Increasing the resilience of society continued.


We are all resilient these days, leaving in our wake a less resilient, more disposable, humanity. As the systems of economic, physical and environmental security are hit by the shocks and ruptures from our own complex activities, some people are more disposable than other people.


But no one is responsible for rectifying the injustice. Responsibility to rectify has been theorised out of the resilience equation – it smacks of stabilisation. The best form of governance now is to help people endure their local problems until these systems of security stabilise with a changed architecture. Nor does resilience guarantee greater security, it only offers continuation, including the possibility of perpetual everyday war. As the governance driving this approach to our lives is just a conceptual response to the world, are we caught in a scarier predicament – running round in a circle of resilience, creating further problems for ourselves and fortifying ourselves to the problems, which then creates further problems and so on? It’s quite possible that the social ethos that we are securing takes us on an unpleasant, and possibly dangerous, wild goose chase. Whoever said that resilience would feel good?


When dominant values include the exploitation of the weaknesses of others and security as private service, political violence and criminality will gain traction and impetus. A viable terrain for the growth of violence and organised crime is created when the social ethos of pursuing individual gains is put above the provision of social cohesion. Armed groups and organised crime know too well that their use of security is entangled in an ethos of individual gain. Yet aren’t we following a similar model?


When the provision of security joins the privatised competitive market we move closer to Thomas Hobbes’s 17th century experiences on the mode of governance prior to the sovereign state, that “war of every one against every one”. Now we have the imaginable future of King Lear. The nation state, defined by its very monopoly on the legitimate use of force, is giving away its kingdom – flattered by those who offer partnership but who soon move in on the King’s powerlessness. Curiously, we are not building resilience to this possibility.


The creation of a security market produces highly differentiated experiences of security. Socio-economic inequalities become replicated in our access (or rights) to safety. Such a scenario is hardly new, the difference now is the justifying market logic that


12 © CI TY S ECURI TY MAGAZ INE – WINT ER 2016/ 17


prioritises the security of some over others. Often that security is obtained by delivering insecurity to others. As we build resilience we make ourselves stronger (and thereby others weaker). Increase in threats is interpreted in the design of targets rather than an ethos of competitive threatening. This move towards securitisation will bring profits to investors in privatised security companies, but will it actually reduce the threat or address the ever increasing complexity that delivers further threats? In the rising waters of threats, the security sector is forced to follow an ethos of sustainable growth through resilience. Security becomes trapped in an endless game, raising the height of the fortifications, or changing the architecture, but never investing in ways to stop the waters rising.


A way forward


Global society is rapidly changing. Ideas about complexity will help us through those changes. But as long as we marginalise our social responsibilities in global and local economies, or conveniently align them to continued accumulation, then the complexities and spread of threats are unlikely to decline. We need a change from securing people and their things in specific places. Once we begin securing global humanity, and the ecological systems that support us, we will discover the social ethos we need.


Human political history is a trail of good ideas that went wrong. If the current social ethos is contributing to our insecurity then the principles of resilience need to be applied there too. Adapt or fundamentally change. It is not sufficient to engage in the logics of the endless battle of a sorcerer’s apprentice. For example, developing drones to defend ourselves that we then need to defend ourselves against. We cannot hold on to a way of life generated from economic thinking that delivers us into ever increasing, and ever profitable, securitisation. That is not security. It is only a response to the ideological sacrifice of ever present insecurity, where some are more insecure than others.


The discussion on security needs opening up to account for underlying ideologies that make ideas appear like common sense or normality. The people best placed to have those discussions are those who work in security. Not only are they well positioned to see some of the problems but they have a profound sense of social responsibility. Safety is a basic human need. Right now, resilience is applied in a narrow vision compatible with ideology and preserving the existing ethos. We need to discover how to extend security - in its fullest, most humane sense – to global humanity. How do we increase the resilience of humanity towards the ideas and actions of humanity itself?


Dr. Jonathan Newman Department of Global Studies Sussex University


www.sussex.ac.uk www. c i t y s e cu r i t yma g a z i ne . com


H


ow safe are hotels included in the corporate travel portfolio?


The world is ever more accessible, with personal and business travel continuing to grow rapidly. Emerging markets across the world represent real opportunities for corporations to expand their businesses; however, events in Europe and the world beyond continue to demonstrate increased and less predictable risks to business travellers and holidaymakers alike.


These risks arise most frequently from criminals but global terrorism and the risk from natural events is now a real consideration for all travellers. Corporates spend millions of pounds a year worldwide on travel and hotel accommodation for their employees and executives.


The receipt of the ‘Request for Proposals’ document is an important event for hoteliers as they compete for the lucrative business traveller trade and seek to be included in the corporates’ list of approved hotels. Clearly the procurement exercise is designed to keep travel and hotel costs under control, whilst maintaining a breadth of choice across the world. In recent years, the rise of social responsibility has created a desire to


?


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36