Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBilgin, P.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-08T09:55:27Z
dc.date.available2016-02-08T09:55:27Z
dc.date.issued2010-12en_US
dc.identifier.issn0967-0106
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/22093
dc.description.abstractUnlike some other staples of security studies that do not even register the issue, Buzan & Hansen's (2009) The Evolution of International Security Studies unambiguously identifies 'Western-centrism' as a problem. This article seeks to make the point, however, that treating heretofore-understudied insecurities (such as those experienced in the non-West) as a 'blind spot' of the discipline may prevent us from fully recognizing the ways in which such 'historical absences' have been constitutive of security both in theory and in practice. Put differently, the discipline's 'Western-centric' character is no mere challenge for students of security studies. The 'historical absence' from security studies of non-Western insecurities and approaches has been a 'constitutive practice' that has shaped (and continues to shape) both the discipline and subjects and objects of security in different parts of the world.en_US
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.source.titleSecurity Dialogueen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0967010610388208en_US
dc.subjectEurocentrismen_US
dc.subjectInsecurityen_US
dc.subjectPostcolonialen_US
dc.subjectSecurity studiesen_US
dc.subjectThird worlden_US
dc.titleThe 'western-centrism' of security studies: 'blind spot' or constitutive practice?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of International Relationsen_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Political Science and Public Administrationen_US
dc.citation.spage615en_US
dc.citation.epage622en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber41en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber6en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0967010610388208en_US
dc.publisherSage Publications Ltd.en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record