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 5. INTEGRATION OF BASIC CONCEPTS IN THE SCIENCE OF SECURITY
The fundamental theoretical approaches and related basic concepts in the of Science of Security: „The Four Types of Security“ Classification, „The Three Waves of Security“ Model and „The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship are incorporated in a unified and integrative complex.
The following monograph of mine is devoted to a detailed analysis of the integration of these basic concepts:
Николай Слатински. Рискът – новото име на Сигурността. София: Изток-Запад, 2019.
[Nikolay Slatinski. Riskut – novoto ime na Sigurnostta. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2019].
Nikolay Slatinski. Risk – the new Name of Security. Sofia: Iztok-Zapad, 2019 (in Bulgarian)
In the previous Studies, we have consistently considered „The Four Types of Security“ Classification, „The Three Waves of Security“ Model and „The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship. All of them, as can be seen, are related to a number of fundamental concepts of the Science of Security. And apart from them, there are, of course, too many more concepts in this increasingly intensively, even revolutionary, developing Science. And all these concepts intersect, „fight“ each other, and interact with each other. This inevitably leads to confusion, sometimes to entanglement, often to repetition, and why not to contradiction.
In the Science of Security, we are like the blind men in the Indian parable, who touch different parts of an elephant, explain one after another their understanding of this elephant, but cannot piece together the big picture – what is an elephant really like? No matter how much each of them tells about the elephant, guided by what he have touched – trunk, ears, tusks, legs..., the picture remains incomplete. Many different and differing from the given elephant elephants are „produced“, but nonetheless, it is not clear what exactly it is – the real elephant. We too must study not partial („trunk“, „torso“, etc.) security, but the complex and integrative Security. The elephant „Security“ is not a separate thing – trunk, ears, tusks or legs, it is not even an arithmetic sum of its parts, it is a complex and integrative whole!
If schemes, classifications, models, relationships, etc. used in the Science of Security effectively construct the essence, meaning and content of the scientific category „Security“, then they can be collected, combined, assembled and finally it would be possible to arrange successfully the „Security“ puzzle, to get a clear idea about the elephant „Security“. When this is done, each of us can devote himself to the study of some particular part of the elephant. And we are obliged then to listen to the experts on the trunks or the tusks, on the ears and the legs... The only thing that we should not take for granted and should not allow is that these experts could claim that what they say in the auditoriums and write in the monograph – THIS IS THE SECURITY! That the trunks or the tusks, that the ears or the legs – THIS IS THE SECURITY; that only this should be studied in order to comprehend and understand Security, and everything else is the gift of another fashion that will pass and go, that it is secondary, that it was imported from various North Atlantic mantras or it is a relic of some Soviet dogmas.
The problem is that in the scientific literature in Bulgaria (and only in Bulgaria?), classifications (such as the one for the Four Types of Security), models (such as the one for the Three Waves of Security) and relationships (such as the one for the Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat) are used independently of one another and in isolation from each other. But they are in no case independent and in no way isolated, because they refer to the same and extremely important scientific category – „Security“. Therefore, they should not be just somehow connected, but rather sufficiently closely bound with each other.
● „The Four Types of Security“ Classification.
Let us recall that according to this basic Classification, we distinguish the following types of Security:
• Absolute safety;
• Protected safety;
and
• Relative security;
• Transformational security.
For the arrangement of four types of security, the acronym "APaRT" can be used.
Here the letter „a“ in the middle is placed for euphony.
● „The Three Waves of Security“ Model.
Let us recall that according to this basic Model, we distinguish the following waves of Security:
(1) The First wave of Security – the Wave of safety;
(2) The Second wave of Security – the Wave of security;
(3) The Third Wave of Security – the Wave of risk.
●„The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship.
Let us recall that according to this basic Relationship, when the four concepts are systematized according to certain criteria, they are placed in exactly this order.
To illustrate the arrangement of these concepts, the acronym „CreDiT“ can be used: Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat (the letters „e“ and „i“ are added for euphony).
■ Integrative linking of:
„The Four Types of Security“ Classification
„The Three Waves of Security“ Model
„The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship
• In „The Four Types of Security“ Classification we will use the following designations for individual types of Security:
C0 – Absolute safety;
C1 – Protected safety;
C2 – Relative security;
C3 – Transformational security.
• In „The Three Waves of Security“ Model we will use the following designations for individual Waves of Security:
M1 – The Wave of safety;
M2 – The Wave of security;
M3 – The Wave of risk.
• In „The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship we will use the following designations for individual concepts:
R1 – Threat;
R2 – Danger;
R3 – Risk;
R4 – Challenge.
The integration of The Four Types of Security“ Classification, „The Three Waves of Security“ Model and „The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship is expressed through the use of the three integrative benchmarks I1, I2 and I3:
I1: C1 – M1 – R1
I2: C2 – M2 – R2
I3: C3 – M3 – R3
We will decipher each of these three benchmarks.
● First integrative benchmark I1: C1 – M1 – R1
This benchmark means that Protected safety, the Wave of safety and Threat are closely related. In other words, in the Wave of safety, basically threats were neutralized and the goal was to achieve protected safety.
We can summarize the First integrative benchmark as follows:
In the Wave of safety (M1), i.e. in the Society of threats, the Threat society, the basic category was „Threat“ (R1). The main priorities and efforts regarding Security were related to the threats, in the neutralization of which the system had to seek to overcome in a timely manner direct encroachments on it and to build skills (capabilities) for reacting. These skills (capabilities) allowed the system to perform an effective reactive action, and the goal was to achieve Protected safety (C1).
Protected safety was the security of the Wave of safety, where the basic category of destructive critical factors was Threat.
The Threat society was afraid (should be afraid) of dangers, and probably because of this it tended to perceive safety even literally as the absence (lack) of dangers.
● Second integrative benchmark I2: C2 – M2 – R2
This benchmark means that Relative security, the Wave of security and Danger are closely related. In other words, in the Wave of security, basically threats were controlled and the goal was to achieve relative security.
We can summarize the Second integrative benchmark as follows:
In the Wave of security (M2), i.e. in the Society of dangers, the Danger society, the basic category was „Danger“ (R2). The main priorities and efforts regarding Security were related to the dangers, in the controlling of which the system had to seek to to suppress preemptively negative impacts on it and to build skills (capabilities) for prevention. These skills (capabilities) allowed the system to perform effective active action, and the goal was to achieve Relative security (C2).
Relative security was the security of the Wave of security, where the basic category of destructive critical factors was Danger.
The Danger society was afraid (should be afraid) of risks, and probably because of this it tended to perceive security even literally as the absence (lack) of risks.
● Third integrative benchmark I3: C3 – M3 – R3
This benchmark means that Transformational security, the Wave of risk and Risk are closely related. In other words, in the Wave of risk, basically risks are managed and the goal is to achieve Transformational security.
We can summarize the Third integrative benchmark as follows:
In the Wave of risk (M3), i.e. in the Society of risks, the Risk society, the basic category is „Risk“ (R3). The main priorities and efforts regarding Security were related to the risks, in the managing of which the system had to seek to reduce at a very early stage likely serious harmful (significantly damaging) effects of possible alternative developments of the processes and to build skills (capabilities) for early warning. These skills (capabilities) will allow the system to perform effective proactive action, and the goal is to achieve Transformational security (C3).
Transformational security is the security of the Wave of risk, where the basic category of destructive critical factors is Risk.
The Risk society is afraid (should be afraid) of challenges, and probably because of this it tends to perceive security even literally as the absence (lack) of challenges.
If transformational security is the security of the first decades of the 21st century, then security is becoming more and more „risky“. That is why all efforts are directed towards risk management, because if the risk materializes, the consequences will be extremely serious. It is no longer enough to protect safety and even to guarantee security, but risks have to be managed, which means – to develop a radically different sensibility of the state and society.
Table 1. Binding of „The Four Types of Security“ Classification, „The Three Waves of Security“ Model and „The Challenge-Risk-Danger-Threat“ Relationship
It is important to say once again that transformational security is the security of the first decades of the 21st century, when humanity is approaching the critical moment of truth – will it show reason, will, vision, a new attitude towards planet Earth, or will it continue to live like a butterfly that flies as to the flame of a candle, and is unable to stop until it falls lifeless and with melted wings, having paid the highest possible price for its inability to overcome the beguiling influence of the burning flame.
■ Looking ahead: And what will the Wave of challenge, the Society of challenges, the Challenge society look like?
We are entering the Wave of risk, the Society of risks, the Risk society. It's hard to say how long the Wave of risk will last, how long we'll be in the Risk society. It's difficult to look ahead into the future and see what awaits us beyond the horizon. But it's worth a try. If our logic on which these Studies are based is correct, then we can draw certain conclusions about the character of the future Wave and the future Society, namely – the Wave of challenge and the Challenge Society. To this end, it is worth first recalling again what was said in Etude 4:
In neutralizing threats, we must have skills (abilities) for reacting, our behavior is reactive and we act when there is a problem.
In controlling dangers, we must have skills (abilities) for prevention, our behavior is active and we act when the problem is small in order to prevent it from becoming a big problem.
In managing risks, we must have skills (abilities) for early warning, our behavior is proactive and we act before the problem appears, because if it appears even as a small problem, it will very quickly become a big problem.
In responding to challenges, we must have skills (abilities) for forecasting, our behavior is aimed at foresight and we act even before the occurrence of conditions that contribute to the appearance of the problem and so that there is not even the slightest possibility this problem to appear.
When we think about the future Challenge society, we will point out explicitly that medicine is extremely rich in examples and analogies that can facilitate our thinking and provide some very useful ideas in this direction.
For a number of reasons (after all, it deals with the most valuable thing for people – health), medicine is moving forward compared to other sciences, its development is ahead, colossal funds are invested in it, and new discoveries, new approaches, new technologies and new products in it constantly peek into tomorrow, into the near and why not – into the more distant future. It is not for nothing that the very concept of „early warning“ comes from medicine (and, it should be added, from electrical engineering).
• Earlier, medicine treated diseases that gained strength, that developed in the body, i.e. medicine was oriented towards reacting – namely this was the Wave of safety, the Threat society. And if a child was born with a severe genetic defect, and from a certain moment the consequences became visible and significant, only then did any efforts begin to be made and some measures were taken to treat the disease in some way. In other words, what was being done for centuries (even until recently) was that attempts were made to cure, to prolong life, to relieve pain, to reduce suffering.
• Later, medicine began to strive to prevent the slightly manifested disease from gaining momentum and developing in the body (so that the small trouble does not become a big one), i.e. it was oriented towards prevention – namely, this was the Wave of security, the Danger society. The necessary tests could be done on a newborn baby or in the earliest childhood and when the severe genetic damage was established, efforts were made not to allow the disease to develop rapidly and in its most severe form, to slow down its escalation, to increase the person's chances for growth and at least some social realization, to help him as much as possible to live as long as possible relatively healthy and relatively less stiffened by the disease that has befallen him.
• Now, medicine is increasingly trying to prevent the very fact of the appearance of the disease, i.e. it focuses on early warning – namely this is the Wave of risk, the Risk society. Already in the initial phase (early weeks) of pregnancy, an analysis is made of the embryo or of the fetus in the mother's womb and if a severe genetic defect is detected, parents are informed that if the child is born (in some sex-determined diseases – if the child is of a certain sex) it is possible from some age with a high probability, incl. even 100%, it will develop a certain insidious disease. And parents should decide whether to have an abortion or to give birth to that child (this is where we get into humanitarian medical law and the bioethical aspects of medicine).
Let's reflect on what is coming next in the spirit of the medical analogy, when we will have the orientation towards forecasting – namely, it will be the Wave of challenge, the Challenge society...
The following has been clarified so far:
• Earlier, in the Wave of safety, in the Threat society, when the main thing was reacting, medicine treated diseases that had already gained strength and were developing in the body.
• Then, in the Wave of security, in the Danger society, when the main thing was prevention, medicine tried to prevent the slightly manifested disease from gaining momentum, from developing in the body (so that a small trouble does not become a big one).
• Now, in the Wave of risk, in the Risk society, when the main thing is early warning, medicine tries to prevent the very fact of the appearance of the disease.
• Why not assume that in the future Wave of challenge, in the future Challenge society, that may still be far away (but how far?), we will be in a phase that is even earlier than early warning and will be accompanied by an orientation towards forecasting. And it is very important how exactly will develop this sequence:
reacting prevention early warning forecasting?
Medicine will perhaps then strive to prevent, not to allow the very possibility of the emergence, of the appearance of an embryo, which could develop an insidious (very difficult to treat or incurable) disease after its birth. And this means that medicine will probably increasingly seek to exclude any conception potentially burdened with severe genetic damage, i.e. with a fatal genetic defect that tragically dooms the person who will be born as a result of this conception.
Why do not imagine how in a distant (but how distant?) future each person will have an individual genetic card (i.e. a card of his genes, of his DNA) or else this information will be recorded in his identification document?
Perhaps then, when two young people meet and a thrill of love arises in them that pushes them towards each other to tie themselves into a family and-or to create children, the first thing they will have to do is to compare their individual genetic cards and thus establish the level of compatibility of their genes. And if this level of compatibility is below a certain critical minimum, they will be recommended to (or will themselves know this as an unappealable judgment that they must) give up further relationships, because with similar to their gene incompatibility, found below the critical minimum, the probability that the fetus, future fruit of their love, will have a severe genetic defect will be higher than acceptable, and it is extremely possible that the child that will be born will develop some kind of insidious disease, that dooms it to a short and/or an incomplete life…
The case of the American film actress (and one of the most beautiful women) Angelina Jolie, who had both breasts surgically removed, although she is completely healthy, is world-famous – due to a severe hereditary burden and an extremely high risk of developing the disease as a proven carrier of a gene from which her mother died. Here is a „memory from the future“, from the Challenge society – to be absolutely impossible, not to have even the slightest probability of, not to allow in any way and at any cost the creation of conditions for the emergence of this insidious cancer, because it can develop rapidly over time and lead to fatal consequences! There is, of course, a possibility that this cancer will not develop and it will turn out that the removal of the breast was an excessive „response“ to the challenge... But that's how it is in the Wave of challenge, in the Challenge society – it's all about the skills (capabilities) for forecasting available at the given moment in time.
Although with less drastic measures, there are not a few people who, aware of the risk of their genetic damage, regularly undergo tests in order to „catch“ the onset of the disease at the earliest possible stage, i.e. they operate in practice on the edge of the Risk society and the Challenge society, although at the moment they are more often on the side of risk than on the side of challenge.
Through genetic analysis, the predisposition to a given disease or its presence in the earliest stage can be detected. Based on the genetic analysis of the closest relatives, it is possible to make a prediction about the predisposition (certain probability of occurrence of this disease) or about the guaranteed disease (especially high probability of the disease) and to have an abortion, i.e. action type „Risk Society“ or to not allow the conception of a child at all, i.e. action type „Challenge Society“.
Although most of the actions in modern medicine are on the edge between the Risk society and the Challenge society, i.e. they are still more often on the side of risks than on the side of challenges, there is no doubt that the rapid development of modern medicine, as well as the investment of colossal funds in advanced medical technologies, in genetic engineering and in the creation of new drugs will continue to accelerate the transition to the other side of this edge – the side of challenges. And this can take to a far higher level the accelerating towards forecasting that is at the heart of the Wave of challenge, of the Challenge society – when efforts will be aimed at making it absolutely impossible, at ensuring that there is not even the slightest probability of, at not allowing in any way and at any cost the creation of conditions for the emergence of a destructive critical factor (in this case – a disease), because it can develop rapidly over time and lead to fatal consequences.
There is, of course, the possibility that the threatening factor (in this case – the disease) will not develop, or even will not appear at all, and so it could turn out that the measures taken were excessive, that they would turn out to be superfluous, but this, as already mentioned several times above, it is always so in the Wave of challenge, in the Challenge society, because everything invariably depends on on the skills (capabilities) for forecasting.
It is known that in some countries, children of the desired sex are selected through in vitro fertilization. Sex selection can sometimes eliminate the risk of developing a genetic disease when it is known to be sex-linked (for example, hemophilia – only boys are affected). It is only a matter of time before similar selection will be made for other genes – those that can lead to the development of a certain type of cancer; or for genes that predispose to obesity, baldness, addictions, etc. It may soon be possible to combine the genes of parents to obtain the much-desired combination – perhaps one day it will be feasible to model everything in the future child from hair and eye color to height and physique.
Let's return to the two young people who, by comparing the individual genetic cards, found their genetic incompatibility. One option they have is to opt out of continuing the relationship. But for some couples there is another option – to pay a high (even fabulous) amount for the manipulation of their genes to eliminate their incompatibility! This will be within the means („in the pocket“) of (very) rich people only, and thus a new social and value division will arise in the society of the haves and the have nots – those who have and those who do not have the chance to undergo the vitally important gene modification.
Our skills (capabilities), i.e. our „senses“ for forecasting will remain somewhat imperfect even in the Challenge society, although their development will undoubtedly continue and rise to new heights. That is why these „senses“ can mislead people, institutions, societies and countries that depend on them. And because of this, we will increasingly encounter situations where attempts to prevent one misfortune will result in causing another, perhaps even greater misfortune.
But we need to remember the following. Yes, it must be carried out: in the case of the challenge – forecasting, in the case of the risk – early warning, in the case of danger – prevention, in the case of the threat – reacting, but for these activities there was not, there is not and there will not be automaticity, irrevocable compulsion. It always will remain the free will of the people whether to undertake this forecasting, this early warning, this prevention, this reacting or not. It is the people who will decide whether or not to comply with the activity regarding the different challenges, risks, dangers, threats or to continue to live with them.
The individual (personal) genetic card is key to our understanding of the Challenge society, which will replace the Risk society. In the Challenge society, in the Wave of challenge, the concept of „challenge“ will replace the concept of „risk“ as the main concept in the Science of Security – as today, with the onset of the Risk society, of the Wave of Risk, which replace the Danger society, i.e. the Wave of security, the concept of „risk“ replaces the concept of „security“.
In the Challenge society, the leading activity will be „FORECASTING“. In this Society, in responding to the challenges, the system should seek to avert, even before they appear, the first signs of potential destructive consequences of still distant in time possible alternative developments of processes and to build skills (capabilities) for FORECASTING. Building these skills (capabilities) will enable the system to effectively perform comprehensive and reliable foresight. On the basis of such a comprehensive and reliable foresight, based on strategic design, scenario planning and long-term behavior, the probability will be significantly increased that responses which the system gives to possible challenges are correct (adequate).
If, however, the response to the challenge is incorrect (inadequate), then the benefits (positive consequences) of this challenge are minimized, and the damages (negative consequences) of it are maximized. Then the materialized (realized) challenge can very quickly turn into a risk, which can also very quickly materialize (realize) and turn into a danger, and it, accordingly, can very quickly materialize (realize) and become a threat, as a result of which this „missed“ challenge is able to lead to non-negligible or very serious, even destructive (fatal) consequences.
That is why in the strategies, policies, approaches and models of security in the Challenge society the main goal and the main priority will be to make it absolutely impossible, to ensure that there do not exist even the slightest possibility, to prevent in any way and at any cost conditions to be created for the emergence of a destructive critical factor that could rapidly develop over time and thus lead to non-negligible or very serious, even fatal consequences.
Let's pay attention to something that for the Challenge society can have very deep, why not dramatic dimensions and reflections related to human and civilizational, value and identity, human and humane problems.
As can be seen, in Table 1, on the last row, only one of the boxes is filled: R4 – Challenge. If we assume that the hypothetical Fourth Wave, or M4, is the Wave of challenge, the question arises – what then would be the Fifth type of Security, or C4?
In our opinion, this would most likely be some analogue of absolute safety.
In Study 2, it was said that in „The Four Types of Security“ Classification, absolute safety is completely hypothetical, ideal situation in which the system is not exposed to any impacts. Such security can conditionally be called ABSOLUTE SAFETY, because it is only a theoretical construct and in real life its implementation is impossible, since there are always different tangible, perceptible impacts on the systems (objects).
In the still hypothetical, but entirely possible in the more distant (or nearer) future, the Fourth wave of Security, the Wave of challenge, we will conditionally name the Fifth type of Security as „absolute safety“ (ie, in quotation marks) in order to show that this will most likely be the ultimate goal in the search for security, the limit of our efforts.
And so the circle of security evolution will finally close:
Absolute safety Protected safety Relative security Transformational security “Absolute safety”
In the Challenge society, the aspiration will be at the cost of everything and at any cost to ensure „ABSOLUTE SAFETY“.
So if:
The First type of Security is ABSOLUTE SAFETY, in which there are no impacts and there is no conditions for the occurrence of any impacts on the system and its security (that is why it is an ideal situation, a theoretical construct);
Then:
The Fifth type of Security is „ABSOLUTE SAFETY“, when the system has made maximum and extraordinary efforts to prevent, even before they appear, the first signs of any hypothetical and potential impacts that may develop rapidly in time and threaten its security with (all possible) destructive consequences.
In other words:
The First type of Security, ABSOLUTE SAFETY reflects the fact, i.e. the conditional theoretical assumption (at the INPUT) that there are no impacts on the system and its security;
While:
The Fifth type of Security, „ABSOLUTE SAFETY“ reflects the end result (at the OUTPUT) that they are removed even before they appear, the first signs of any hypothetical and potential destructive impacts on the system, through its maximum and extraordinary mobilization and transformational efforts.
Table 2. Looking to the Future – I4: C4 – M4 – R4 or Fourth integrative nenchmark
● Fourth integrative benchmark I4: C4 – M4 – R4
This benchmark means that „Absolute safety“, the Wave of challenge and Challenge are closely related. In other words, in the Wave of challenge, basically responses to challenges will be given and the goal will be to achieve Transformational security.
We can summarize the Fourth integrative benchmark as follows:
In the Wave of challenge (M4), i.e. the Society of challenges, the Challenge society, the basic category is „Challenge“ (R4). The main priorities and efforts regarding Security were related to the challenges, in the responding to which, the system will seek to avert, even before they appear, the first signs of potential destructive consequences of still distant in time possible alternative developments of processes and to build skills (capabilities) for forecasting. These skills (capabilities) will enable the system to effectively perform comprehensive and reliable foresight, and the goal is to achieve „Absolute safety“ (C4).
„Absolute safety“ will be the security of the Wave of challenge, where the basic category of destructive critical factors will be Challenge.
The Challenge society will be afraid (should be afraid) of any potential sources of negative impacts, and probably because of this it will tend to perceive security even literally as the absence (lack) of potential sources of negative impacts.
It will be perhaps (we will use the conditional form as we are trying to look into the future) a return to the primal security – to the ONTOLOGICAL SECURITY, which English sociologist Anthony Giddens (1938) describes as predictability and reliability in life; as clear ideas about the reasons for what happens and about the essence of what happens; as a person's confidence about his identity and about the permanence of the social world and the environment, that is, about everything that a person must do, and how, in what way and with what resources, he must do it... To be in a state of ontological security means to possess not only on an unconscious but also on a practically conscious level the „answers“ to the fundamental questions, to reconcile and agree your own identity with the external reality, that is to say with the Space in which you live, and with the Time in which you exist; and this means having reliable control over the processes that directly affect you. When such reconciliation and agreement is not possible, the individual (but the same applies to the community and the society) finds itself in a difficult to control and difficult to master depressing situation of fear and a paralyzing state of anxiety.
Ontological security is a form of a perception of security (in the broadest possible sense and with the fullest content of the word) when a person (community, society) feels a sense of maximum confidence regarding both the integrity of his identity and the permanence of the social world and the environment, so that everyday life is and will be as predictable as possible [1, 2, 3].
At the same time, what Anthony Giddens defines as ontological security can also be defined as EPISTEMOLOGICAL SECURITY, since epistemological security is „closely bound with the limits of knowing, with asking questions about the nature of being, of self and others and the impossibility to provide answers“; and if society does not find its anchorage in it, if it does not find its refuge in it, it will indeed experience a „double fear“ – the ontological „fear of death“ and the epistemological „fear of not knowing“ [4].
Let's think about this fact, which is unique in its character and profound in its content:
The pursuit of ontological security is also a pursuit of epistemological security!
It could not be otherwise. We can talk about both ontological security and epistemological security at the same time – because this means talking about the bright, all-consuming the individual, the communities, and beyond doubt and above all, the society, need to ensure to the maximum extent their survival, existence and behavior, their being and life, and as well as to have an optimally satisfactory degree of knowledge – about what has happened in the past, what is happening in the present and what will happen in the near and in the more distant future.
Let us emphasize it again and again: mutually and inseparably connected go – hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, face to face – both the need for the most reliable and verifiable guarantees for the existence of the individual, the community, the society, and the need for the most possible full and verifiable knowledge of their existence.
If there are necessary guarantees for existence, but there is a deficit of knowledge about this existence, or if there is necessary knowledge about existence, but there are no guarantees for this knowledge, then the individual (the community, the society) fall into insecurity.
Someone would say: Isn't that always the case?
Yes, in principle it is always so! But when it comes to challenges that can rapidly transform into risks, and these risks can also, and even more rapidly, grow into dangers, which can similarly and even more rapidly develop into immediate and undoubtedly catastrophic threats, then both the time for reaction and the space for counteraction collapse into a point, moreover, into a singular point – a point charged with a hard-to-disarm enormous power that can either by blast, by explosion – from the inside out, or by collapse, by implosion – from the outside in, affect too destructively both the individual and the community, and above all the society of which this individual, as well this community are a constituent, integral part.
At the singular point of dramatic loss of both ontological security and epistemological security, our traditional understandings of the differences between anxiety and fear practically cease to work – namely, that anxiety lacks a specific causative agent , i.e. there is no definite object of this concern; while fear is a response to a specific threat, i.e. it has a definite causative object [5].
At the singular point, both anxiety dissolves into fear, but as hyper-fear, and fear transforms into anxiety, but as hyper-anxiety. How is this possible?
Well, this is possible because, on the one hand, anxiety leads to a loss of orientation and a breakdown of values, to a falling into a highly depressed state, which begins to create, to fantasize – one after another – objects that cause this state of panic and complete disorientation, thus, anxiety becomes in fact a total fear of everything – thinkable and unthinkable.
On the other hand, at the same time, fear loses the idea of its specific object causing it, it cannot perceive its outlines, falls into amnesia in relation to this specific object that gave rise to it, its feelings and sensations are blurred and thus it is transformed into a massive, all-encompassing, unbalancing and collapsing the entire identity system of the individual (community, society) total anxiety of unknown what.
This is the state of simultaneous absolute ontological uncertainty and insecurity and absolute epistemological uncertainty and insecurity. In it, as we said, anxiety becomes hyper-fear or total fear of everything, and fear is transformed into hyper-anxiety or total anxiety of unknown what.
How close is an individual (a community or a society) to such a state?
Everything depends on many identity specifics and psychological markers, it is too individual. However, one of the possible criteria for evaluating the proximity to the state of simultaneous absolute ontological uncertainty and insecurity and absolute epistemological uncertainty and insecurity (and this process must be monitored) is how much a given individual (the same applies to a given community or to a given society) is desocialized and rebiologized, i.e. how much it loses a significant part of its social essence and as a result its biological essence comes to the fore.
∙ For example, the further away from rebiologizing is an individual (community, society), i.e. the more he is an active, effective, goal-setting and goal-achieving social subject, the more he views the conflicts in which he participates as non-zero-sum conflicts – „and–and“. Conversely, the more the individual loses his social identity and becomes primarily a rescuing, surviving biological being, the more he views the conflicts in which he is involved as zero-sum – „either-or“ conflicts.
∙ Furthermore, in the individual the biological (animal) works much more with dangers and threats; the social (human) works much more with challenges and risks.
Dangers and threats breed fear and aggression. They are directly related to and act on the primitive part of the human brain – instincts and reflexes.
Challenges and risks give rise to mobilization and a drive to accumulate knowledge (self-actualization). They are directly related to and act on the cognitive part of the human brain – that of analysis and synthesis.
If an individual (community, society) begins to see its problems as dangers that need to be controlled and threats that need to be neutralized, and not so much as challenges that need to be responded and risks that need to be managed, then a light bulb goes on that society has started to rapidly move towards its aforementioned singular point.
A few more considerations related to ontological security, which, as we have already said, is at the same time epistemological security.
How far can it go, how far will take us our quest to prevent everything, to protect ourselves from everything, to safeguard ourselves from everything? What are the limits and what is the meaning of our life passing into a constant effort of maximum and extraordinary, of titanic and Sisyphean efforts – to make it absolutely impossible, to make it so that there is not even the slightest probability, to make it so that it is not allowed in any way and at any cost to create conditions for the possible emergence of any potential source of negative impact that can quickly develop over time and lead to destructive consequences?
Shall not the continual making of such efforts lead to the displacement of the priceless truths and charms of our Life, shall not the very making of these efforts become our Life, shall not these very efforts become our Life?
What is Life without challenges, risks, dangers, threats and all kinds of potential sources of any impacts; what is Life in which we can think of nothing but removing every cause and occasion of fear, apprehension, worry, chagrin?
How will we understand the great poetry of the forest if we don't go there just because we are afraid of bears?
How will we understand the great beauty of love if we are slaves to the blind will of genes and their random combinations?
How will we understand the great power of parenting if we turn it into a (reasonable) selection of desirable, convenient, pleasant or simply fashionable preset traits of the child?
And Life is much more real, more beautiful and more fulfilling when there are in it, and not when there are no challenges, risks, dangers, threats and all kinds of potential sources of any impacts! Regardless of their possible consequences.
References:
. Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 1991, pp. 47 – 48, 184.
2. Гидденс, Энтони. Последствия современности. Москва: Праксис, 2011, с. 223.
Giddens, Entoni. Posledstvia sovremennosti. Moskva: Praksis, 2011, p. 223. (in Russian)
(Giddens, Anthony. Consequences of modernity).
3. Дмитриев, Тимофей. Сокрушительная современность Энтони Гидденса, pp. 7–106. – В: Гидденс, Энтони. Последствия современности. М.: Праксис, 2011, 26 – 27, 48.
Dmitriev, Timofey. Socrushitel’naia sovremennost Entoni Giddensa, pp. 7–106. – V: Giddens, Entoni. Posledstvia sovremennosti. Moskva: Praksis, 2011, p. 26 – 27, 48. (in Russian)
(Dmitriev, Timofey. The Crushing Modernity of Anthony Giddens)
4. Aradau, Claudia. Rethinking Trafficking in Women. Politics out of Security. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, р. 52.
5. Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Imporatnce for Survival. New York, NY; Chicago, IL; etc.: McGraw-Hill, 2010, p. 195.
09.12.2022 г.
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.
