Security Discussion
A friend asked several of us a serious question recently. "How do each of you define "security"?" The discussion that followed was interesting, and illuminating. Here's mine:
I think I know what [s/he] is asking, but defining security requires context. ...For some, security would likely be freedom from want of daily necessities. Others would be secure in knowing that they control their lives. For me, security tends to function around knowing that my future is not likely going to disintegrate, destroying all that I cherish. That's a form of freedom from fear.Security, it seems to me, takes at least two forms. First, is access to daily necessities. Second, for me it involves knowing ... that my lifestyle is not likely to be removed. I'm not sure that I want to have complete, 100% security, because without risk life is stagnant.
I was immediately, and probably correctly, taken to task by others in the group. My excuse is that I hadn't taken the time to think about my reply. Now that I've had more time, I still think context needs to be part of every definition of security. And, on the whole, I stand by my quick definition. It's a matter of degree and adding a level of uncertainty.
There is no such thing as knowing one controls his life, or that his future or lifestyle is not likely to disintegrate. The concept, however, remains. Complete security is not possible, or desired. Though stagnant is overly strong, life without risk, challenge, or goals is, for me, empty.
Since the last paragraph, I've been away from the computer for almost three hours with my wife, and had some rethinking time. It occurred to me that until very recently I've never felt secure. My childhood certainly was not, and through my professional careers I've always felt very insecure. Even my personal life has had a great deal of turmoil. I'm on my third marriage, and a good part of the reasons the first two failed was the insecurity caused by poor emotional growth. With Marrianna, there was at first a low level of security that this time it would work. But it has, and due to that solid base my personal feeling of security has improved immensely.
Looking at my definition, I can see that it is very influenced by my own insecurity. But it also points out that security has to be defined within several contexts: emotional, financial, professional, and others. In general though, with thought and context, my definition holds up fairly well.
So, I think that's a reasonably definition of personal security. When the context spreads to national security, more needs to be said. National security is equally complex, with the survival of the nation a partial context.
Nations seem to need emotional security as well as physical, much as a person. Bluster, bullying, aggression, barriers, and arms are, in my amateur psychological perspective, signs of feeling insecure. Of course, the nation has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Confidence born from strength of character as reflected in its laws and general welfare of its citizens provides a core that others may emulate, but certainly is not foisted upon them.
It's well after midnight. I'm rambling, indicating that it is time to stop. Perhaps I'll return to national security another day.
Since the last paragraph, I've been away from the computer for almost three hours with my wife, and had some rethinking time. It occurred to me that until very recently I've never felt secure. My childhood certainly was not, and through my professional careers I've always felt very insecure. Even my personal life has had a great deal of turmoil. I'm on my third marriage, and a good part of the reasons the first two failed was the insecurity caused by poor emotional growth. With Marrianna, there was at first a low level of security that this time it would work. But it has, and due to that solid base my personal feeling of security has improved immensely.
Looking at my definition, I can see that it is very influenced by my own insecurity. But it also points out that security has to be defined within several contexts: emotional, financial, professional, and others. In general though, with thought and context, my definition holds up fairly well.
So, I think that's a reasonably definition of personal security. When the context spreads to national security, more needs to be said. National security is equally complex, with the survival of the nation a partial context.
Nations seem to need emotional security as well as physical, much as a person. Bluster, bullying, aggression, barriers, and arms are, in my amateur psychological perspective, signs of feeling insecure. Of course, the nation has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Confidence born from strength of character as reflected in its laws and general welfare of its citizens provides a core that others may emulate, but certainly is not foisted upon them.
It's well after midnight. I'm rambling, indicating that it is time to stop. Perhaps I'll return to national security another day.
Good stuff, all of it. And I agree throughout (though when it comes to the details of national security, we may find that we diverge:-)
Posted by:Felix Grant | May 16, 2008 at 03:48 AM