Humanological Critique of the Misuse of Philosophical Theories in the Social Sciences

The Case of Securitization Theory

  • Dušan Smiljanić

Abstract

In this paper is addressed the misuse of philosophical concepts and theories within the social sciences, using the case of securitization theory in the field of security studies as a focal point. Drawing upon logical-epistemological and ontological primacy of philosophy over science, and the necessity of philosophical grounding of social sciences, we aim to outline a philosophically adequate approach to the phenomenon of security. This serves as a contribution to the foundational development of security sciences. The theoretical framework for both the critique of securitization theory and the articulation of a more adequate philosophical approach to security is provided by Milenko Bodin’s humanological paradigm of philosophy and social sciences and entological theory of human safety and security.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Armon-Jones, C. (1986). The Thesis of Constructionism. In: The Social Construction of Emotion. London: Basic Blackwell, 32–56.
Baldwin, D. 1997. The Concept of Security. Review of International Studies 23(1): 5–26.
Balzacq, T. (2010). Constructivism and securitization studies. In: The Routledge Handbook of Security Studies. London: Routledge, 56–72.
Balzacq, T. (ed.) 2011. Securitization Theory. London: Routledge.
Baysal, B. (2020). 20 Years of Securitization: Strengths, Limitations and A New Dual Framework. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 17(67): 3–20.
Bodin, M. (2024). Filozofija bezbednosti nasuprot ontološkom konstruktivizmu. Beograd: Albatros plus & Centar za primenjenu filozofiju i društvena istraživanja.
Booth, K. 2007. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyd, R. (1992). Constructivism, Realism, and Philosophical Method. In: Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California, 131–198.
Buzan, B. (1991). People, States, and Fear. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Buzan, B., O. Waever, and J. de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.
Dahlstrom, M. A. (2021). Difference (Unterscheidung). In Dahlstrom’s, M. A. (eds.), The Cambridge Heidegger Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press, 227–231.
Derrida, J. (1985). Letter to a Japanese Friend. In Derrida and Differance, ed. Wood & Bernasconi, Warwick: Parousia Press, 1-5.
Deudney, D. 1990. The Case against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security. Millennium 19(3): 461–476.
Diaz-Leon, E. (2015). What Is Social Construction. European Journal of Philosophy 23(4): 1137–1152
Floyd, R. (2011). Can securitization theory be used in normative analysis? Towards a just securitization theory. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5): 427–439.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Heidegger, M. (1978). Frühe Schriften: (1912–1916) 2nd edn., ed. Von Herrmann Friedrich-Wilhelm. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, M. (1983). Die Grundbegriffe der Metaphysik: Welt – Endlichkeit – Einsamkeit (1929–1930). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, M. (1985). History of the Concept of Time, Prolegomena. Trans. by T. Kisiel. Bloomington: Indiana Univeristy Press.
Heidegger, M. (2005). Über den Anfang. Ed by Paola-Ludovika Coriando, Klostermann,
Heidegger, M. (2007). Zur Sache des Denkens: (1962–1964). Ed by Von Herrmann Friedrich-Wilhelm. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Heidegger, M. (2009). Das Ereignis (1941/42). Ed. von Herrmann, F.W. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Hobbes, T. 1998 (1651). De Cive (On the Citizen). Edited and translated by Richard Tuck and Michael Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keith Krause and Michael Williams (2018). Security and “Security Studies”: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation. The Oxford Handbook of International Security. Edited by Alexandra Gheciu and William C. Wohlforth, London: Oxford University Press, 1–18.
Kolodziej, E. A. 1992. Renaissance in Security Studies? Caveat lector! International Studies Quarterly, 36(4): 421–438.
Mabaquiao, N., M. (2018). Speech Act Theory: From Austin to Searle. A Journal for Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, and Education 19 (1): 35–45.
Nunes, J. 2012. Reclaiming the Political: Emancipation and Critique in Security Studies. Security Dialogue, 43(4): 345–361.
Romčević, B. (2018). Metodološki profil dekonstrukcije, Opće postavljanje. Filozofska istraživavanja 151(38): 625–635.
Smiljanić, D. (2025). Smart Cities and Social Security – How Smart Actually Is It to Build a ‘Smart Society’, Problems of Social and Economic Security Book Series Vol. 5, New Threats to the Security of Bulgaria, the Balkans, and the European Union, 109–117.
Smiljanić, D. (2025). Smart Cities – Digital Utopia or Digital Totalitarianism, Master Thesis. Belgrade: Faculty of Security Studies.
Schmitt, K. (2006). The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Shiping, T. 2010. Offence–defence Theory: Towards a Definitive Understanding. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3: 213–260.
Snyder, G. H. 2007. Alliance Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Vuori, A. J. (2011). How To Do Security with Words, A Grammar of Securitisation in the People’s Republic of China. University of Turku.
Waever, O. (1989). Security, The Speech Act. In: Analysing the Politics of a Word. Research Training Seminar. Copenhagen: Center for Peace and Conflict Research.
Waever, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. In: On Security. New York: Columbia University Press, 46 – 86.
Walt, S. M. 1991. The Renaissance of Security Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35(2): 211–239.
Williams, P. 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Williams, R. E., Jr., and P. R. Viotti (2012). Arms Control: History, Theory, and Policy, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2 vols.
Published
2026-01-02
How to Cite
Smiljanić, D. (2026). Humanological Critique of the Misuse of Philosophical Theories in the Social Sciences. Critical Hermeneutics, 9(2), 391-429. https://doi.org/10.13125/CH/6884