The theme of identity has become one of the most important and yet contested elements in contemporary debates over the nature of security and the future of security studies. 1
In this chapter, concern switches to the concept of 'societal security'. In Chapter 2, drawing on Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil, I introduced the argument that attempts to employ the security dilemma at the intra-state level have thus far largely failed to take into account non-military concerns, namely those centred on identity. If the concept is to be utilised more effectively at this particular level of analysis, an endeavour must be made to tackle such insecurities. In this way, my intention is to try to accommodate societal security within the framework of the security dilemma. This does not assume that the end result will always be conceptually neat. Rather, the point is to explore whether identity issues can profitably be combined with the security dilemma concept in order (potentially) to produce greater explanatory value.
The chapter is broken down into two major sections. The first part involves defining the concept of societal security: initially developed by Barry Buzan in People, States and Fear (1991), redeveloped by Ole Waever et al. in Identity, Migration, and the New Security Agenda in Europe (1993), 2 and further redeveloped by Buzan, Waever, and subsequent Copenhagen School member Jaap de Wilde in Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The second section concentrates on threats to societal security: those actions and measures that can bring the survival of a group's identity into question.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, significant moves in IR took place designed to take security theory beyond the confines of the dominant Realist and neo-Realist paradigms. For Realists and neo-Realists alike, the state is the primary referent object of security. States are threatened in terms of challenges to their sovereignty, and such threats are, by and large, of a military nature. The