Hope of deliverance

Abstract

In his article, Barnett makes a convincing case for the need to consider securitization as a mode of problematization. When it comes to security, he enjoins us to consider the role of publics and publicness without necessarily committing to an unreflexive liberal ideal of transparency, non-interference and openness. This response focuses on two central issues that emerge when we pay attention to publics, security and the spaces of their unfolding. The first one entails a reflection on the different understandings of the political and the legitimacy conferred to the different publics attached to them. The second one is the need to deepen our understanding of subjecthood in relation to security and resilience. Acknowledging and better accounting for the great variation in different subjects’ capacity to enact resilience or internalize security norms cast doubts on some security studies’ and resilience studies’ bleak assessment of governmentality and its workings.