Disciplinary Power and Climate Change

The disciplinary discourse constructs an entirely different picture of climate change as a threat.

Within this discourse, the focus is on seemingly positive and ‘soft’ human security conceptions and similar concepts such as individual security, food security, environmental security and human vulnerability (see keywords in table 3.3b) (see also Detraz and Betsill 2009). In the disciplinary discourse, climate change is constituted as a problem to be tackled not only by the traditional security actors and practices but also by the development sector and by non-state actors.

75 Operational Dimension

Thus, looking at the operational dimension, securitisation takes place in a less alert, less extraordinary and less authoritative way. Instead of focusing on threats for the state, the emphasis is on individuals and their vulnerabilities or threatened human security. Accordingly, the threats are not primarily the second-order socioeconomic effects of climate change (e.g.

violent conflicts) but rather the direct first-order physical effects on the daily life of people, such as extreme weather events, the spread of diseases and scarcer resources. Whereas the people deemed directly threatened by climate change increasingly are also located in countries of the Global North, the focus nevertheless remains on poor people in the Global South that lack the adequate resources to adapt to the changing environment. In general, the focus on the vulnerability of individuals and not states might also reinforce a global or shared humanity perspective on the climate threat and hence could avoid the nationalistic or othering tendencies that often come with the sovereign discourse.

Power Effects

Concerning the power effects, the focus of the disciplinary discourse is primarily on solutions to tackle the problems of individuals and to transform their behaviour into the desired direction.

Concrete examples are setting up mitigation targets, the propagation of the clean development mechanism as well as drawing up ideal scenarios for energy use, GHG emissions and climate friendly behaviour. Beyond that, the disciplinary discourse can also legitimise adaptation measures that directly serve the human security of individuals and prepare these people to cope with the threats of climate change. On the one hand, this entails the empowerment of poor people through measures that improve their living conditions or the encouragement and support of climate friendly behaviour. Thus, it partly fulfils the emancipatory hopes of the proponents of human security. On the other hand, however, based on the logic of ‘normation’, the disciplinary discourse constructs a juxtaposition between the powerful Global North and victimised people in the Global South, which perpetuates problematic identities (Elbe 2009:

117). It also increases the need for surveillance, monitoring and control of these threatened and seemingly helpless individuals. To properly discipline them, their climate related behaviour such as GHG emissions but also their general ways of living and their choice of dwelling areas etc. have to be constantly kept under control of outside (Western) actors with supposedly superior knowledge. The aim is to transform these individuals and their circumstances towards the ideal typical norm of the healthy, affluent and climate resilient citizen.

76

While this ideal type in part mirrors a Western citizen, in one crucial way it does not, which is the per capita production of GHGs. Here, the aim is not a normation towards a Western lifestyle, but the prevention of an increase in emissions, and hence possibly also the denying or at least curtailing of economic growth and the dissemination of (climate-damaging) technology to make life more comfortable. Thus, while the disciplinary discourse could legitimise measures that benefit poor individuals in the Global South, it could also curtail their freedom, remove agency and push them towards actions that are not in their immediate interest. Conceivable policies entail direct interventions as part of development aid schemes, which strive to condition the behaviour of local people towards the ideal norm. Examples are the propagation of climate preparedness measures or climate education campaigns. The goal is to heighten the awareness of the affected individuals for the dangers of climate change and for the global benefits of climate friendly behaviour but also to increase their coping capacity and to decrease their

‘outcome vulnerability’ – that is their direct vulnerability to adverse effects such as sea-level rise (O'Brien et al. 2007: 75) – towards climate change effects. Beyond that, the disciplinary discourse particularly empowers non-state actors such as environmental, development, and human rights NGOs to act. However, due to the changing nature of the concept of human security, which includes an ever-closer relationship between development concepts and traditional security measures, constructing climate change as a threat to human security can also foster a closer integration of military and civilian operations. The following table 3.3b summarises the features of the disciplinary climate discourse.

77 physical effects of climate change for human security, possibly leading to support and empowerment schemes for individuals. Yet, also increased juxtaposition of North vs. South and surveillance and control of threatened individuals, ‘normation’ processes – developing vulnerable humans towards ideal norm of a climate resilient citizen, focus on outcome vulnerability, possibly denying poor individuals technology that endangers the global climate. Broadening of actors participating in governance processes, empowering non-state actors.

Exemplary Policies

Prescribing behavioural and technological norms, monitoring emissions and behaviour, voluntary emission reduction targets, climate education, adaptation measures (reducing outcome vulnerability), energy efficiency norms, clean development mechanism, CO2 taxes, mainstreaming climate change and climate security in development aid schemes, integrating development aid and military action, spread of ‘networked security concepts’.