PS E under Weak Preferences

Apart from the social constructionist theorist, there are other theorists who, however, believe that the state has been given too much prominence. (Krause and Williams 1997). These theorists also share the wish to de-emphasize the role of the state and reconceptualize security in a different way. Their "alternative" security studies includes a number of different approaches such as; critical theory and emancipation; feminist approaches, and post-modernist approaches.

3.2.1 Critical Theory and Emancipation

Critical theory is used here not necessarily as defined by the early crop of theorist bike Adorno, Frank Honkheimer, Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas and Marx who were associated with the Frankfurt School founded in 1923. The theory is discussed here as it relates to international security studies. In this Robert Cox draws a distinction between Problem solving and critical 'Theories. Problem solving theorists work within the prevailing system. They take the existing social and political relations and institutions as starting point for analysis and then see how the problem rising from these can be served and ameliorated. (Smith 2000). In contrast, critical security Theorists focus their attention on the way these existing

relationships and institutions emerged, and what might be done to change them.

They say that the state should not be the center of analysis because they are not only extremely diverse in character but also often part• of the problem of insecurity to the international system (Baylis and Smith). They can be providers of security, but they can also be a source of threat to their own people. In their view, therefore, attention should be focused on the individual rather than the state.

With this as their main standpoint, writers like Booth and Wynn Jones argue that security can best be assured through "human emancipation" defined in terms of freeing people as individuals and groups, from the social, physical, economic, political and other constrains to their carrying out what they would freely choose to do. This focus on emancipation is designed to provide a theory of progress, a politics of hope and a guide to a resistance (Booth 1999). Critics fault the concept of emancipation as vague because of the difficulty of individual based theories to analyze international and global security (Rengger 2000).

3.2.2 Feminist Approaches

Feminist writers, among them Tickner (1992) also challenge the traditional emphasis on the central role of the state in the studies of international security.

They also argue that works on international politics and international security have been written from a masculine point of view. Feminist writes argue that women have seldom been recognize by the security literature despite the fact that the vast majority of casualties and refugees in war are women and children more than men.

She points to the recent war in Bosnia and argues that the rape of women is often used as a tool of war. She also challenges the concept of "national security", arguing that the use of such terms is often designed to preserve the prevailing male-dominated order rather than to protect the state from external attack.

Feminist writers argue that if "gender" is given increased recognition in the study of security, new issues and alternative perspectives will be added to the security agenda, and, the result will be a fundamentally different view of the nature of international security. According to Jill Steams (1998), rethinking security would

"Involve thinking about militarism and patriarchy, mal-development and environmental degradation". It also involves thinking about the relationship between poverty, debt and population growth, and about resources and how they are distributed. (Smith 2000).

3.2.3 Post-Modernist Views

In recent years there have been the emergence of post-modernist approaches to international relations has produced a distinctive perspective towards international security (Baylic & Smith). Post-modernist writers are of the view that ideas,

discourse and the logic of interpretation are crucial to understanding of international politics and security. Post-modernists join other who adopt the critical security studies approach and see Realism as one of the central problems of international security. This is because Realism is a "discourse of power and rule" which has been dominant in international politics in the past and which has encouraged security competition between states. Power politics is seen as an image of the world that encourages behaviour that help bring about war. Also the attempt to balance power is itself part of the very behaviour that leads to war.

According to this view, alliances do not produce peace, but lead to war. The aim of many post-modernists, therefore, is to replace the discourse of Realism or power with a different discourse, and an alternative interpretation of concepts such as "danger" and what counts as a threat to "national security".

Post-modernists argue that there are no secure, timeless and unconnected foundations for making choices about interpretation. Realism is viewed both as a statistic ideology, largely out of touch with the globalizing tendencies which are occurring in world politics, and also as a dangerous discourse which is against efforts to establish a new and more peaceful hegemonic discourse. The reason is because Realism purports to provide a universal view about how the world is organized and what states have to do if they wish to survive. Post modernists reject what they see as preposterous certainty or Realism. In their view, the enormous complexity and indeterminacy of human behaviour across cultural, religious, historical and linguistic diversities means that there can be no single interpretation of global reality (Baylis & Smith).

According to the post-modernist view, the problem with Realism is that if the complexities of world politics are reduced are reduced to a single rigidly (i.e. the character and nature of Realist discourse) ordered framework of understanding, alternative interpretation and approaches the international security are ruled out.

As Jim George argues, in the post-cold war strategic discourse, attention has been focused on the growing sense of insecurity concerning state involvement in military-industrial affairs and the perilous state of the global economy.

Post-modernist writers believe that it is essential to replace Realism with a communitarian discourse, and that it is an achievable objective. Because experts and especially academic writers have an important role to play in influencing the flow of ideas about world politics, it vital for them to play their part in the process of transforming language and discourse about international polities (Baylis &

Smith).