Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience

67 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience CHAPTER 4 Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience TAPIO JUNTUNEN & SIRPA VIRTA Takeaways for Leading Change Claims of increasing complexity and nonlinear change in contemporary societies and global politics are often presented as a justification for increasing demands of resilience as a key strategic response in security policy and practices. Our conceptual analysis juxtaposes resilience as a security mentality with other – partly overlapping – security mentalities such as defence, protection, and prevention. This provides a good case study of how perceived complexity of our societies affects the way in which governance and leadership are understood. The theory of nodal security governance resonates with the idea of relational leadership. Our analysis suggests the rise of resilience as a mentality might also indicate a certain lack or even crisis of leadership. The chapter invites readers to exercise a normative and ethical reflection on the practical effects of different security mentalities from the level of individuals to the level of global governance. It also gives readers a basic account of what security is, what it means to govern through security, and what the purpose of security is in relation to sovereignty, political order, and the freedoms and responsibilities of citizens. 68 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience H ow should security be governed? What are the requirements for security leadership today? These questions are being voiced with increasing urgency as a variety of new threats to security emerge and are recognised. There is a growing awareness that the promotion of security as both an objective and subjective condition will require new ways of thinking and acting (Wood & Shearing, 2007). In the past decade, security studies in many disciplines, notably in international relations, political science, governance studies, and criminology, have addressed this challenge. The governance of security is based on policies and strategies which involve responding to threats or breaches of security that have already occurred. It also involves anticipating and seeking to prevent threats that might occur. The analysis of security governance explores ways of thinking (mentalities) underlying these strategies, the organisational forms used to implement those ways of thinking (institutions such as the police, military, and international organisations), the techniques used to turn mentalities into action (technologies, policies, and strategies), and the resulting actions (practices). In this chapter, we use the nodal theory of networked and multilayered security governance (Johnston & Shearing, 2003) as the framework through which we analyse responses to the changing security environment and increasing complexity of threats and risks. The perspective of multilayered security governance focuses on the dynamics, contemporary policies, and practices of security. It also provides perspectives on the societal implications of different ways of understanding security governance. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse resilience politics as an example of a novel security mentality by comparing it with some of the more traditional security mentalities such as defence, protection and prevention. We argue the strong impact of resilience politics as a novel security mentality in recent years is evident in the various efforts to rearrange institutions, technologies, and practices of security governance. As to the question of social complexity, we argue the growing influence of resilience approaches in relation to security policy and governance The purpose of this chapter is to analyse resilience politics as an example of a novel security mentality. 69 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience offers an illustrative example of how responses to the interconnectedness of modern societies and perceptions of increasing uncertainty also have effects on how the changing demands of leadership are understood. Using the nodal theory of security governance, this chapter also asks what implications – institutional, practical, and technological – resilience strategies and the supposedly increasing vulnerability of our societies pose to security leadership. The chapter is structured as follows: we begin by elaborating on what security is and its relationship to key concepts such as sovereignty, order, freedom, and political legitimacy. From there we analyse how the emergence of resilience politics as a novel security mentality has transformed the agenda of security governance, including dominant threat perceptions and agency in providing security. We also illustrate how the emergence of resilience politics has affected the way security and the technologies of its governance have been transformed in the last decade in the context of the Nordic model of internal security and critical infrastructure politics as well as in the European Union Global Strategy (EUGS). We then present a concluding discussion. What is Security? In political science, security is defined as the core function of the state. The most familiar definition can be found in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan; Hobbes (1651/1999, p. 123) argued that without the state, society would descend into a war of all against all (i.e. a state of nature). It was in order to avoid this that men came together to make a social contract, building a state to provide security. Therefore, the state has been given the power over people and territory. This exceptional power derives from the definition of the state: “A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber, 1946/1991, p. 78. Emphasis in original). To sustain their external security, states have military forces and intelligence authorities. To sustain internal security (political, social, and public order), states have police forces and criminal justice systems. 70 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience Security is commonly defined as a state of being. This is illustrated in the following definition, published in the SAGE Dictionary of Criminology, which is free of discipline-based connotations: Security is the state of being secure, specifically freedom from fear, danger, risk, care, poverty or anxiety� Security also implies certainty� The roots of the term are in the Latin securitas/secures, derived from se (meaning without) cura (fear, anxiety, pains, worry)� Safety is closely related to security� Safety also means freedom from danger or risk� However, it has additional connotations which have more to do with physical conditions, e�g� freedom from injury, the safety of the body and of property� In this context certainty refers to certainty of order, assurance and predictability (Virta, 2006, p� 371; Virta, 2013b, p� 312)� When defined as the core function of the state and, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), as a core human right, security is a powerful political concept and phenomenon. In this reading, the sovereign (state) has the power or position to define the governance, political use, content, objectives, distribution, etc. of security. Fundamental questions of democracy are ambiguous in this context. Governance of security – as a concept – refers to organisations, strategies, and practices. Governance through security is always a political act. There is an irrevocable link between security and the maintenance of sovereignty. The question of who has the power or legitimacy to make claims on matters of (national) security is fundamentally a political one. When a specific phenomenon is authoritatively labelled a security issue – that is, a threat to the existing social order – it is more easily perceived as an issue to be dealt with using exceptional measures. The normal running of politics and governance does not typically rely on such exceptional measures (Huysmans, 2004). What we have presented here is a constructivist perspective of security, which starts from the premise that threats perceived by the state elite or the society in general are not just “out there” in the objective reality to be “picked up”. Instead, political leadership and other authorities are involved in processes of signification that construct and give meaning to these threats. This also affects perceptions of what security is and what it means for the polity in the first place (see also Vuori, 2017). 71 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience The vast political capital vested in the term “security” means that any policy pursued in its name is difficult to argue with: How could anyone reasonably be opposed to security (Zedner, 2009, p. 144)? Although contemporary security leadership necessitates an understanding of the complexity of different societal threats and risks, one should not forget that claims for security are essentially contested. In other words, although security is a rather common concept, its use is not clearly definable. It can refer to various objects, processes, and societal contexts depending on one’s perspective and values (Buzan, 1983, p. 6; see also Gallie, 1956, p. 168). Security can be seen as a fundamentally “wicked problem”, as a “particularly complex and tricky leadership and management context” (see the introductory chapter of this book). This also means that security cannot be “solved” for good, either in existential terms – meaning that there is no absolute state of security available in human life – or in the sense that different stakeholders would achieve a consensus over the value, meaning, and practical efficacy of different security mentalities. Governing Security Through Resilience In recent years, scholars in various academic fields have noted that resilience politics is challenging traditional ways of thinking about the governance of security, such as the mentalities of defence, protection, and prevention (Chandler, 2017; Corry, 2014; Virta, 2013a). We argue a security mentality based on resilience is emerging and transforming the ways in which governance and governability are perceived. Instead of focusing on the governance and prevention of foreseeable uncertainties and threats, resilience politics is presented as an answer to the assumed inability of our societies and governments to guarantee security with preventive and proactive policies. This is thought to happen because of the increasingly complex and interconnected nature of our societies and new threats emanating from both man-made and natural sources (Rosa, Renn, & McCright, 2014). As a concept, resilience has a distinctive academic background in life sciences such as systems ecology as well as psychology and complexity thinking dating back to the 1950s (see Bourbeau, 2018). From these 72 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience academic fields, resilience thinking has, over the last two decades, slowly transformed into a concept with policy relevance for many societies and international organisations. In contemporary security politics, resilience is used as a strategic principle or objective of various policy fields and issues such as planet politics and climate change, governance of increasing urbanisation, counterterrorism, criminology, and social work. Resilience politics also has its critics. Scholars have paid attention to the “dark side of resilience” (Schmidt, 2015); this refers to the tendency to prioritise reactive preparedness instead of increasing security through prevention, anticipation, and foresight. They have warned about the unintended negative consequences of the increasing responsibilisation of vulnerable communities and local actors as the subjects of their own fate and security. Resilience politics has also been associated with the process of neoliberalisation and austerity politics; trends that can also be challenges to security governance and leadership models (Joseph, 2013). Finally, critics of resilience politics have also noted some resilience approaches seem to treat crises almost as desirable experiences local groups can use as valuable lessons to (re)build cohesion and the adaptive capacities of their communities (Tierney, 2015). These observations on the dark side of resilience offer students of leadership and management a good example of how current trends in strategic thinking can also be approached with critical and ethical deliberation. Contesting Traditional Security Mentalities Resilience is usually defined as the latent ability of systems, individuals, communities, and organisations to (i) withstand the effects of major disruptions, (ii) maintain one’s ability to act amid a crisis, and (iii) bounce back from a crisis and use the experience to increase one’s adaptability in the future (see Brand & Jax, 2007). As a novel security mentality – as a set of ideas that makes claims about how security is valued and achieved (Wood & Shearing, 2007, p. 7)—resilience challenges some of the traditional state-centric security mentalities such as those of defence, protection, and prevention. In the security mentality based on the primacy of defence, the 73 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience focus of governance is on safeguarding the territorial integrity and continuity of key societal functions of the nation state (external security). In the case of protection and prevention, the focus of governance is either on social, economic, and political substructures. These correlate with the level of human development or on providing internal security and order through punitive actions, policing and other deterring technologies and practices. When examined through the logic of defence, the main security threats are usually perceived to be posed by other state actors or other relatively organised collective entities or polities. In the logic of protection, the main threats are perceived to stem from structural distortions such as poverty, inequality, and other cultural practices that cause structural violence. Finally, in the logic of prevention, security policy focuses more on the general welfare of society and its orderliness. Predominant threats are usually perceived to stem from organised illegal activities or specific societal distortions that endanger domestic order and the sense of security, such as the process of political radicalisation. The security mentality based on resilience, by contrast, emphasises the radical openness and uncertain nature of the threat environment in an age of increasing complexity (Juntunen & Hyvönen, 2014). Thus, the primary objective of resilience politics is not to enhance the robustness of critical infrastructures (e.g. energy networks), nor does resilience politics rely purely on physical technologies of coercion (e.g. military or police forces). Instead, it emphasises the need to increase the mental and physical adaptability of individuals, communities, the private sector, and civil society to face unpredictable, even inevitable threats. Resilience politics aims to enhance the functionality of society. That is, to maintain the core purposes of societies during crises due to the tight coupling of societal functions with the increasing complexity and vulnerability of modern physical infrastructure (Pursiainen, 2018, p. 633). The main differences between the logics of defence, protection, prevention, and resilience in light of security governance are illustrated in Table 1. These logics are further elaborated through five dimensions: who or what the referent object of security governance is, what kinds of threat perceptions the logic relies on, who the primary security actors (providers of security) are, how the agenda of security policy is 74 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience formulated, and how the role of security policy is understood in relation to the normal running of politics. REFERENT OBJECT OF SECURITY GOVERNANCE DOMINANT THREAT PERCEPTIONS KEY SECURITY AGENTS SECURITY POLICY AGENDA (STATED OR IMPLICIT) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND SECURITY DEFENCE Territorial integrity of the state and borders; critical infrastructure and continuity of state functions Fear and uncertainty caused by other states or otherwise highly organised political actors; conflicts between state actors Defence forces and other key actors protecting territorial integrity and the continuity of key state functions and internal order The intentions of (rational state) actors can be influenced through the practices of external deterrence, alliance politics, power projection, costly signalling, etc� Security issues tend to be separated from other societal processes and normal political order; security as the realm of exceptional; enemy images might prevail PROTECTION Vulnerable individuals, groups, and communities Political, economic, and social structures that cause inequality and suffering; global warming, resource scarcity, and deprivation; intrastate ethnic conflicts Local governments (responsibility to protect); international and nongovernmental actors providing humanitarian assistance and interventions Explicit ambition to remove the structural sources of insecurity and free the suffering from harm Security issues are comprehensively “nested” in the socioeconomic structures of the society and culture; state-driven security concerns are often politicised PREVENTION Political, social, and public order and the welfare of society Organised crime and violent extremism; illegal immigration and human trafficking; terrorism and radicalisation; crime, violence, and disturbances of public order in general Law enforcement actors such as police, emergency service, and other state actors; also, increasingly, social security actors, private companies, and communities Inclusive “pacification” of the society through a mixture of welfare policies and crime prevention, including counterterrorism, visible policing, and law enforcement Political legitimacy and authority of the security providers is central, but otherwise, the relationship between security and politics is ambiguous and contested RESILIENCE Processes maintaining the cohesion and everyday functioning of society Unpredictable nonlinear threats such as environmental hazards and other various “wicked problems”; blurring of external and internal spheres of security Civil society, local communities, private sector, and eventually also individual citizens; government governing “from a distance” To strengthen individuals’ and societies’ autonomic capacities for adaptation, recovery, and reform Unclear: reduces the need to rely on articulated threats and enemy images typical of the logic of defence, but increases securitisation of the societal fabric TABLE 1: Four logics or mentalities of security policy (see Hyvönen & Juntunen, 2016; Virta, 2013a) 75 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience The assumed technological and societal complexity of the so-called “risk society” indicates challenging times for traditional top-down models of security governance, leadership, and management, both within and between sovereign entities. Evans and Reid (2014) even suggest security governance based on resilience is an invitation to learn to live life more dangerously – not safely. The responsibility to provide or increase resilience seems to diffuse to an increasing number of actors or nodes. The role of civil society, private actors, and grassroots movements is on the rise. That said, some scholars claim this has led to the responsibilisation of individuals and communities without a true transition of power or resources to participate in the strategic processes that define the concrete practices and goals of security governance (Gladfelter, 2018; Stark & Taylor, 2014; Tierney, 2015). Others emphasise that governance approaches based on resilience have the potential to reverse the old top-down leadership processes and give citizens and communities more agency over their own political and social conditions. Howell (2015, p. 69) aptly sums up this idea: As a technique of governance, resilience works primarily through an attempt to enhance its targets: a more ambitious aim than responsibilisation� This, I suspect, is true wherever resilience involves a concept of not just “bouncing back” (from disasters, attacks, crises, etc�), but of “bouncing forward”� This type of understanding conceives of resilience as a strategy to increase the capability of individuals and communities to act in an increasingly autonomous and independent manner without the need to rely excessively on state authorities. This resonates with the idea that security is actualised in various societal nodes, including “organic” nodes of leadership at the grassroots level. This line of thinking acknowledges that the traditional leadership and governance models based on a linear understanding of how events unfold are not sufficient by themselves. The understanding of leadership as a relational concept is also important in light of the actualisation of different resilience strategies. To sum up, there seems to be rather wide agreement among security scholars that there is no single definition or target of application for resilience politics. They tend to speak about resilience in the plural to 82 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience Button, M. (2008). Doing security: Critical reflections and an agenda for change. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave-MacMillan. Buzan, B. (1983). People, states and fear: The national security problem in international relations. London, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chandler, D. (2017). Resilience. In M. Dunn Cavelty & T. Balzacq (Eds.), Routledge handbook of security studies (pp. 436–446). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Corry, O. (2014). From defense to resilience: Environmental security beyond neo-liberalism. International Political Sociology, 8(3), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/ips.12057 Cross, M. K. D. (2016). The EU global strategy and diplomacy. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 402–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1237820 Dunn Cavelty, M., Kaufman, M., & Søby Kristensen, K. (2015). Resilience and (in)security: Practices, subjects, temporalities. Security Dialogue, 46(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614559637 European Council. (1999). Presidency conclusions. Retrieved from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21059/tampere-europeancouncil-presidency-conclusions.pdf European External Action Service. (2016). Shared vision, common action: A stronger Europe: A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/archives/ docs/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf Evans, B., & Reid, J. (2014). Resilient life: The art of living dangerously. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198. Gladfelter, S. (2018). The politics of participation in community-based early warning systems: Building resilience or precarity through local roles in disseminating disaster information. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 30, 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.02.022 Hobbes, T. (1999). Leviathan, eli, Kirkollisen ja valtiollisen yhteiskunnan aines, muoto ja valta [Leviathan, or, The matter, forme, and power of a commonwealth ecclesiasticall and civill]. Translated by T. Aho. Tampere, Finland: Vastapaino. (Original work published 1651) 83 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience Howell, A. (2015). Resilience as enhancement: Governmentality and political economy beyond ‘responsibilisation’. Politics, 35(1), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12080 Huysmans, J. (2004). Minding exceptions: The politics of insecurity and liberal democracy. Contemporary Political Theory, 3(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300137 Hyvönen, A.-E., & Juntunen, T. (2016). Sopeutuva yhteiskunta ja resilienssi: turvallisuuspoliittinen analyysi [Adaptable society and resilience: Security political analysis]. Politiikka, 58(3), 206–223. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:ELE-1778742 Johnston, L., & Shearing, C. (2003). Governing security. Abingdon, England: Routledge. Joseph, J. (2013). Resilience as embedded neoliberalism: A governmentality approach. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 1(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2013.765741 Juntunen, T., & Hyvönen, A.-E. (2014). Resilience, security and the politics of processes. Resilience: International Policies, Practices and Discourses, 2(3), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/21693293.2014.948323 Methmann, C., & Oels, A. (2015). From ‘fearing’ to ‘empowering’ climate refugees: Governing climate induced migration in the name of resilience. Security Dialogue, 46(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614552548 Mälksoo, M. (2016). From the ESS to the EU global strategy: External policy, internal purpose. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 374–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1238245 Pursiainen, C. (2018). Critical infrastructure resilience: A Nordic model in the making? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 27, 632–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.08.006 Pycroft, A., & Bartollas, C. (2014). Applying complexity theory: Whole systems approaches to criminal justice and social work. Bristol, England: Policy Press. Rosa, E. A., Renn, O., & McCright, A. M. (2014). The risk society revisited: Social theory and governance. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 84 Leading Change in a Complex World: Transdisciplinary Perspectives Security Dynamics: Multilayered Security Governance in an Age of Complexity, Uncertainty, and Resilience Schmidt, J. (2015). Intuitively neoliberal? Towards a critical understanding of resilience governance. European Journal of International Relations, 21(2), 402–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066114537533 Stark, A., & Taylor, M. (2014). Citizen participation, community resilience and crisis-management policy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2014.899966 Tierney, K. (2015). Resilience and the neoliberal project: Discourses, critiques, practices – and Katrina. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(10), 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215591187 Tucci, N. (2016). The making of the EU global strategy. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(3), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1232559 Virta, S. (2006). Security. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The SAGE dictionary of criminology (pp. 371–374). London, England: SAGE. Virta, S. (2013a). Governing urban security in Finland: Towards a European model. European Journal of Criminology, 10(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812473536 Virta, S. (2013b). Security. In E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The SAGE dictionary of criminology (pp. 312–315). London, England: SAGE. Virta, S., & Branders, M. (2016). Legitimate security? Understanding the contingencies of security and deliberation. British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1146–1164. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw024 Virta, S., & Taponen, J. (2017). Policing regimes in transition in the Nordic countries. In E. Devroe, A. Edwards, & P. Ponsaers (Eds.), Policing European metropolises: The politics of security in city-regions (pp. 121–143). Abingdon, England: Routledge. Vuori, J. (2017). Constructivism and securitization studies. In M. Dunn Cavelty & T. Balzacq (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (pp. 64–74). London, England: Routledge. Weber, M. (1991). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Translated and edited by H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills. London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1946) Wood, J., & Shearing, C. (2007). Imagining security. Portland, OR: Willan. Zedner, L. (2009). Security. Abingdon, England: Routledge.