Interacting Variable: Ontological Security

  • Maurizio Geri
Part of the Minorities in West Asia and North Africa book series (MWANA)


This chapter refers not to rationalist-structural-historical explanations, as until now the book has done, but to a sociological-ideational explanation that identifies deep conditions affecting the ontological security of a state. As constructivist theory says, just as there are material structures that affect the actions of states, there are also psychological, sociological, and ideational structures that impact them. Ontological security therefore should not be considered a rival explanation to the others but rather a complement to them. The chapter starts out by providing a theoretical basis for this variable, trying to operationalize it. Then it presents the case studies, with Turkish ontological insecurity (and the consequent securitization of Kurds) analyzed also through Erdogan’s narratives and Indonesian ontological security (and its impact on the autonomization of Aceh) analyzed also through the narratives of Indonesian presidents in the country’s democratic transition.


Ontological Security Ontological Insecurity Kurdish Issue Kurdish Question democratizationDemocratization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ahmad, Zainon. 1999. Habibie—The ‘Unpresidential’ Master of Indonesian Politics. New Sunday Times, February 21.Google Scholar
  2. Akturk, Sener. 2016. The PKK and PYD’s Kurdish Soviet Experiment in Syria and Turkey. Daily Sabah, January 27. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  3. Al Qurtuby, Sumanto. 2015. Interethnic Violence, Separatism and Political Reconciliation in Turkey and Indonesia. India Quarterly 71 (2): 126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anwar, Dewi Fortuna, and Bridget Welsh. 2013. Democracy Take-Off: The B. J. Habibie Period. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan.Google Scholar
  5. Aspinall, Edward. 2009. Islam and Nation: Separatist Rebellion in Aceh, Indonesia. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. BBC News. 2016. Ankara Bombing: Erdogan Seeks to Widen Terrorism Definition, March 14. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  7. Bubandt, Nils Ole. 2004. Vernacular Security: Governmentality, Traditionality and Ontological (In)security in Indonesia. Danish Institute for International Studies, Working Paper No. 24.Google Scholar
  8. Business Insider. 2016. Turkey Slams ‘Unacceptable’ Photos of US Troops Wearing Kurdish Patches While They Fight ISIS, May 27. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  9. Çelik, Ayşe Betül. 2015. The Kurdish Issue and Levels of Ontological Security. In Conflict Resolution and Ontological Security, ed. Bahar Rumelili, New Security Studies, PRIO. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Daloglu, Tulin. 2013. Erdogan’s Many Positions on the Kurdish Issue. Al Monitor, April 23. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  11. Demira, Ipek, and Welat Zeydanlioğlub. 2010. On the Representation of ‘Others’ at Europe’s Borders: The Case of Iraqi Kurds. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 18 (1): 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dibb, Paul. 2001. Indonesia: The Key to Southeast Asia’s Security. International Affairs 77 (4): 829–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drexler, Elizabeth. 2008. Aceh, Indonesia: Securing the Insecure State. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ebru News. 2015. MHP Leader Says Kurdish Peace Process Will ‘Ruin’ Turkey, March 3. Accessed 5 July 2016.
  15. Financial Times. 2016. Erdogan Launches Crackdown After Failed Turkish Coup, July 16. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  16. Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Guida, Michelangelo. 2008. The Sèvres Syndrome and “Komplo” Theories in the Islamist and Secular Press. Turkish Studies 9 (1): 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gursel, Kadri. 2016. Ouster of Kurdish MPs Threatens to Fuel Separatism in Turkey. Turkey Pulse, Al Monitor, The Pulse of the Middle East, May 23.Google Scholar
  19. Hurriyet Daily News. 2016. There’s No Kurdish Issue in Turkey, Just Terrorism: Erdogan, January 6. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  20. Jung, Dietrich. 2003. The Sèvres Syndrome, Turkish Foreign Policy and Its Historical Legacies. American Diplomacy, August. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  21. Kentel, Ferhat. 2011. Nationalist Reconstructions in the Light of Disappearing Borders. In Nationalisms and Politics in Turkey: Political Islam, Kemalism, and the Kurdish Issue, ed. Marlies Casier and Joost Jongerden. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kinnvall, Catarina. 2004. Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity and the Search for Ontological Security. Political Psychology 25 (5): 741–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kinzer, Stephen. 2008. Crescent and Star: Turkey Between Two Worlds. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  24. Kurdistan Tatort (Author) and Janet Biehl (Translator). 2013. Democratic Autonomy in North Kurdistan: The Council Movement, Gender Liberation, and Ecology—in Practice: A Reconnaissance into Southeastern Turkey. Porsgrunn: New Compass Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kymlicka, Will. 2004. Justice and Security in the Accommodation of Minority Nationalism. In The Politics of Belonging: Nationalism, Liberalism, and Pluralism, ed. Alain Dieckhoff. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  26. Langit-Dursin, Richel. 2001. Acehnese Want Justice, Not Bullets. Asia Times, August 31. Accessed 13 Oct 2016.
  27. Lindsey, Tim. 2001. The Criminal State: Premanisme and the New Indonesia. In Indonesia Today. Challenges of History, ed. G. Lloyd and S. Smith. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  28. Megawati Speech in Aceh. July 30, 1999 (Published in 2013). Accessed 13 Oct 2016.
  29. Mitzen, Jennifer. 2006. Ontological Security. In World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma, European Journal of International Relations, 12 (3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. New York Times. 2016. Live More Coverage: Coup Attempt in Turkey, July 16. Accessed 16 July 2016.
  31. Niksch, Larry. 2001. Indonesian Separatist Movement in Aceh. CRS Report for Congress, January 12.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2002. Indonesian Separatist Movement in Aceh. In Economics and Geopolitics of Indonesia, ed. E. McFlynn. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Nykanen, Johanna. 2013. Identity, Narrative and Frames: Assessing Turkey’s Kurdish Initiatives. Insight Turkey 15 (2), Spring: 85–101.Google Scholar
  34. Piccone, Ted. 2016. Five Rising Democracies and the Fate of the International Liberal Order. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rumelili, Bahar. 2014. Peace Anxieties: Ontological Security and Conflict Resolution. Seminar at Koç University, May 2. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  36. ———. 2015. Conflict Resolution and Ontological Security: Peace Anxieties. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Steele, Brent J. 2008. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. The Economist. 2016. Name and Shame. Deciding What to Call a Century-Old Turkish Atrocity, June 2. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  39. The Jakarta Post. 2001. Megawati Pledges National Unity, June 1. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  40. ———. 2016. Gus Dur Told to Avoid State of Emergency, June 27. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.
  41. United Press International. 2005. Yudhoyono Calls for Peace with Aceh Rebels, February 16. Accessed 30 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  42. Unver, Akin. 2015. Turkey’s Kurdish Question: Discourse and Politics Since 1990. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Weiner, Myron. 2001. The Macedonian Syndrome: An Historical Model of International Relations and Political Development. New Balkan Politics-Journal of Politics 2: 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yegen, Mesut. 1999. The Kurdish Question in Turkish State Discourse. Journal of Contemporary History 34 (4): 555–568.Google Scholar
  45. ———. 2007. Turkish Nationalism and the Kurdish Question. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30 (1): 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yetiv, Steve. 2013. National Security Through a Cockeyed Lens: How Cognitive Bias Impacts U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zarakol, Ayşe. 2010. Ontological (In)security and State Denial of Historical Crimes: Turkey and Japan. International Relations 24 (1): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Geri
    • 1
  1. 1.ACT-NATONorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations