Politicization of Security Culture: Power Legitimization and Social Control Technologization
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5148-2026-1-89-95
Abstract
Aim. To identify the political dimensions of the security culture and analyze its role in the processes of state power legitimization.
Methodology. The methodological basis of the study is formed by critical discourse analysis cooperated with M. Foucault’s concept of bio-power, as well as the theories of W. Beck and Z. Bauman about risk society.
Results. It is demonstrated that security culture is not a neutral set of practices, but rather a politicized construction employed in constructing threats, normalizing emergency measures, and technologizing social control. The analysis reveals the dual nature of safety culture, which simultaneously functions as a precondition for freedom and as an instrument of its limitation, giving rise to a social-philosophical tension between the imperative of security and the principles of democracy and personal autonomy.
Research implications. The author introduces and elucidates the concept of the “political grammar of security,” which delineates the way security discourse functions as a discursive mechanism through which authority is legitimized and power is institutionalized.
About the Author
O. V. Dzhavad
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Olga V. Dzhavad, Senior Lecturer
Department of Social Philosophy
Moscow
References
1. Waever, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. In: On Security. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 46–87.
2. Barnes, M. (2012). Care in Everyday Life: An Ethic of Care in Practice. Bristol: The Policy Press.
3. Ganz, A. (2023). Emotions and Securitisation: A New Materialist Discourse Analysis. In: European Journal of International Relations, 30 (2), 280–305. DOI: 10.1177/13540661221151038.
4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
5. Bauman, Z. (2008). Liquid Modernity. St. Petersburg: Piter publ. (in Russ.).
6. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem publ. (in Russ.).
7. Mettini E. & Vigel, N. L. (2024), Biopower, Biopolitics, Bioethics: State Interest (Raison d’État) and Human Interests in the Philosophy of M. Foucault. In: Discourses of Ethics, 3–4, 27–76 (in Russ.).
8. Rusakov, S. S. M. Foucault’s Three-Level Concept of Political Power. In: South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 17 (1), 114–126 (in Russ.).
9. Kaplun, V. (2019). Stop Thinking of “Power” Through “the State”: Gouvernementalité, Governmentality Studies, and What Happened to Michel Foucault’s Analytics of Power in Russian Translations. In: Logos, 2 (129), 179–220 (in Russ.).
10. Agamben, G. (2005). State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
11. Gerasimov, A. V. (2018). The Phenomenon of Security in Socio-Philosophical Discourse. In: Philosophical School, 4, 23–31. DOI: 10.24411/2541-7673-2018-10411 (in Russ.).
12. Berardi “Biffo”, F. (2009). Precarious Rhapsody: Semiocapitalism and the Pathologies of the Post-Alpha Generation. London: Minor Compositions publ.
13. Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Buckingham: Open University Press.
14. Javad, O. V. & Ivleva, M. L. (2025). The Phenomenon of Security: Socio-Philosophical Context. In: RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 29 (2), 267–281.
Review
Views:
99
JATS XML
Email this article 