address global inequalities and power dynamics. ○ These frameworks provide nuanced understandings of how security is defined, practiced, and contested across different contexts. Key Concepts 1. Traditional Security Paradigms: ○ Realism: Focuses on state-centric threats, the balance of power, and military conflict. 14 Critique: Limited in addressing non-military and transnational threats (e.g., terrorism, climate change). ○ Liberalism: Emphasizes international institutions, cooperation, and collective security. Critique: Overly optimistic about the capacity of institutions to mitigate global risks. 2. Broadening and Deepening Security: ○ Broadening: Expanding the range of security concerns to include non-military threats (e.g., health, environment, and technology). ○ Deepening: Examining security at different levels of analysis, from global to local, and including individuals as referent objects of security. 3. Securitization Theory (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde): ○ Security is not an objective condition but a speech act—issues are framed as existential threats to justify extraordinary measures. ○ Example: Climate change is securitized by portraying it as a global crisis requiring immediate action. ○ Critique: Securitization risks normalizing exceptionalism and militarized responses, which can marginalize alternative solutions. 4. Human Security: ○ Focuses on the protection of individuals rather than states, addressing issues like poverty, disease, and violence. ○ Critique: Critics argue that human security’s broad scope undermines its analytical clarity and operational utility. 5. Emerging Security Issues: ○ Cybersecurity: Challenges traditional notions of territorial sovereignty and state control. ○ Climate Change: Forces a reevaluation of security as a global, interconnected phenomenon. ○ Non-State Actors: From terrorist organizations to multinational corporations, non-state entities challenge traditional state-centric security frameworks. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Constructivism: ○ Emphasizes the social construction of security threats and the role of norms, identities, and discourses in shaping security practices. ○ Constructivist approaches critique materialist theories like realism for overlooking how perceptions of threat are created and sustained. 2. Critical Security Studies (CSS): ○ Challenges the mainstream, state-centric focus of traditional security studies. ○ Examines how power dynamics, inequalities, and historical legacies shape security practices and policies. ○ Key proponents: Ken Booth, Richard Wyn Jones. 3. Postcolonial Security Studies: ○ Focuses on how colonial histories and power asymmetries continue to influence global security dynamics. 15 ○ Example: The securitization of migration disproportionately targets people from former colonies. 4. Feminist Security Studies: ○ Highlights the gendered nature of security, examining how women’s experiences of insecurity differ from men’s. ○ Example: Gender-based violence as a pervasive yet under-addressed security issue. Methods 1. Interdisciplinary Approaches: ○ Security studies increasingly draws on political science, sociology, economics, and technology studies to address complex, multi-faceted issues. 2. Case Studies: ○ Specific conflicts, crises, or phenomena are examined to test and refine theoretical frameworks. ○ Example: Cyber-attacks on state infrastructure as a case for redefining sovereignty and security. 3. Critical Discourse Analysis: ○ Analyzes how security threats are framed in political, media, and institutional discourses. ○ Example: The framing of migration as a security threat in Western Europe. Key Takeaways 1. The Evolving Nature of Security: ○ Security is no longer limited to military threats but includes a diverse array of issues requiring interdisciplinary approaches. ○ This evolution challenges traditional paradigms while creating opportunities for theoretical innovation. 2. The Role of Power and Discourse: ○ Security is not an objective condition but is shaped by who defines threats and how they are framed. ○ Securitization theory provides a critical lens for examining the political implications of framing issues as security concerns. 3. The Importance of Analytical Rigor: ○ While the field has broadened, Gheciu and Wohlforth stress the need for analytical clarity to avoid diluting the core focus of security studies. 4. The Challenge of Interdisciplinarity: ○ Security studies must balance the need for specialized knowledge with the ability to integrate insights from multiple disciplines. 5. Future Directions: ○ Security studies must address emerging challenges such as climate change, cyber threats, and the rise of non-state actors. ○ The field should embrace critical and constructivist approaches to better understand the complexities of global security. 16 Limitations 1. Broadening and Dilution: ○ The expansion of security studies risks undermining its analytical focus by including too many disparate issues. 2. Theoretical Tensions: ○ Traditional theories (realism, liberalism) often clash with critical and constructivist approaches, creating challenges for integration. 3. Operational Challenges: ○ Translating theoretical insights into practical policy recommendations remains a persistent difficulty for scholars and practitioners. 4. Western-Centric Bias: ○ Security studies continues to grapple with its roots in Western political thought, often marginalizing perspectives from the Global South. Conclusion Gheciu and Wohlforth provide a comprehensive overview of the evolution and future directions of security studies, highlighting its growing interdisciplinarity and responsiveness to emerging challenges. By critiquing traditional paradigms and embracing constructivist and critical frameworks, the field has expanded its analytical scope. However, this expansion also raises questions about focus, rigor, and applicability, underscoring the need for continued theoretical and methodological innovation. This article serves as a vital roadmap for navigating the complexities of contemporary security studies. Krause, Keith, and Williams, Michael C. (2018): "Security and ‘Security Studies’: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation" Main Arguments 1. The Evolving Concept of Security: ○ Krause and Williams argue that the concept of security has undergone significant shifts, shaped by historical, political, and social transformations. ○ Initially framed in military terms during the Cold War, security now encompasses a broader spectrum of concerns, including human security, environmental threats, and transnational challenges. 2. Critical Reflection on Security Studies: ○ Traditional security studies focus narrowly on state-centric and military issues, reflecting the dominance of realism during the Cold War. ○ However, the post-Cold War period ushered in critical approaches that challenge traditional assumptions and explore non-traditional threats and referent objects. 3. Broadening vs. Deepening Security: 17 ○Broadening: Expanding the range of threats to include non-military dimensions, such as climate change, health crises, and economic instability. ○ Deepening: Examining security at multiple levels (e.g., individual, societal, global) and including non-state actors in analyses. 4. The Constructivist Turn in Security Studies: ○ Security is not an objective condition but a socially constructed phenomenon, shaped by political discourse, cultural norms, and institutional practices. ○ The speech act framework (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde) highlights how issues become securitized through discursive practices. Historical Evolution of Security Studies 1. Traditional Security Studies: ○ Dominated by realism, focusing on: State sovereignty as the primary referent object. Military threats and the balance of power. Conflict between great powers as the central concern. ○ Cold War Legacy: Security was framed within the East-West rivalry, prioritizing deterrence, containment, and military alliances (e.g., NATO, Warsaw Pact). 2. Post-Cold War Shifts: ○ With the end of the Cold War, traditional security studies faced paradigmatic challenges: The collapse of bipolarity shifted attention to regional conflicts, terrorism, and humanitarian crises. The rise of critical theories questioned state-centric and militarized understandings of security. 3. Contemporary Security Studies: ○ Encompasses a broader range of issues, including human security, environmental threats, cyber security, and health crises (e.g., pandemics). ○ The expansion of referent objects (e.g., individuals, ecosystems, global governance) reflects the field’s increasing interdisciplinarity. Key Concepts 1. Securitization Theory (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde): ○ Security is not a pre-existing condition but is constructed through speech acts. By labeling an issue as a security threat, actors justify extraordinary measures to address it. Example: Migration framed as a security threat justifies restrictive policies and border militarization. ○ Critique: Securitization can normalize authoritarian practices and marginalize alternative responses. 2. Human Security: 18 ○ Focuses on protecting individuals from threats like poverty, disease, and violence. ○ Seven Dimensions of Human Security (UNDP): Economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security. ○ Critique: Human security’s broad scope risks analytical vagueness and operational challenges. 3. Deepening Security: ○ Challenges traditional assumptions by analyzing security at different levels: Individual: Focus on human rights, gender-based violence, and personal safety. Societal: Examines cultural and community-based insecurities (e.g., ethnic conflicts, social cohesion). Global: Highlights interconnected threats like pandemics and climate change. 4. Broadening Security: ○ Recognizes new threats such as: Environmental Security: Climate change, resource scarcity, and ecological degradation. Cyber Security: Digital infrastructure vulnerabilities and cyber warfare. Economic Security: Global financial crises, inequality, and economic instability. 5. The Referent Object of Security: ○ Traditional studies prioritized the state as the referent object. ○ Critical approaches expand this to include: Individuals (human security). Ecosystems (environmental security). Non-state actors (corporations, civil society organizations). Theoretical Frameworks 1. Realism: ○ Views security as a zero-sum game where states compete for power in an anarchic international system. ○ Prioritizes military power, sovereignty, and the balance of power. ○ Critique: Neglects non-military and transnational issues, such as health crises or climate change. 2. Liberalism: ○ Emphasizes international institutions, cooperation, and collective security. ○ Sees economic interdependence and democratic governance as stabilizing forces. ○ Critique: Overestimates the efficacy of institutions in addressing global threats. 3. Critical Security Studies (CSS): ○ Challenges the state-centric focus of traditional theories. ○ Examines how power dynamics, historical legacies, and discursive practices shape security. 19 ○ Advocates for desecuritization, addressing issues through normal political processes rather than exceptional measures. 4. Constructivism: ○ Emphasizes the role of norms, identities, and discourses in shaping security practices. ○ Security threats are not objective but are constructed through political and social processes. 5. Postcolonial and Feminist Approaches: ○ Postcolonial: Highlights how colonial histories influence contemporary security practices and global inequalities. ○ Feminist: Examines how gender shapes experiences of security and insecurity, emphasizing the marginalization of women’s perspectives. Methods 1. Historical Analysis: ○ Traces the evolution of security concepts and practices over time, highlighting how they respond to changing political and social contexts. 2. Critical Discourse Analysis: ○ Examines how security is constructed in political speeches, media narratives, and institutional policies. ○ Example: The securitization of migration in Europe. 3. Case Studies: ○ Explores specific issues (e.g., climate change, terrorism, pandemics) to test and refine theoretical frameworks. 4. Comparative Analysis: ○ Compares different security paradigms (e.g., realism vs. constructivism) to evaluate their strengths and limitations in addressing contemporary challenges. Key Takeaways 1. The Expansion of Security Studies: ○ Security studies has evolved from a narrow focus on military threats to a broader, interdisciplinary field addressing diverse global challenges. 2. Securitization and Its Risks: ○ Framing issues as security threats can legitimize extraordinary measures, potentially undermining democracy and human rights. 3. Critical Approaches: ○ Critical theories offer valuable insights into how power, inequality, and discourse shape security practices. 4. The Importance of Analytical Clarity: ○ While broadening the scope of security studies is essential, maintaining analytical rigor is crucial to avoid diluting the field. 5. The Role of Interdisciplinarity: ○ Addressing complex, interconnected threats requires integrating insights from multiple disciplines, including political science, sociology, and environmental studies. 20 Limitations 1. Broadening vs. Dilution: ○ Expanding the scope of security studies risks undermining its analytical coherence and operational utility. 2. Tensions Between Paradigms: ○ Traditional and critical approaches often conflict, complicating efforts to develop unified frameworks. 3. Operational Challenges: ○ Translating theoretical insights into practical policies remains a persistent difficulty for scholars and practitioners. 4. Western-Centric Bias: ○ Security studies often marginalizes perspectives from the Global South, limiting its inclusivity and relevance. Conclusion Krause and Williams provide a detailed account of the conceptual and historical evolution of security studies, highlighting its shift from state-centric military concerns to a broader, more interdisciplinary field. By integrating critical, constructivist, and feminist perspectives, the authors emphasize the need to address diverse and interconnected global threats. However, they caution against the risks of over-expansion, urging scholars to maintain analytical rigor while embracing new approaches and perspectives. This article serves as a foundational text for understanding the past, present, and future of security studies. Week 2: Security, Actors, Institutions, and Constellations Focus: This week focuses on femicide, its underlying motivations, conceptual distinctions, theoretical frameworks, and methodological approaches. The lecture by Prof. Martín Hernán Di Marco delves into empirical research, narratives, and policy implications. Main Concepts and Definitions 1. Domestic Homicide: ○ Definition: Killing of an individual within a domestic or familial context, extending to intimate partners, children, and elderly relatives. ○ Distinct Focus: Includes violence that happens in a domestic setting but not necessarily gender-based. 2. Femicide: ○ Definition: Intentional killing of women because they are women (UNODC, 2023). ○ Key Features: 21 Gendered nature of violence, stemming from misogynistic motives and patriarchal power dynamics. Classification includes the intent to kill and gender-based motivation. ○ Challenges: Proving intent is difficult, particularly linking the violence to gender. 3. Feminicide: ○ Definition: An expansion of femicide to include state complicity and neglect in addressing violence against women (VAW). ○ Key Point: Highlights institutional failures, such as inadequate protection and justice systems. 4. Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH): ○ Definition: Killing by a current or former intimate partner, including married, cohabiting, and dating relationships. ○ Intersection with Femicide: Most cases of femicide (80%) involve intimate partners. 5. Intentionality: ○ Central to distinguishing femicide, focusing on whether misogyny or gendered power dynamics motivated the act. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Sociology of Emotions (Sara Ahmed, Katz, Collins): ○ Emotions are social practices, not isolated individual states. ○ They are shaped by political economies and cultural norms, aligning people’s experiences within affective economies. ○ Ahmed emphasizes the circulation of emotions as a binding force within groups, contributing to collective actions. 2. Gender Narratives and Affective Economies: ○ Narratives: Stories used by perpetrators to make sense of their emotions and actions. ○ Affective Economies: The ways emotions like fear, pain, and anger are normalized and reproduced within social and cultural contexts. 3. Emotional Transference Framework: ○ Themes Identified: Violence triggered by abandonment or perceived betrayal. Violence justified contextually, as a denial of harm. Violence as a transference of emotional pain, converting internal suffering into outward aggression. 4. Backlash Theory: ○ Explains spikes in femicide as a response to changing cultural landscapes (e.g., shifts in gender roles). ○ Violence arises from resistance to perceived threats to male dominance. Methodology 1. Sample Characteristics: ○ Interviews conducted with cisgender male perpetrators of intimate partner femicides across Latin America (n = 33). 22 ○ Countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Honduras, and Venezuela. 2. Data Collection: ○ Three interviews per participant, lasting 1.5–2 hours each. ○ Topics: childhood, adult life, crime context, legal processes, prison life, and victims. ○ Narrative interviewing to elicit personal accounts and emotional responses. 3. Analysis: ○ Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): Examines personal lived experiences to identify recurring themes. ○ Coding: Deductive (pre-defined codebook). Inductive (emergent patterns from data). 4. Ethical Considerations: ○ Approved in each country, ensuring sensitivity to the traumatic nature of the topic. Key Findings 1. Narrated Emotions: ○ Emotions are deeply embedded in narratives that justify or contextualize violence: ○ Fear: Perpetrators frequently portrayed women as threats to their identity, family, or community. Quotes highlight a sense of being overwhelmed: “She brought out the worst in me. I’m not violent, but at that moment, I saw her as an enemy.” ○ Helplessness: Perpetrators narrated feelings of powerlessness, often leading to the use of violence as a strategy to regain control. “I felt trapped, unable to control her, or us.” ○ Pain: Emotional hurt was often tied to perceived rule-breaking, such as infidelity or changes in relationship dynamics. “She made me feel like a limp rag… that pain never stopped, even after she died.” ○ Anger: The culmination of fear, helplessness, and pain often led to anger, explicitly connected to the act of femicide. “I felt possessed, like a battery about to explode.” 2. Social Isolation: ○ Practices: Perpetrators often worked to alienate victims from their social networks, using persuasion, jealousy, and possessiveness. “Me or them. She had to choose.” ○ Narratives: Isolation tactics were justified through cultural norms, such as controlling access to friends and family. 3. Control Over the Victim’s Body: 23 ○ Included strategies like forced medication, criticism, and confinement. “I locked her in to keep her safe from others. It was for her own good.” 4. Blocking Access to Institutions: ○ Healthcare: Prevented victims from seeking medical help or violence-specific programs. ○ Labor Market: Used patriarchal discourses to hinder victims’ employment opportunities, citing tensions between work and family roles. 5. Role of Peer Networks: ○ Male peer groups often provided legitimation for violence, minimizing harm and reinforcing aggressive behaviors. “My friends said the judge just wanted to inflate femicide numbers, not hear my side of the story.” Key Themes 1. Violence as a Strategy: ○ Used to address emotional pain, regain control, or assert dominance. 2. Normalization of Violence: ○ Perpetrators often narrated violence as naturalized or inevitable, shaped by cultural and social norms. 3. The Role of Institutions: ○ Institutions often fail to intervene effectively, either through complicity or neglect. Policy Recommendations 1. Immediate Interventions: ○ Shelters: Provide temporary housing for victims but address long-term drawbacks, such as separation from children. 2. Educational Initiatives: ○ Implement programs at a younger age to challenge patriarchal norms and toxic masculinity. 3. Community-Based Policies: ○ Empower community leaders to act as upstream agents of change. 4. Normative Change: ○ Focus on reshaping societal frameworks to challenge the legitimacy of gendered violence. 5. Engaging Perpetrators: ○ Develop programs that address perpetrators’ emotional narratives, targeting their role in the affective economy of violence. Critical Reflection and Implications 1. The Limits of Rationality Approaches: 24 ○ The findings challenge the assumption that violence is a product of poor communication or lack of emotional skills. 2. Structural Complicity: ○ The role of institutions in perpetuating femicide must be critically examined, addressing systemic failures. 3. Future Research Directions: ○ Expand the focus to include female perpetrators, cultural variations, and non-lethal forms of coercion. 4. Intersectionality: ○ Recognize the interplay of gender, class, and race in shaping vulnerabilities and experiences of violence. Conclusion This week’s session provides an in-depth exploration of femicide through theoretical, methodological, and practical lenses. By combining narratives, emotions, and institutional analysis, the findings underscore the complex, systemic nature of intimate partner femicide. Policy and research must adopt a holistic approach, addressing cultural, emotional, and institutional dimensions to combat this global issue effectively. Prof. Di Marco’s work highlights the need for targeted interventions and a critical re-evaluation of existing norms and practices. Di Marco, Martín Hernán, and Sandberg, Sveinung (2024): "Fear, Helplessness, Pain, Anger: The Narrated Emotions of Intimate Femicide Perpetrators in Latin America" Main Arguments 1. Narrated Emotions and Gendered Violence: ○ The study explores how emotions narrated by intimate femicide (IF) perpetrators are deeply tied to patriarchal structures and cultural norms. ○ It challenges conventional explanations of femicide that focus solely on individual pathology or risk factors, instead emphasizing the gendered emotional economy that sustains such violence. 2. Femicide as a Social Process: ○ Emotions such as fear, helplessness, pain, and anger are not isolated states but are socially constructed and performed within relational and cultural contexts. ○ These emotions become tools of emotional regulation to address perceived challenges to masculinity, identity, and power. 3. Violence as a Response to Emotional Threats: ○ Intimate femicide emerges as a response to disruptions in perceived gendered roles, often involving betrayal, loss of control, or perceived humiliation. ○ The study situates this violence within a larger narrative of masculinity in crisis. 25 Key Concepts 1. Sociology of Emotions: ○ Emotions are learned, relational, and social practices rather than innate individual states (Ahmed, Hochschild). ○ Ahmed’s Affective Economies: Emotions circulate within societies, shaping group identities and reinforcing boundaries, such as "man vs. woman" or "weak vs. strong." 2. Narrative Construction: ○ Narratives allow perpetrators to frame their actions as inevitable or justified responses to emotional challenges. ○ Emotions like fear and anger are often externalized, described as "happening to" the perpetrator rather than being generated internally. 3. Gendered Emotional Economies: ○ Definition: Shared societal frameworks that ascribe emotions and roles to genders (e.g., men as dominant, women as submissive). ○ These economies normalize violence as a means of restoring male dominance when disrupted. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Micro-Sociological Approach: ○ Focuses on interpersonal dynamics to understand how emotions and social contexts shape individual actions. ○ Violence is not viewed as a spontaneous act but as the result of a process of emotional escalation and remediation. 2. Narrative Analysis: ○ Perpetrators’ stories are analyzed to uncover how they make sense of their actions. ○ Narratives serve to connect emotions with broader cultural and structural forces. 3. Affective Economies (Sara Ahmed): ○ Emotions are collective, circulating within societies to reinforce social norms and structures. ○ In the context of femicide, these economies sustain gendered hierarchies and normalize violence. 4. Gender and Masculinity Studies: ○ The article situates its analysis within the broader literature on toxic masculinity and the crisis of traditional gender roles. ○ This approach highlights how male perpetrators perceive shifts in gender dynamics as existential threats. Methods 1. Sample Characteristics: ○ Participants: 33 convicted male perpetrators of intimate femicide across seven Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Venezuela). 26 ○ Criteria: Cases involved a clear intimate relationship (current or former) between the perpetrator and victim. 2. Data Collection: ○ Semi-structured Interviews: Conducted in prison settings to elicit detailed narratives of perpetrators’ lives, crimes, and emotional experiences. ○ Duration and Format: Three interviews per participant, lasting 1.5–2 hours each, covering childhood, adult life, crime context, and prison experiences. ○ Focus on Narratives: Participants were asked to describe their emotions and motivations, offering insights into their subjective experiences. 3. Analytical Approach: ○ Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA): Used to explore how perpetrators make sense of their emotional experiences. ○ Coding: A combination of deductive (pre-defined emotional categories) and inductive (emergent themes) methods identified patterns across narratives. 4. Ethical Considerations: ○ Ethical approvals obtained for each country. Researchers ensured sensitivity to the traumatic nature of the topic and anonymized all data. Findings The study identifies four core emotions in the narratives of intimate femicide perpetrators: 1. Fear: ○ Nature: Fear is framed as a response to perceived threats to masculinity, identity, and social status. ○ Triggers: Fear often arises from suspicions of infidelity, perceived loss of control, or challenges to traditional gender roles. ○ Narrative Framing: Women are constructed as threats, with fear serving as a justification for violent action. Example Quote: “She made me look weak. I had to show her I was in control.” 2. Helplessness: ○ Nature: Narratives of helplessness describe perpetrators feeling trapped or powerless, often portraying themselves as victims of circumstances. ○ Externalization: Helplessness is used to absolve responsibility, framing the act of femicide as an inevitable reaction to unbearable pressure. Example Quote: “Everyone was against me, even her. What choice did I have?” 3. Pain: ○ Nature: Emotional pain is often linked to jealousy, rejection, or humiliation. ○ Gendered Framing: Pain is framed as a violation of male identity, particularly when women are perceived as breaking social rules (e.g., infidelity, independence). Example Quote: “She laughed at me in front of others. That pain burned inside.” 4. Anger: 27 ○ Nature: Anger is described as a bodily reaction or loss of control, externalized as an uncontrollable force. ○ Justification: Perpetrators often frame anger as an unintentional consequence of emotional buildup, denying agency or intent. Example Quote: “I didn’t think. The anger just exploded.” Key Takeaways 1. Violence as Emotional Regulation: ○ Violence becomes a strategy to restore self-worth and control, particularly in response to perceived threats to masculinity. 2. Normalization of Violence: ○ Emotional narratives reflect broader cultural norms that normalize violence as a response to disruptions in gendered hierarchies. 3. Narratives of Justification and Denial: ○ Perpetrators use narratives to justify their actions, often framing themselves as victims of circumstances or external forces. 4. The Role of Patriarchal Structures: ○ Gendered emotional economies sustain the conditions for femicide, linking individual emotions to broader social and cultural systems. Policy Implications 1. Early Intervention Programs: ○ Focus on challenging patriarchal norms and toxic masculinity through education and community engagement. 2. Community-Based Prevention: ○ Empower community leaders to act as mediators and educators, addressing gender norms at a local level. 3. Narrative-Based Rehabilitation: ○ Develop programs that address perpetrators’ emotional frameworks and encourage accountability. 4. Cultural Change: ○ Campaigns to challenge the normalization of violence and reshape societal attitudes toward gender and power. Limitations 1. Regional Focus: ○ The study focuses on Latin America, limiting generalizability to other cultural and regional contexts. 2. Post-Hoc Narratives: 28 ○ Narratives are constructed retrospectively, potentially distorting real-time emotional experiences. 3. Social Desirability Bias: ○ Perpetrators may shape their stories to align with societal norms or minimize culpability. Conclusion Di Marco and Sandberg’s study provides a comprehensive analysis of how emotions shape and justify intimate femicide. By focusing on narrated emotions, the authors reveal the complex interplay between individual experiences, cultural norms, and structural inequalities. This research highlights the need for interventions that address both individual emotional regulation and societal gendered hierarchies, offering valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and practitioners. The article is a significant contribution to the literature on femicide and gendered violence, emphasizing the importance of cultural and structural context in understanding and addressing such crimes. Gill, Carmen, Campbell, Mary Ann, and Ballucci, Dale (2021): "Police Officers’ Definitions and Understandings of Intimate Partner Violence in New Brunswick, Canada" Main Arguments 1. Police Officers’ Understandings of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): ○ Police officers’ interpretations of IPV influence their decision-making, including whether cases are treated as criminal offenses and how victims are supported. ○ The definitions of IPV held by officers vary significantly, shaped by personal beliefs, professional training, and broader societal norms. ○ This variability highlights gaps in policing responses, especially in recognizing non-physical abuse such as coercive control, emotional abuse, and financial abuse. 2. Physical Violence as the Dominant Focus: ○ Officers tend to prioritize physical violence over other forms of IPV because it is visible, measurable, and fits traditional legal frameworks. ○ Emotional and psychological forms of violence are frequently ignored or downplayed, leading to incomplete or biased interventions. 3. Gendered Understandings of IPV: ○ Officers’ interpretations of IPV are shaped by gender stereotypes, where female victims are perceived as more legitimate, while male victims and LGBTQ+ victims are often marginalized or dismissed. ○ These biases influence officers’ assessments of victim credibility, perpetrator motivations, and the perceived seriousness of cases. 4. The Role of Training and Discretion: ○ Professional training in IPV significantly impacts officers’ abilities to identify and respond appropriately to cases. 29 ○ However, training is inconsistent across jurisdictions, leaving many officers to rely on personal judgment or discretionary power. ○ This discretion can result in unequal outcomes for IPV victims, particularly when non-visible forms of violence are involved. Key Concepts 1. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): ○ Definition: Violence or abuse occurring within an intimate relationship (current or former), encompassing: Physical abuse (hitting, slapping, choking). Emotional abuse (verbal insults, gaslighting, isolation). Psychological abuse (manipulation, threats, intimidation). Financial abuse (controlling finances, preventing work). Sexual abuse (non-consensual acts, coercion). 2. Coercive Control (Stark, 2007): ○ Definition: A pattern of controlling behaviors that trap victims in a state of dependency and fear. ○ Examples include: Isolation from friends and family. Monitoring daily activities. Controlling access to resources. Threatening or intimidating behavior. ○ Issue in Policing: Officers often fail to recognize coercive control as IPV because it lacks physical evidence and is harder to prove legally. 3. Victim Credibility: ○ Officers’ assessment of victim credibility is shaped by gender norms and expectations: Female victims: Viewed as more believable but often scrutinized for behaviors like staying with abusive partners. Male victims: Their experiences are downplayed or dismissed as non-serious. LGBTQ+ victims: Marginalized due to a lack of understanding or discomfort among officers. 4. Police Discretion: ○ Definition: The ability of officers to decide how to act based on their judgment and the circumstances of a case. ○ Officers use discretion to determine: Whether an IPV incident qualifies as a crime. The severity of the threat to the victim. Whether intervention (e.g., arrest, counseling) is necessary. ○ Problem: Discretion often leads to inconsistent responses and can reinforce biases, particularly in cases of non-physical IPV. 5. Institutional and Cultural Norms: ○ Police responses to IPV are influenced by: 30 Organizational culture (e.g., norms of toughness, reliance on physical evidence). Community norms (e.g., stigma surrounding male or LGBTQ+ victims). Legal limitations that prioritize physical evidence. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Gendered Lens on IPV: ○ The study applies a gender-sensitive perspective to understand how traditional gender roles shape police responses: Women are seen as “natural victims” deserving protection. Men and LGBTQ+ individuals are viewed as outside traditional victim categories, resulting in skepticism or neglect. 2. Symbolic Interactionism: ○ Focuses on how police officers construct and interpret IPV incidents based on personal experiences, training, and community expectations. ○ Officers’ interactions with victims and perpetrators shape their subjective definitions of IPV and guide their decisions. 3. Critical Criminology: ○ Examines the role of power dynamics and institutional practices in shaping how IPV is policed. ○ Highlights the systemic biases embedded in policing culture, including a failure to address non-physical abuse and marginalized victims. Methods 1. Research Design: ○ A qualitative study exploring police officers’ definitions and understandings of IPV. 2. Participants: ○ 30 police officers (19 male, 11 female) from both urban and rural jurisdictions in New Brunswick, Canada. ○ Participants had varying levels of experience and exposure to IPV cases. 3. Data Collection: ○ Semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions exploring: Officers’ definitions of IPV. Their perceptions of victims and perpetrators. Their decision-making processes in IPV cases. ○ Hypothetical IPV scenarios were also presented to analyze officers’ responses. 4. Analytical Approach: ○ Thematic analysis was used to identify recurring patterns in officers’ definitions, biases, and decision-making. 5. Ethical Considerations: ○ Ensured anonymity and confidentiality of participants to encourage open and honest responses. 31 Findings 1. Narrow Definitions of IPV: ○ Officers largely defined IPV as physical violence that results in visible injuries. ○ Emotional, psychological, and financial abuse were frequently dismissed or considered less severe. ○ Quote: “If there’s no bruises or broken bones, it’s hard to say what’s really going on.” 2. Focus on Severity and Frequency: ○ IPV cases were prioritized based on the severity of the injuries and the frequency of the violence. ○ Isolated incidents of non-severe violence were often trivialized. 3. Gender Stereotypes in Victim Credibility: ○ Female victims: Viewed as the default “real” victims of IPV. ○ Male victims: Faced skepticism and were often assumed to be aggressors. ○ LGBTQ+ victims: Experienced marginalization due to a lack of understanding or discomfort among officers. ○ Quote: “A man calling the police? There’s usually more to the story.” 4. Overlooking Coercive Control: ○ Officers struggled to recognize coercive control, emotional manipulation, and financial abuse as forms of IPV. ○ These types of violence were often dismissed as “relationship issues.” 5. Variability in Training: ○ Training programs on IPV were inconsistent across jurisdictions, leaving officers unequipped to handle complex cases. ○ Officers expressed a need for more comprehensive training, particularly on non-physical IPV. 6. Discretionary Decision-Making: ○ Officers relied heavily on personal judgment to assess IPV cases, leading to inconsistent outcomes. ○ Discretion was influenced by organizational norms and personal biases. Key Takeaways 1. Definitional Gaps: ○ Police officers’ narrow focus on physical violence excludes significant dimensions of IPV, such as coercive control. 2. Gendered Biases: ○ Traditional gender norms shape officers’ perceptions of victims and perpetrators, disadvantaging male and LGBTQ+ victims. 3. Training Gaps: ○ Inconsistent training contributes to variability in police responses and a failure to recognize non-physical forms of IPV. 4. The Role of Discretion: ○ Police discretion can both protect and harm victims, depending on how it is exercised. 32 Policy Implications 1. Comprehensive Training Programs: ○ Implement standardized training on all forms of IPV, including coercive control, emotional abuse, and financial abuse. 2. Gender-Inclusive Policing: ○ Develop programs to address biases and improve recognition of male and LGBTQ+ victims. 3. Clear Guidelines for Police Response: ○ Create actionable protocols to ensure consistent handling of IPV cases, including non-physical abuse. 4. Community Partnerships: ○ Collaborate with community organizations to provide holistic support to victims. Limitations 1. Small Sample Size: ○ A sample of 30 officers may not fully represent all police perspectives on IPV. 2. Regional Focus: ○ Findings are specific to New Brunswick, Canada, limiting generalizability to other regions. 3. Self-Reported Bias: ○ Officers may have downplayed biases or presented themselves in a favorable light during interviews. Conclusion Gill, Campbell, and Ballucci provide a detailed analysis of police officers’ definitions and understandings of IPV, highlighting significant gaps in recognizing non-physical violence and the role of gendered biases. The study underscores the need for comprehensive training, standardized protocols, and gender-inclusive approaches to improve police responses and address systemic inequalities in IPV policing. This research offers critical insights for policymakers, police departments, and scholars seeking to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of IPV interventions. Graham, Laurie M., Macy, Rebecca J., Rizo, Cynthia F., and Martin, Sandra L. (2022): “Explanatory Theories of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetration: A Systematic Review” 33 Main Arguments 1. Purpose of the Review: ○ To systematically identify and analyze theoretical explanations for Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) perpetration. ○ Focus on understanding the causes, pathways, and processes that lead to IPH to inform prevention and intervention strategies. 2. The Lack of Unified Theories: ○ While various explanations for IPH exist, there is no single, unified theoretical framework that can fully explain why IPH occurs. ○ Existing theories often focus on specific aspects (e.g., individual pathology, relational conflict) while neglecting broader structural and cultural factors. 3. The Need for Multidimensional Approaches: ○ IPH is a complex phenomenon requiring integrated theories that account for individual, relational, societal, and structural factors. ○ Theories need to incorporate gendered power dynamics, emotional processes, and systemic failures (e.g., police and legal responses). Key Concepts 1. Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH): ○ Definition: The intentional killing of one’s current or former intimate partner. ○ IPH is a gendered crime, with women disproportionately affected as victims, and men as predominant perpetrators. 2. Theoretical Frameworks in the Review: ○ The authors categorize theories into four key domains: 1. Individual-Level Theories: Focus on perpetrator characteristics such as mental illness, substance abuse, and personality disorders. 2. Relational-Level Theories: Examine relationship dynamics, including conflict, dependency, and control. 3. Societal/Structural-Level Theories: Address broader societal norms, gender inequalities, and cultural expectations. 4. Integrated Theories: Combine multiple levels of analysis to offer a holistic understanding of IPH. 3. Risk Factors vs. Theories: ○ Risk Factors: Observable variables (e.g., prior violence, jealousy, unemployment) that correlate with IPH. ○ Theories: Provide explanatory frameworks for understanding how and why IPH occurs. Theoretical Frameworks and Key Findings 1. Individual-Level Theories: 34 ○ Focus on psychological and biological factors that predispose individuals to commit IPH. ○ Examples of Theories: Psychopathology Theory: Links mental illnesses (e.g., antisocial personality disorder, depression) to homicidal behavior. Substance Use Theory: Explains how drugs and alcohol impair judgment, increase aggression, and escalate violent behavior. Evolutionary Theory: Suggests that IPH is driven by reproductive competition, jealousy, and attempts to control a partner. ○ Critique: These theories often individualize violence, neglecting relational and societal factors. 2. Relational-Level Theories: ○ Focus on interpersonal dynamics and power imbalances within relationships. ○ Examples of Theories: Conflict Theory: IPH emerges from escalating relationship conflicts and the inability to resolve disputes non-violently. Dependency Theory: Examines the role of emotional, financial, or social dependency that exacerbates power imbalances. Jealousy and Possessiveness: Highlights how jealousy serves as a trigger for IPH, often linked to patriarchal beliefs about ownership and control. ○ Critique: While relational theories explain partner dynamics, they fail to account for structural influences like gender norms and systemic failures. 3. Societal/Structural-Level Theories: ○ Address the broader societal and cultural contexts that sustain IPV and IPH. ○ Examples of Theories: Feminist Theory: Argues that IPH is rooted in patriarchal systems that normalize male dominance and violence against women. IPH is seen as a product of gender inequality, systemic power imbalances, and the societal reinforcement of toxic masculinity. Social Learning Theory: Explains how violent behaviors are learned through observation and socialization, particularly in families and communities. Strain Theory: Highlights how economic stress, unemployment, and poverty contribute to violence by increasing frustration and conflict. ○ Critique: These theories are broad and fail to capture the specific emotional and relational triggers for IPH. 4. Integrated Theories: ○ Combine individual, relational, and societal factors to provide a comprehensive explanation for IPH. ○ Examples of Integrated Approaches: Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner): IPH occurs within nested systems of influence: individual, relational, community, and societal levels. Recognizes that risk factors interact across levels to produce violence. Gendered Pathways Theory: Combines feminist insights with psychological and relational explanations to address the intersectionality of risk factors. 35 ○ Strengths: Integrated theories offer a more complete understanding of IPH by incorporating multiple levels of analysis. Key Takeaways 1. IPH as a Multifaceted Phenomenon: ○ No single theory can fully explain IPH; the phenomenon involves a complex interplay of individual, relational, and societal factors. ○ A multidimensional approach is necessary to understand the pathways to IPH. 2. Gendered Nature of IPH: ○ The disproportionate victimization of women underscores the importance of addressing patriarchal norms and systemic gender inequalities. ○ Feminist theory is particularly valuable in explaining how societal structures perpetuate male dominance and control. 3. The Role of Emotions: ○ Theories that focus on emotions (e.g., jealousy, anger, possessiveness) are central to understanding the relational dynamics that lead to IPH. 4. Risk Factors vs. Theories: ○ Risk factors alone cannot explain why IPH occurs; theoretical frameworks are necessary to uncover underlying processes and pathways. 5. Limitations of Existing Theories: ○ Many theories fail to integrate multiple levels of analysis, resulting in fragmented understandings of IPH. ○ Structural theories often overlook emotional processes, while individual theories neglect broader societal contexts. Policy Implications 1. Integrated Prevention Programs: ○ Develop programs that address individual, relational, and societal factors contributing to IPH. ○ Example: Combining counseling for perpetrators (individual) with community education on gender norms (structural). 2. Focus on Gender Inequality: ○ Implement policies to challenge patriarchal systems and promote gender equality, addressing the root causes of IPH. 3. Early Identification of Risk Factors: ○ Train law enforcement, healthcare professionals, and social workers to identify high-risk behaviors (e.g., coercive control, substance abuse). 4. Education on Emotional Regulation: ○ Programs targeting jealousy, possessiveness, and anger management can help prevent relational escalations leading to IPH. 5. Community-Based Interventions: 36 ○ Engage community leaders to shift cultural attitudes about violence and promote healthy relationship norms. Limitations 1. Inconsistent Theoretical Integration: ○ The review highlights the lack of a single, unified framework for IPH, suggesting a need for further theoretical integration. 2. Geographic and Cultural Biases: ○ Most studies focus on Western contexts, limiting the applicability of findings to diverse cultural settings. 3. Focus on Male Perpetrators: ○ The theories predominantly address male-perpetrated IPH, neglecting female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators. Conclusion Graham et al. provide a systematic review of explanatory theories of IPH, highlighting the need for integrated, multidimensional frameworks that consider individual, relational, and societal influences. The study emphasizes the gendered nature of IPH, underscoring the importance of addressing patriarchal norms and promoting structural, community-based, and educational interventions. By synthesizing diverse theories, the authors offer valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers aiming to prevent and respond effectively to intimate partner homicide. Evans, Weiss, Leese, Matthias, and Rychnovská, Dagmar (2021): “Science, Technology, Security: Towards Critical Collaboration” Overview of the Article The article examines the intertwined relationship between science, technology, and security (STS), arguing for a shift towards critical collaboration between Science and Technology Studies (STS) scholars and security practitioners. It highlights how security technologies are neither neutral nor objective but are deeply embedded in societal norms, power relations, and political agendas. The authors propose critical collaboration as a method to foster accountability, reflexivity, and ethical considerations in the development and use of security technologies. Main Arguments 1. Interdependence of Science, Technology, and Security (STS): 37 ○ Science and technology (S&T) are inseparable from security practices; they actively shape how security is defined, pursued, and implemented. ○ Technologies are often viewed as neutral tools that address security threats, but this article challenges that assumption, showing that technologies are political, value-laden, and shaped by societal priorities. 2. Critical Collaboration as a Solution: ○ The authors argue for critical collaboration between STS scholars and security actors (e.g., policymakers, engineers, technologists). ○ Such collaboration requires both critique (identifying biases, assumptions, and power dynamics) and constructive engagement (working together to design technologies that prioritize equity, inclusivity, and accountability). 3. Security as a Sociotechnical Practice: ○ Security practices involve a combination of social norms, technological systems, and human actors. ○ Technologies are not passive; they actively influence security by determining: What is considered a threat. Who or what is protected. How protection is enacted. 4. Reflexivity in Security Practices: ○ Reflexivity means acknowledging the biases, assumptions, and unintended consequences embedded in security technologies. ○ Security actors must critically evaluate their practices, questioning how technologies perpetuate inequalities or introduce new vulnerabilities. 5. Challenging the Securitization of Technology: ○ Technologies often become securitized, meaning they are framed as indispensable for addressing threats. ○ This securitization prioritizes funding and policy decisions while sidelining ethical, social, and political considerations. Key Concepts 1. Science and Technology Studies (STS): ○ STS examines the social construction of science and technology, emphasizing their embeddedness in societal values, norms, and politics. ○ It challenges the idea that technologies are neutral tools or objective solutions to problems. 2. Security as Sociotechnical: ○ Security is a hybrid practice involving human actors (e.g., policymakers, engineers, technologists) and non-human entities (e.g., surveillance systems, algorithms, infrastructures). ○ Sociotechnical systems are dynamic and co-constitutive, meaning technologies shape social practices, and social practices shape technological design. 3. Critical Collaboration: ○ A method of engaging critically yet constructively with security actors to improve the ethical, social, and political dimensions of security technologies. 38 ○ Involves identifying hidden biases, unintended consequences, and power imbalances in security practices. 4. Reflexivity: ○ The process of critically examining one’s own assumptions, biases, and impacts. ○ Reflexivity in security involves questioning how technologies frame threats, allocate resources, and affect marginalized groups. 5. Securitization of Technology: ○ Securitization occurs when technologies are framed as essential for addressing existential threats. ○ This framing shapes public perceptions, policies, and funding, often prioritizing certain risks while marginalizing others. Theoretical Frameworks 1. Constructivist STS: ○ Technologies are not neutral or inevitable; they are shaped by societal choices, values, and power dynamics. ○ Example: Surveillance technologies reflect societal priorities around control, safety, and visibility. 2. Securitization Theory (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde): ○ Security is a social construct that emerges when actors frame issues as existential threats requiring exceptional measures. ○ Technologies become securitized when they are presented as critical tools for addressing such threats, reinforcing their centrality in security practices. 3. Actor-Network Theory (ANT): ○ Examines the relationships between human and non-human actors (e.g., engineers, policymakers, algorithms, sensors). ○ Security practices are shaped by networks of actors, with technologies playing active roles in defining threats and responses. 4. Reflexive Modernization (Beck): ○ Modern societies must critically examine their reliance on science and technology, acknowledging risks, unintended consequences, and ethical dilemmas. ○ Reflexivity promotes more democratic, transparent, and inclusive approaches to technological development. Methods 1. Conceptual Analysis: ○ The authors conduct a theoretical exploration of how STS principles intersect with security studies, drawing from key works in both fields. 2. Illustrative Case Studies: ○ Several examples of security technologies are used to demonstrate the sociotechnical nature of security practices, including: 39 Surveillance technologies: How AI-driven facial recognition systems reproduce racial biases. Dual-use research: The ethical dilemmas of technologies that can be used for both civilian and military purposes. 3. Interdisciplinary Approach: ○ The study integrates perspectives from STS, critical security studies, and sociology to provide a nuanced analysis of security technologies. Key Findings 1. Technologies Actively Shape Security Practices: ○ Security technologies are not neutral tools; they determine what is perceived as a threat, who is protected, and how protection is enacted. ○ Example: AI algorithms in policing often reproduce societal biases, disproportionately targeting marginalized communities. 2. Neutrality Is a Myth: ○ Technologies are imbued with societal values and assumptions, which influence their design and implementation. ○ Example: The development of surveillance drones reflects priorities around control and visibility rather than privacy or community empowerment. 3. Reflexivity as a Crucial Practice:

SAIC Final Exam - AI Notes PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue