Abstract

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SHORT ESSAY is a critical engagement withthe rather impressive ‘networked manifesto ’ that aims to present anauthoritative definition of ‘critical approaches to security in Europe’.1 Yet, the invitation to articulate my critical response to this endeavour poses a number of problems for me. First, to criticize a manifesto of critical approaches must avoid redeeming the elements of traditional scholarship that are the subject of the manifesto. On the other hand, I believe, this must not lead to a deconstruction for deconstruction’s sake, an exercise of intellec-tual elegance, yet without political or intellectual implications. Second, and more problematically, I share many of the methodological, ethical and politi-cal concerns of the c.a.s.e. collective. I do regard critical security studies (CSS) (of which I consider the c.a.s.e. manifesto to be a part) to be one of the most significant and productive fields within international politics, not least because it is able to address the philosophical and political issues of security that traditional security studies adamantly excludes from its agenda. Moreover, the network behind the manifesto encompasses many authors and scholars whose work I draw on in my own research. My critique