Abstract
Studies on security and conflict in Indonesia have largely relied on culturalists (those who “emphasize the causal and constitutive role of cultural processes and systems of signification”) and objectivists (those who see “a homogeneous form of human subjectivity across time and space”) traditions (Steinmetz 1999). The works of culturalists usually cover a longer period, not only focusing on the decisive moment of the conflict. For them, violent conflicts are the end result of long-term social dynamics, and their theoretical approaches to Indonesia’s violent conflicts—among others—are: social psychology (Colombijn 2002; Collins 2002), collective-behavioral (Suryadinata et al. 2003: xxiii, 178; Bubandt 2004; Kreuzer 2002), and historical-cultural (Surata and Andrianto 2001; Sutirto 2000; Warnaen 2002; Abdilah 2002; Trijono 2004; Bartels 2003; Smith 2005; Good and Good 2001). Their analyses of the subject at hand can be summarized into three general conclusions. First, the culture of violence is embedded in Indonesian society. Second, the objective reality of ethnic and religious diversity is perceived as latent sources of threat. Third, modernization and development—the New Order’s cardinal rhetoric—have damaged social and cultural bonds within the society. Hence, it leads to the outbreak of violent conflicts. From culturalists we learn how to conduct a long-term observation on certain social phenomena. And, from their literature we learn more about social psychology and the creation of meaning in a society.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See van Klinken 2007.
- 2.
- 3.
For example, see the conflicts in Kalimantan and Maluku which, according to the culturalist view, broke out because of the Dayaks’ savagery and the Ambones’ irascibility (van Klinken 2007).
- 4.
For a more elaborate discussion on the weaknesses of culturalists’ studies on Indonesia’s violent conflicts, for example, see ibid.
- 5.
See van Klinken 2007.
- 6.
Jacques Bertrand’s historical institutionalism approach also satisfactorily addresses the problem of disaggregate studies (for a further discussion of disaggregate studies, see van Klinken 2007: 34, 38, 45) on Indonesia’s conflicts during the transition. In this sense, his approach is applicable to scrutinize both separatist and communal conflicts, while disaggregate analysis has to choose between the two. Additionally, by using the historical institutionalism approach, Bertrand is also able to integrate other analyses—such as political economy motives behind conflicts and civil-military relations—into his analytical framework (Bertrand 2004).
- 7.
See van Klinken, op. cit.
- 8.
Though van Klinken and Bertrand in their respective works criticize each other, I argue that their analyses, in essence, mutually complement each other. From their works, we might draw directional arrows showing the causal mechanism that linked monetary crisis, structural changes, local economics modus, and the outbreak of conflicts.
- 9.
Shared knowledge refers to the nature of the relationships between the actors in the system. The social pattern of enmity and amity are important here as competition resulted when actors were so distrustful of one another that they habitually made worst-case assumptions about each other. Cooperation, on the other hand, exists when there is amity and sufficient trust among actors so that none will use force to resolve their disputes (Snyder 1999: 104–5).
- 10.
The argument for ideational factors suggests that “concepts of who we are and what we value encourage particular ways of thinking about where threats to those values might come from, what form they might take and how they might be dealt with” (McDonald 2008: 64).
- 11.
By broadening the security discourse, the studies include more sectors than solely the military and politics, such as economic, environment, and societal sectors. By deepening the security discourse, the studies now include alternative referent objects and actors beside the state (Buzan 1991; Buzan et al. 1998).
- 12.
Constructivists define norms as shared expectations about appropriate or legitimate behavior by actors with a particular identity (McDonald 2008: 63).
- 13.
Negotiation happens between political leaders and domestic audiences in particular. Contestation occurs between different actors elaborating different visions of “our” values and how “we” should act. This view has marked another main difference between constructivists and objectivists. The latter view security as something enacted at the level of policy elites. Negotiation only takes place between them and the public has little or no role. Or at least, the public is a relatively passive target of elite policy discourses that bind the individual to the nation-state. Constructivists refute this view and assert the importance of public involvement and support for measuring the legitimacy of policies decided by elites (McDonald 2008).
- 14.
“Threat” posed by an “enemy” comes about through representations (McDonald 2008: 61).
- 15.
Here, researchers seek to shed light on which conditions (political, economic, cultural, etc.), what audience, and which discourse securitization might succeed.
- 16.
Once researchers successfully develop their logical framework to show securitization as a process, they frame the findings with the security complex approach. In general, they will further argue that security is not defined by geopolitical reality.
- 17.
Here, literature does not only scrutinize the meaning and function of security, but, in a more fundamental way, they also elaborate the role played by security in human nature as well as in the political order.
- 18.
This is the common idea shared by the epistemic security community in Indonesia. See for an instance, Keliat 2011.
- 19.
Some researchers believe that the securitizing actor-audience interactions happen in an equal position. It appears that within its structured power a securitizing actor can speak security and designate a threat. On the other hand, with their constitutional rights an audience has the power to decide whether or not to accept a securitizing move. Therefore, there should be some kind of a balance of power between them. As the argument goes, if the securitization speech act can be understood as the illocutionary one, then in most cases, there can barely be equality between the speaker and the listener.
- 20.
For her initiation process for desecuritization, Oelsner relates to two paradigmatic traditions. The first theoretical tradition is interdependence and institutionalism. This tradition holds the argument that the conflicting parties tend to avoid the use of force as an alternative to settle their dispute since the absolute gain from a negotiated peaceful solution is far more beneficial than the use of force. The second background can be found in the realist tradition. The latter suggests that actors will change the way they behave and shift the way they see each other without necessarily being politically defeated once they secure a considerable incentive for doing so (Oelsner 2005: 11–12).
- 21.
In this phase, Oelsner places her explanation on constructivist tradition. Constructivists stress the important role of identity, idea, perception, and understanding which are shared and developed though repeated interactions. They also claim that both interest and identity are not static and homogeneous in essence but they constantly change through practices and habits; that is, through interaction (Oelsner 2005: 14).
- 22.
One weakness of this outcome however lies in its conservative and system-stabilizing character. It means the ultimate purpose of desecuritization in this particular strategy is to bring stabilization into relations among adversaries without necessarily addressing the very source of animosity. Hence, as the result—instead of a rooted ethical acceptance among adversaries—there is no one who can provide a guarantee of both the direct and long-term consequences of this change through stabilization.
- 23.
As a political vision, rearticulation is the ideal outcome of a desecuritization process. It bears no conservatism problem as in the change through stabilization and faces no new problem as in the replacement. One challenge for rearticulation is more the normative and political question linked to stability and desirability. As Hansen puts it, “rearticulation claims finality, yet finality is inherently impossible.” Another remark needed is that rearticulation is anything but a smooth process. It is a result of a bitter bargaining process taking place in complex power dynamics and in a hostile environment.
- 24.
This outcome was inspired by MacKenzie’s research on female soldiers in Sierra Leone. MacKenzie presents a finding that the international community and its local counterparts in Sierra Leone’s peace process categorize female soldiers merely as victims, abductees, camp followers, domestic workers, and sex slaves. In this case, the international community has silenced and uncategorized those women as soldiers or combatants. Accordingly, MacKenzie categorizes this situation as a desecuritization. Though Hansen includes silencing as one of her desecuritization outcomes, it appears only for the sake of conceptual categorization.
- 25.
By taking this stance, I do not intent to reject all of Gerring’s work on Case Study Research. In the following part, I am still referring to Gerring, particularly in explaining synchronic analysis on case study and the technique of extreme case selection.
- 26.
This definition is adopted from Correlates of War Project. For more discussion on the definition of war and violent conflict, see for an instance, Meredith Reid Sarkees, The COW Typology of War: Defining and Categorizing Wars (Version 4 of the Data). Available at http://www.correlatesofwar.org/, accessed on 20 March 2011.
- 27.
The renowned Indonesian peace activist Ichsan Malik, for instance, estimates that the Maluku conflict claimed at least 9700 lives (Kompas, 23 May 2002).
- 28.
A complete effort for theory-oriented conclusions can be done only when a number of adequate cases are selected. The selection of only one case, in this context the Indonesian security dynamic during the transition, is not sufficient for theory-oriented conclusions. It is thus not possible to generalize on questions as, for instance, “how to maintain security in transition countries when at the same time reforming their security agencies.” What, however, can be derived from the Indonesian case is the “lessons learned.”
Bibliography
Abdilah, S.U. 2002. Politik Identitas Etnis: Pergulatan Tanda Tanpa Identitas. Magelang: Indonesiatera.
Alker, R.H. 2006. On Securitization Politics as Contexted Texts and Talk. Journal of International Relations and Development 9: 70–80.
Amnesty International. 2013. Time to Face the Past: Justice for Past Abuses in Indonesia’s Aceh Province. London: Amnesty International Ltd.
Aradau, C. 2004. Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation. Journal of International Relations and Development 7: 388–413.
Aspinall, E., and H. Crouch. (2003) The Aceh Peace Process: Why It failed. Policy Studies, vol. 1. Washington, DC: East-West Center Washington.
Aspinall, E., and G. Fealy, eds. 2003. Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralization and Democratisation. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).
Balzacq, T. 2005. The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–201.
Baron, P., K. Kaiser, and M. Pradhan. 2004. Local Conflict in Indonesia: Measuring Incidence and Identifying Patterns. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3384.
Bartels, D. 2003. Your God Is No Longer Mine: Moslem-Christian Fratricide in the Central Moluccas (Indonesia) After a Half-Millennium of Peaceful Co-Existence and Ethnic Unity. In A State of Emergency: Violence, Society and the State in Eastern Indonesia, ed. S. Pannell. Darwin: Northern Territory University Press.
Barthwal-Datta, M. 2009. Securitising Threats Without the State: A Case Study of Misgovernance as a Security Threat in Bangladesh. Review of International Studies 35 (2): 277–300.
Bertrand, J. 2004. Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bigo, D. 2008. International Political Sociology. In Security Studies: An Introduction, ed. P.D. Williams. Oxon: Routledge.
Blatter, J., and T. Blume. 2008. In Search of Co-variance, Causal Mechanisms or Congruence? Towards a Plural Understanding of Case Studies. Swiss Political Science Review 14 (2): 315–356.
Blatter, J., and M. Haverland. 2012. Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Booth, A. 2000. The Impact of the Indonesian Crisis on Welfare: What Do We Know Two Years On. In Indonesia in Transition: Social Aspects of Reformasi and Crisis, ed. C. Manning and P. van Diermen. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Bubandt, N. 2004. Violence and Millenarian Modernity in Eastern Indonesia. In Cargo, Cult, and Culture Critique, ed. H. Jebens. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Buzan, B., and O. Wæver. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., O. Wæver, and J. De Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
Buzan, Barry. 1991. People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post Cold War Era. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Collins, F.E. 2002. Indonesia: A Violent Culture? Asian Survey 42 (4): 582–604.
Colombijn, F. 2002. Explaining the Violent Solution in Indonesia. The Brown Journal of World Affairs 9 (1): 49–56.
Coskun, B.B. 2011. Analysing Desecuritisation: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Education and Water Management. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Crisis Management Initiative. 2012. Aceh Peace Process Follow-Up Project: Final Report.
Emmers, R. 2004. Non-Traditional Security in the Asia Pacific: The Dynamics of Securitization. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish International.
Floyd, R. 2011. Can Securitization Theory Be Used in Normative Analysis? Towards a Just Securitization Theory. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 427–439.
Frankenberg, E., D. Thomas, and K. Beegle. 1999. The Real Costs of Indonesia’s Economic Crisis: Preliminary Findings from the Indonesia Family Life Surveys. Santa Monica: Rand.
Gad, U.P., and K.L. Petersen. 2011. Concepts of Politics in Securitization Studies. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 315–328.
Gallie, W.B. 1956. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1955–1956): 167–198.
Geertz, C. 1963. Social Development and Economic Change in Two Indonesian Towns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gerring, J. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Good, B.J., and M.D. Good. 2001. Why Do the Masses So Easily Run Amok? Latitudes 5: 10–19.
Gromes, T., and T. Bonacker. 2007. The Concept of Securitisation as a Tool for Analysing the Role of Human-Rights-Related Civil Society in Ethno-Political Conflicts. SHUR Working Paper Series 05/07.
Guzzini, S. 2011. Securitization as a Causal Mechanism. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 329–341.
Hansen, L. 2011. Reconstructing Desecuritisation: The Normative-Political in the Copenhagen School and Direction for How to Apply It. Review of International Studies 38: 1–22.
Harries-Jenkins, G., and J. Von Doorn, eds. 1976. The Military and the Problem of Legitimacy. London: Sage.
Hough, P. 2004. Understanding Global Security. London: Routledge.
Huysmans, J. 1998. The Question of the Limit: Desecuritisation and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 569–589.
International Crisis Group. 2002. Indonesia: The Search for Peace in Maluku, ICG Asia Report No. 31. Jakarta/Brussels: International Crisis Group.
Keliat, M. 2011. Security and Democracy in Indonesia: The Need to Strike a Balance. The Indonesian Quarterly 39 (2): 197–216.
Kingsbury, D., and H. Aveling, eds. 2003. Autonomy and Disintegration in Indonesia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Knudsen, O.F. 2001. Post-Copenhagen Security Studies: Desecuritizing Securitization. Security Dialogue 32 (3): 355–368.
Kreuzer, P. 2002. Applying Theories of Ethno-Cultural Conflict and Conflict Resolution to Collective Violence in Indonesia. PRIF Reports 63. Frankfurt am Main: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
Mancini, L. 2005. Horizontal Inequality and Communal Violence: Evidence from Indonesian Districts. CRISE (Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity) Working Paper 22.
McDonald, M. 2008. Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal of International Relations 14 (4): 563–587.
Mietzner, M. 2003. Business as Usual? The Indonesian Armed Forces and Local Politics in the Post-Soeharto Era. In Local Power and Politics in Indonesia: Decentralisation and Democratisation, ed. E. Aspinall and G. Fealy. Singapore: ISEAS.
Mishra, S. 2009a. A Nation in Transition: Are We Prone to Violent Conflict? The Jakarta Post, October 23.
———. 2009b Is Indonesia Prone to Violent Conflict? The Jakarta Post, October 28.
Mutimer, D. 2007. Critical Security Studies: A Schismatic History. In Contemporary Security Studies, ed. A. Collins. Oxford: OUP.
Oelsner, A. 2005. (De)securitisation Theory and Regional Peace: Some Theoretical Reflections and a Case Study on the Way to Stable Peace. Working Paper RSCAS 2005/27. Badia Fiesolana: European University Institute.
Ragin, C.C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategy. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.
Roe, P. 2004. Securitization and Minority Rights: Conditions of Desecuritization. Security Dialogue 35 (3): 279–294.
Rüland, J. 2006. Ethnic Conflict, Separatism and Terrorism. In Asian Security Reassessed, ed. S. Hoadley and J. Rüland. Singapore: ISEAS Publication.
Sjöstedt, R. 2011. Health Issues and Securitization: HIV/AIDS as a US National Security Threat. In Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, ed. T. Balzaq. New York: Routledge.
Smith, C.Q. 2005. The Roots of Violence and Prospects for Reconciliation: A Case Study of Ethnic Conflict in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. In The World Bank Social Development Papers, Conflict Prevention & Reconstruction, Paper No. 23/February 2005. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Snyder, C.A., ed. 1999. Contemporary Security and Strategy. London: Macmillan Press.
Soemardjan, S. 2002. Konflik-konflik Sosial di Indonesia: Refleksi Keresahan Masyarakat. Analisis CSIS 31: 306–321.
Steinmetz, G. 1999. State/Culture: State-Formation After the Cultural Turn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Stritzel, H. 2007. Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond. European Journal of International Relations 13 (3): 357–383.
Surata, A., and T.T. Andrianto, eds. 2001. Atasi Konflik Etnis. Yogyakarta: Global Pustaka Utama.
Suryadinata, L., E. Arifin, and A. Ananta. 2003. Indonesia’s Population: Ethnicity and Religion in a Changing Political Landscape. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Sutirto, T.W. 2000. Perwujudan Kesukubangsaan Kelompok Etnik Pendatang. Surakarta: Pustaka Cakra.
Tadjoeddin, M.Z., Suharyo, W.I., and Mishra, S. 2003. Aspiration to Inequality: Regional Disparity and Centre-Regional Conflicts in Indonesia. Nations Support Facility for Indonesian Recovery UNSFIR. Paper presented at the UNU/WIDER Project Conference on Spatial Inequality in Asia. United Nations University Centre, Tokyo, 28–29 March 2003.
Tan, A.T.H., and J.K. Boutin. 2001. Non-Traditional Security Issues in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies.
Trijono, L., ed. 2004. The Making of Ethnic and Religious Conflicts in Southeast Asia: Cases and Resolutions. Yogyakarta: Center for Security and Peace Studies (CSPS).
Trombetta, M.J. 2011. Rethinking the Securitization of the Environment: Old Belief, New Insights. In Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve, ed. T. Balzaq. New York: Routledge.
Turner, M., O. Podger, M. Sumardjono, and W.K. Tirthayasa. 2003. Decentralisation in Indonesia: Redesigning the State. Canberra: Asia Pacific Press.
Van Klinken, G. 2007. Communal Violence and Democratization in Indonesia: Small Town Wars. London: Routledge.
Vuori, J.A. 2008. Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders. European Journal of International Relations 14 (1): 65–99.
Walt, S.M. 1991. The Renaissance of Security Studies. International Studies Quarterly 35: 211–239.
Warnaen, S. 2002. Stereotip Etnis dalam Masyarakat Multietnis. Jogjakarta: Mata Bangsa.
Wæver, O. 1995. Securitization and Desecuritization. In On Security, ed. R.D. Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 2011. Politics, Security, Theory. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 465–480.
———. 2000. European Security Identities 2000. In European Security Identities: Contested Understandings of EU and NATO, PRIO Report No. 2, ed. J.P. Burgess and O. Tunander. Oslo: PRIO.
Wilkinson, C. 2007. The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe? Security Dialogue 38 (1): 5–25.
Williams, M.C. 2003. Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics. International Studies Quarterly. 47 (4): 511–531.
———. 2011. Securitization and the Liberalism of Fear. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 453–463.
———. 1996. Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration. International Organization 50: 213–236.
Williams, P.D., ed. 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction. Oxon: Routledge.
Wolfers, A. 1962. Discord and Collaboration: Essay on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kurniawan, Y. (2018). Securitization Theory: A Theoretical Framework. In: The Politics of Securitization in Democratic Indonesia . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62482-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62482-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62481-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62482-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)