c.a.s.e. collective, ; Aradau, Claudia; Bell, Colleen; Bonditti, Philippe; Davidshofer, Stephan; Guillaume, Xavier; Huysmans, Jef; Jeandesboz, Julien; Jutila, Matti; McCormack, Tara; Neal, Andrew; Olsson, Christian; Ragazzi, Francesco; Squire, Vicki; Stritzel, Holger; van Munster, Rens and Williams, Michael C.
Europe, knowledge, politics: engaging with the limits, the c.a.s.e. collective responds.
Security Dialogue, 38(4)
HAVING ONE’S WORK closely read and critically debated is a rare pleasure. It was thus with great joy that we saw that our collective article ‘Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked Manifesto’ (c.a.s.e. collective, 2006) provoked several thoughtful responses to the theoretical premises of the manifesto and its intellectual and political ramifications. The replies to the manifesto created a new space of self-interrogation in which the c.a.s.e. collective grappled with some of the limits that our critics addressed. Before we address some of these more directly, it may be useful to restate the original objective of the collective manifesto. First, the authors that were part of the collective had a desire to push critical innovations in security studies beyond the framing of critical security studies in terms of schools. The aim of working and writing as a collective, as a network of scholars who do not agree on everything yet share a common perspective, was based on a desire to break with the competitive dynamics of individualist research agendas. Alluding to the emancipatory connotations of the word ‘manifesto’, the aim of the article was to carve out and open up an intellectual space for critical thinking – both in the disciplinary sense of formulating an alternative space to mainstream security studies and in the political sense of thinking through the ethico-political implications of security and securitization.
Actions (login may be required)