DILLONS SECURITY PHILOSOPHY: DANGER THREAT FROM JUST OUTSIDE?

At first, the title of the book Politics of Security brings Me to the memory of Ole Waever securitization concept in his book with Barry Buzan Security: A New Framework of Analysis (1998). Securitization is a concept in the Copenhagen School of security thinking is strongly influenced by social-constructivist perspective and has been present since 1995. Securitization basically conceive of a process of reviewing a security issue that needs to be addressed with power as well as the threat to the country through the process of securitizing act by politicians. However, all the estimates I have not gone even once mentioning the author's concept of securitization, the name of a Waever, or even social-constructivism. Indeed, the names of the philosophers who dominated the discussion of this book: Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Levinas and Arendt. Finally I realized, this is the time to see security is far more philosophical. Discussion of Michael Dillon all the more surprising when it turned out I was, in fact, the philosophy is much more focused to examine first, even especially, the political aspect, then the security aspect.
Motivated by the existence of a crisis in consciousness between philosophy and politics, and with the conviction that there is an intimate relationship between two of the most rugged and exhibited globally visible in politics (inter) national, the purpose of this book is to contribute to rethink some of the basics International Relations through what I call the political philosophy of contemporary continental thought. Its main intention is, therefore, to contribute to the reconstruction of International Relations as a site of political thought, by departing from the very commitment to political subjectivity upon which international relations are based. (Dillon, 1996: p.2) Contribution (Dillon) derived from the initial entry point into crisis and political philosophy - namely security ... (Dillon, 1996: p.9)

In this critique of security studies , with insights into the thinking of Heidegger , Foucault , Derrida , Levinas and Arendt , Michael Dillon (1996 ) contribute to a rethinking of some of the fundamentals of international politics . Inspired by the work of Martin Heidegger , Politics of Security establishes the relationship between radical hermeneutic phenomenology of Heidegger and Politics . The term hermeneutics covers both the first order art and the second order theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic expressions and non - linguistic (Bjrn , 2013) . But through his book , Sein und Zeit (1927) , Heidegger actually change the discipline of hermeneutics (Bjrn , 2013) . In view of Heidegger , hermeneutics is not a matter of understanding linguistic communication , not about the methodological basis for the human sciences (Bjrn , 2013) . Hermeneutics is ontology : about the most fundamental conditions of human existence in the world . From that relationship , Michael Dillon trace the roots of desire for security to the metaphysical desire for certitude. Dillon purpose that I wrote above is just a part of what is discussed in the Politics of Security . So this book makes a profound discussion I restrict the study to the existing material. I am interested in the discussion of the first chapter, "Security , philosophy and politics" . Discourses on security, which until now I get it mostly departed from the perspectives of International Relations, especially Realism (and all its variants), Neoliberalism, Social - constructivism , and some post - post thoughts in Critical Security Studies (CSS) such as feminism , critical theory , and others. Philosophical side of security as security or security as security on its own tends to be only available in the form of a simplification of the "free from threat" . The meaning of " free " ( free / freedom) , " from " ( from / against ? ) , And the " threat " (threats / vurnerabilities ) is actually very debatable . That's just basic

definition, how the definitions of each of the IR theory that I mentioned earlier ? Armed with a (small) knowledge of security theories, I tried reviewing the criticisms of Michael Dillon. 'Security' must be secured? In the first chapter, Dillon questioned whether the 'security' must be secured? This question was not only about how to secure political Modernity in International Relations, but, furthermore, how is the relationship between politics and philosophy? Relationship, according to Dillon are among the political and human metaphysics of mortality (death) as the limit where the political and security thinking begins. Death is at the core of security philosophically. In the People, State, and Fears (1991), Barry Buzan states that security at the level of the individual as a social problem has three element , namely awake from danger (objective security), feel secure (subjective security), and free from doubt. These three elements owned by each individual and unfortunately, when the clash, will bring the threat to humans from each other . The threats that may be present in the form of physical threats ( wound , injury , death ), the threat of economic (poverty , difficult access to resources), the threat of the rights (prison , lost civil liberties) , and a threat to the status / position (insult) . According to him, these threats converging on a great dilemma underlying many political philosophies about how to balance between the freedom of action of an individual with potential or real threats presented when these freedoms affect others (Buzan , 1991). When juxtaposed with the political philosophy of mortality Dillon security, Buzan, despite calls death as one example of a physical threat, emphasizes the balance of freedom of action . Dillons is very basic philosophy, while Buzans tend to be relational. However, it does not mean that Dillon is not operational philosophy, but rather to provide a more flexible foundation on not only how a security concept is formed, but also how the political philosophy underlying formed first. We often do not realize that Barry Buzan's conception of security directly skip the process of the formation of political philosophy itself, as if faint, and directly and immediately lead to the understanding of relational security that was very influenced by neorealism. Dangers of Threat or Our own? Even so, Barry Buzan has aligned understanding of neighbor relationships security / insecurity that the impact of social threats had led to a causality: if freedom (freedom) dikehendari, insecurity (insecurity) should be accepted. According to Dillon, this is one of the dangers that must be examined closely. This danger is not present in reality as well as potential threats, but there is in how we think about it. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher who greatly influenced by Heidegger, stating that 'There are no dangerous thoughts. Thinking itself that dangerous' (Dillon, 1996: p.32). According to Dillon, if we continue to think about the security of a number of 'anti-', we are not aware that in the end there will always be differentiation between us and others. Security and insecurity would happen as humanity's shared. If this trend continues, think about security will lead us to nihilism. If we are in the totalitarian era, meaning struggle so clearly defined. What about now? All the more vague and without value. However, according to Dillon, nihilism is not going to happen if we focus on the metaphysics that is to end:

 warn us against the inevitable violence and dogmatic necessity in the practice of the most fundamental values in our (inter)national political thought, as well as our system of rule; because of security do things rather than just naming things, we must ask questions about the safety of the active interrogative voice of genealogy and hermeneutics; finding out about the creation and exploration of political strategies through the question: What is the political practice of death (mortality), now globally threatened themselves by political (inter) national security of those who might? questioned the claims about the affecting international security upon our political imagination. All these questions will drive the move to the realm of metaphysical kitauntuk influenced by constraints (limits) as Dillon got from Heidegger. Starting from the value, origin, political practices, and imagination, we are required to actually do philosophy. The goal is not to achieve earlier nihilism, but rather for more and more aware that before reaching thinking about security threats, we must first pass through the dangers of how we think about it. Verbs security, not Identity We know the terminology of amity and enmity in the Regional Security Complex Theory (RSCT) (Buzan & Waever, 2003). Amity as friends and Enmity as enemies in the regional security detainees. With these two terms, we will identify the subjects of the state in a security perspective. This recognition process is the first step that will determine all forms of security policy of a country. However, if it is used as a destination? Does by anyone know who the friend and enemy, security has been reached? As in the second point in the effort to think on metaphysics security for humans before, Dillon stressed that security is not an attempt to name the things, but rather to do things. We need to more carefully assess the existence of external parties often have excessive presence (Beings) of appearance through genealogy, hermeneutics, and deconstruction (Dillon, 1996: p.34 ) to keep pursuing the essence . Unfortunately, these essential steps are often not consistent with what Dillon assume that security is about doing something . I think, in the end , the security policy can not be approached only by such a philosophical approach , we still need art or skill on a practical level that can answer the security challenges that are immediate and unique in all of space and time because of the restrictions which Dillon himself revealed mortality so difficult to measure. However, a major contribution Dillon about forming a political philosophy that security is a very valuable insight for assessing security deeper and more stand alone again . Perhaps one day, the security may be one of the core subjects in the study of international relations, such as Diplomacy, International Law or Political Economy , thanks to this work .