These Studies on Security contain only the results of my scientific views, research, analyses and models. In other words, they provide a SUMMARY of my MAJOR contributions to the Science of Security.
STUDY 2. „THE FOUR TYPES OF SECURITY“ CLASSIFICATION
„THE FOUR TYPES OF SECURITY“ CLASSIFICATION is key to understanding the essence, meaning and content of security.
The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of this Classification:
Николай Слатински. Сигурността – същност, смисъл и съдържание. София: Военно издателство, 2011.
[Nikolay Slatinski. Sigurnostta – sushtnost, smisal i sadarzhanie. Sofia: Voenno iztadelstvo, 2011].
Nikolay Slatinski. Security - essence, meaning and content. Sofia: Military publishing house, 2011 (in Bulgarian)
„The Four Types of Security“ Classification is related to the genesis and potential of the challenges, risks, dangers and threats that a system faces, and to the ability of that system to counter them in the best possible way, minimizing the damages and maximizing the benefits from them. This means that the system can (i.e., it has necessary resources and capacity) in a timely manner and effectively to respond to emerging challenges, manage existing risks, control escalating dangers, and neutralize materializing threats.
Under the „system“ we will understand, unless something else is indicated, one of the following concepts – an individual, a group of individuals, a society, a state, a community of states, a firm, a corporation.
Let us first explain the following.
The traditional definitions of „security“ considered security as a STATE, i.e. as a concept directly and immediately related to STATICS. And if in the definition of security it was still about some kind of dynamics, then this was primarily reflected by the word combination „dynamic state“. Until recently, such a definition could, for example, sound like this:
„The security of a system (an individual, a group of individuals, a society, a state, a community of states) is a dynamic state in which the existence of that system is guaranteed and its vital interests are reliably protected.”
But today it is no longer possible to understand security only as a state, as statics, but it is necessary to take into account to a much greater extent and with a much more clearly expressed completeness the PROCESS, it is necessary to analyze, therefore, DYNAMICS in the study of this amazing social phenomenon – security.
Here we will only briefly mark the transition from the study of security as a state, i.e. remaining within the narrow framework of statics, to the study of security as a process, i.e. the transition to the maximum wide range of dynamics.
If a system is in a state of disequilibrium or of such an unstable equilibrium, in which the slightest impact on it can irreversibly bring the system out of its state of disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium, then it is impossible to talk about the security of this system, but rather its security reaches its minimum, respectively its insecurity reaches its maximum. If, however, the system is in a stable equilibrium, so that with every impact on it, even if it deviates from this position of equilibrium, nonetheless after a small effort and after (relatively) short fluctuations the system returns to it again, then the security of this system is at its maximum, and the insecurity of this system is at its minimum.
Figure 1. а) Maximum insecurity; b) Maximum security
The maximum insecurity can be visualized by a ball fixed at the very top of a parabolically convex surface. The slightest push is enough for the ball to roll in an unpredictable direction. Accordingly, an analogy of the maximum security is visualized by a ball lying at the very bottom of a parabolically concave surface. Even if the ball is deflected in any direction, after short oscillations it again freezes in its equilibrium position.
In this sense:
Security is a measure of the stability of the equilibrium position of the system.
This means that one can talk about security if, for every impact that tends to deviate it from the equilibrium position, the system retains its ability to return to this position or to move with minimal fluctuations around it.
This concludes the discussion in terms of statics.
Let us now take not some once and for all determined equilibrium position of the system, but a trajectory of motion which the system must (or has chosen to) follow.
In the spirit of the above statements, one can speak of security if, under any impact that tends to deviate it from its trajectory, the system retains its ability to return to this trajectory or to move with minimal fluctuations away from it.
The picture becomes more complicated if we assume that the system does not move along a once and for all given trajectory, but can at any moment make corrections to its trajectory. Security of the system in this case lies in the preservation of the ability of the system to keep in acceptable proximity to the changed at its will trajectory.
A dynamic process can be defined as stable if it goes through a series of equilibrium states, each of which is stable.
In this sense:
Security is a measure of the stability of the dynamic process of the system.
And this already means that one can talk about security if, with every impact that tends to deviate it from its trajectory, the system retains the ability to return to its trajectory or move with minimal fluctuations away from it.
So, summing up, it is logical to say that:
Security can be considered as a measure of the stability of the equilibrium position of the system or as a measure of the stability of the dynamic trajectory of this system.
Let's return now to „The Four Types of Security“ Classification.
According to „The Four Types of Security“ classification, we distinguish the following types of security:
• Absolute safety;
• Protected safety;
and
• Relative security;
• Transformational security.
For the arrangement of types of security, the acronym "APaRT" can be used.
Here the letter „a“ in the middle is placed for euphony.
And so, a system is in a state of security when [cases (1), (2), (3), (4) respectively]:
(1) There are no impacts or there are very weak, practically negligible as a potential, impacts on the system and the system, undisturbed by anything, maintains its equilibrium position or its dynamic trajectory.
In this case, one is talking about a hypothetical, ideal situation in which the system is not exposed to any impacts. This security can be called ABSOLUTE SAFETY. It is a theoretical construct – in real life, its implementation is practically impossible, because there are always different tangible, perceptible impacts on systems (objects). But in some (model) scenarios, one could assume the existence of Absolute security – for example, when analyzing strategic challenges before Switzerland it is completely reasonable to assess that this country is in a situation of just such Absolute safety in terms of military threats.
So, we can summarize:
• Under Absolute safety there are no or very weak, practically negligible impacts on the system and its security.
(2) There are impacts on the system, but they cannot move it out of its equilibrium position or out of its dynamic trajectory.
In this case, it is understood that the existing impacts on the system, although real and affecting it, are not able (both as specific quantities and as the trend of their development over time) to significantly affect the security of the system. This security can be called PROTECTED SAFETY.
So, we can summarize:
• Under Protected safety, there are impacts on the system, but the system can effectively neutralize them, and they do not affect its security.
(3) There are impacts on the system that, if they develop their potential, could take this system out of its equilibrium position or out of its dynamic trajectory, but the system possesses resources with which it can prevent the realization of this potential and, thus, maintain its equilibrium position or its dynamic trajectory.
In this case, one is talking about impacts that carry the potential for significant growth, but the system is able to block this development or keep it under control, so that the critical point after which the system falls into insecurity and leaves its equilibrium position or its dynamic trajectory, will not be reached. This security can be called RELATIVE SECURITY.
So, we can summarize:
• Under Relative Security there are impacts on the system that can have a destructive impact on its security, but the system has the necessary resources with which it can effectively control these impacts within the framework of legitimate norms and procedures so as to preserve its security.
(4) There are impacts on the system which, by their (escalating) power, are capable to take the system out of its equilibrium position or of its dynamic trajectory and cause extremely serious consequences for the security of this system, but the system has resources and is capable to decisively mobilize these resources and to carry out large-scale structural transformations so as to manage and neutralize these impacts, thus maintaining its equilibrium position or its dynamic trajectory.
In this case, it is understood that the impacts in terms of their potential are above the critical point for the system, after which it falls into insecurity, but the system makes certain mobilization efforts in relation to its resources and performs structural transformations, with the help of which the system increases its potential and succeeds in successfully manage these impacts and neutralize them. This security can be called TRANSFORMATIONAL SECURITY.
So, we can summarize:
• In Transformational security, there are impacts on the system whose huge (escalating) power can push the system beyond the critical point, after which the system falls into insecurity and these impacts can cause extremely serious consequences for the security of this system, but the system has built the necessary resources and is capable through their extraordinary mobilization to carry out such structural transformations, thanks to which it can effectively manage these impacts so as to preserve its security.
At the time of the bloc confrontation (until 1989), equilibrium, the stable state, was considered normal, and disequilibrium, the unstable state – as an anomaly. But in our full of challenges and risks times, the Transformational security will increasingly and more often come to the fore. That is why the Transformational security can be defined as such a dynamic and varying in time and space level of security, at which if extremely serious impacts on the security of the system occur, the system has the necessary resources and is capable to carry out such a mobilization of these resources and such structural transformations in order to manage and minimize these impacts without affecting the objectives of the system to an unacceptable degree.
→ To illustrate this Classification, imagine swimming in a pool. All possible measures have been taken there for the maximum safety of swimmers – shallow depth, close distances to the edges of the pool; many people who will immediately render assistance; a lifeguard who can come running in seconds. This is largely called Absolute safety. It is absolutely clear that everything here is hyper-focused on safety, which is why the pools are crowded in summer.
→ Now let's imagine a lake – a suburban one, one where swimming is allowed and put under some control to ensure reliable safety. Again, we are talking about safety, although it is not as complete as in the pool. However – swimming areas are still outlined here, unprotected places and dangerous depths are marked; one is anyway within the range of vision of at least of some of the people around him; there is a lifeguard, there is a feeling of guaranteed safe swimming and control over the situation is created and therefore security here can be described as Protected safety.
In the first two types of security – Absolute safety and Protected safety – the system (individual, community, society, state) seems to protect itself or it is protected from the outside to inside, i.e. external factors define boundaries or limits, make them into rigid, solid outlines, and the system must adhere to them, remain on the inside of those boundaries or limits. The system primarily plays the role of an object of the environment and of the security as well as of the safety measures.
→ Now let's take swimming in the sea. With the exception of the coastal sandy strip, moving further into the depths of the sea and towards the horizon is associated with a great deal of danger, so everyone delineates his one perimeter of of entry into the sea and distance from the coast, i.e. every individual determines what security he can afford and tries to keep within these self-imposed limits and self-restraints. This is Relative security. It is relative not only because it is not complete and absolute, which actually security (as opposed to safety) cannot be, but also because it directly relates to the relevant system (person, community, society, state), i.e. it depends on the needs and goals of the system. It is clear that the sea is not a lake and certainly not a pool! That's why one can't joke with it.
→ Finally, let's move on to swimming in the ocean – this is a metaphor for the emerging Risk Society! Here we are also talking about swimming, but this swimming is different from swimming in a pool, in a lake or in a „tamed“ sea. It is only called swimming, but in fact it requires completely different capabilities. It cannot last long if one possesses only ordinary skills and capabilities and traditional training. In order for an individual to survive (and therefore to remain in a state of security), he must invest super efforts, mobilize, „cut off“ a number of otherwise normal human desires and needs and focus on overcoming constantly arising difficulties. In this way he must re-transform its entire internal system of resources and capabilities. This is exactly what is called Transformational security.
Transformational security contains what in ordinary life we mostly associate with growing insecurity, it „speaks“ of the impossibility of staying protected, of being always safe, secure and in control of the situation if we continue to live in the old way, i.e. without changing anything. Insecurity is a feeling that things can’t go on like this anymore, and changing at least something requires a lot of effort. However, does this mean that, understanding everything that happens and will happen to us, we must suffer, die of fear, be in panic? No, absolutely not! Swimming in the ocean is just a different kind of swimming in a different swimming environment! And we must prepare (rather, the young people must prepare!) for swimming in a new way and in a new environment.
True, with a new way of swimming and in a new environment, there are much more risks. But that is why it is the Risk Society! Nevertheless at the same time, it provides everyone (and especially young people!) with much more new opportunities, chances and prospects. Isn't it enough that not a single mistake is fatal and not a single misstep is fatal? Is it not enough that you swim in the ocean, that you would become a part and a parcel of a unique transcontinental, trans-horizon space, that you are a part and a parcel of the whole world?
Young people in Bulgaria are often disappointed, because today it is really difficult for a person to be young. Students complain: „Everything is hyper-dynamic, change after change, risk after risk, not a minute for rest!“ Now there are moments when every young person wants to say: „Stop the world, I want to get off! Can't things at least develop a little more slowly, can't there be fewer and smaller changes?“.
But even this colossal dynamic has its charms.
How will you explain to the young people that once upon a time, in the golden cage of security (golden, but a cage!), however much some of the adults today sigh for the opposite (a cage, but golden!), that most of us, then young, seeing how people live in other countries and how in our country nothing changes, but is frozen, ossified and inhibited, more than often said to ourselves: „Stop the world, I want to get on! Can't things at least develop a little faster, can't at least something and at least somehow change?“.
In the second two types of security – Relative security and Transformational security – the system (individual, community, society, state) seems to protect itself or it is protected from the inside to outside, i.e. internal factors define boundaries or limits, make them into vague, fuzzy outlines, and the system, being on the inside of these boundaries or limits, must weigh, calculate whether it can reach them, whether it can try to expand them. The system primarily plays the role of a subject of the environment and of the security, as well as in finding a balance between the needs of security and the capabilities of providing this security.
Based on what has been said, the following definition of security can be accepted:
Security for a social system (individual, community, society, state, community of states) exists when the basic ideals, goals, values and interests of the system are not subject to any impacts (Absolute safety) or they are not threatened by existing impacts that the social system is not able to effectively neutralize (Protected safety), control (Relative security), or manage (Transformational security).
And we emphasize once again, because it is important for our further reasoning:
Security is a measure of static or dynamic stability.
Or the most general and most precise definition:
Security can be considered either as a measure of the stability of the equilibrium position of a system, or as a measure of the stability of the dynamic trajectory of this system.
We will summarize the types of Security according to the „Four Types of Security“ Classification:
• Absolute safety;
• Protected safety;
and
• Relative security;
• Transformational security.
For the arrangement of types of security, the acronym "APaRT" can be used.
Here the letter „a“ in the middle is placed for euphony.
In search of maximum completeness of the analysis, we will present four more classifications of types of security.
The first of four additional classifications contains the main components of security. It is associated with the spectrum of security risks and threats. This classification includes the following types of security:
• political;
• military;
• economic;
• financial;
• social;
• demographic;
• information;
• ethnic;
• religious;
• ecological, etc.
The second of four additional classifications focuses on how security is „attacked“ – how security is affected. This classification includes the following types of security:
• hard;
• soft; and
• smart.
This approach is related to the type of power that the system resists and to which the system gives an answer – „hard“ or „soft“. It all depends on whether the system experiences a material IMPACT, i.e. the impact from hard power, and then we have Hard security, or the system experiences a non-material INFLUENCE, i.e. the impact from soft power, and then we have Soft security.
This division follows the famous classification of power into hard power and soft power introduced by Joseph Nye [1].
„Smart security“ is actually not quite an accurate name for the optimal mix between Hard security and Soft security [2].
It was said „actually not quite an accurate name“, because it is not so much and not always Smart security, but rather it is Effective security.
Hard power deals with measurable quantities: force, pressure, army, power. These are sticks – coercion, punishments, sanctions, etc.
Soft power deals with immeasurable (or difficult to measure) quantities: manipulation, disinformation, ideas, ideologies. These are carrots – rewards, incentives, stimuli, etc.
The third of four additional classifications reflects the connection of security with the institutional pillars of the Security State (i.e. the state as a producer of security).
The Security State is that system of state institutions that is directly involved in the production of security. In a first approximation, the Security State can be viewed as the National Security System.
This classification includes the following types of security:
• military (provided by the Army as the first pillar of the Security State);
• internal (provided by the Police as the second pillar of the Security State);
• intelligence (provided by the Special Services as the third pillar of the Security State);
• defense-industrial (provided by the defense industry as the fourth pillar of the Security State); and
• civil (provided by the Network of institutions and structures directly responsible for actions in case of natural disasters, accidents, catastrophes, pandemics and other emergency situations as the fifth pillar of the Security State).
The last of the four additional classifications is made depending on the direction from which threats, dangers, risks and challenges to security come – from factors, sources, actors INSIDE or OUTSIDE the nation-state. This classification includes the following types of security:
• internal; and
• external.
It should be explicitly stated that in the conditions of the emerging Risk Society, the state is becoming more and more an open system.
When ensuring and protecting security (especially for states with limited resources for influence) and due to the blurring of borders, complex problems arise in managing the flows that in relation to the state flow from outside to inside, from inside to outside, or flow through the state. Managing these flows means minimizing their negative effects and maximizing their positive effects. Therefore, inevitably and irreversibly, the concept of „internal security“ begins to gradually blur.
In this sense, the division of security into INTERNAL and EXTERNAL is becoming more and more conditional and formal. Now one can even talk about phenomena such as INTERNALIZATION of external security and EXTERNALIZATION of internal security.
It is clear that in today's globalized world (and especially for states with limited resources of influence) it is becoming too difficult to talk about internal security as a concept closed within the boundaries of an individual state. However, the following definition of internal security can be given:
Internal security is the systemic complex of all challenges, risks, dangers and threats that are primarily (first of all, mainly) originating in (inside, on the territory of) the state and all institutions that respond to these challenges, manage these risks, control these dangers and neutralize these threats.
References:
1. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2004.
2. Nye, Joseph S. Jr. The Future of Power. New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2011.
Brief explanation:
The texts of my Studies have been translated into English by me. They have not been read and edited by a native English speaker, nor by a professional translator. Therefore, all errors and ambiguities caused by the quality of the translation are solely mine. But I have been guided by the thought that the purpose of these Studies is to give information about my contributions to the Science of Security by presenting them in a brief exposition, and not to demonstrate excellent English, which, unfortunately, I cannot boast of.
11.11.2022
