The chapters this week in F&M addressed environmental security primarily at the level of individuals (both humans and other organisms) and their relationships with one another. The two chapters took a stance against the state centered view of security through militarization, and called for a narrower look into the deeper causes of insecurity and environmental degradation. Comparatively, although Parenti’s book as a whole appears to connect environmental security and conflict at the state level, he also directs his focus at this smaller level with his focus on the rise of counterinsurgency (in his case a negative), and his storytelling techniques (by including real life stories at a personal level). I found both Pirages’ chapter on ecological security and Detraz’s chapter on gender equally compelling. I believe Parenti’s technique to capture the interest of readers highlights my affinity to these two discourses on environmental security: analyses and explanations through the individual level are more relatable, easier to understand, and deeper in impact than a those at the state level.
I could imagine Pirages’ chapter on ecological security is much easier to agree with than many other ecological security frameworks that do not allocate as much attention to humans. He logically explained the effect of globalization on evolution speeds of different species. Generally, I think the chapter shows the unbreakable social and biological link between all species and the biosphere. One aspect of his chapter that I did not find convincing was his manner of measuring security through life expectancy. This measurement may be accurate to some extent, but does not account for the struggles of the living. Looking at the table on page 144 of ecological security in selected countries I am more convinced that Parenti’s concept of “catastrophic convergence” is a more useful approach in addressing vulnerabilities. A low life expectancy for a country could be unrelated to environment and merely be a result of one aspect of the “catastrophic convergence” or a matter of the time the data is collected.
Overall, I enjoyed reading Detraz’s argument for the role of gender in environmental security discussions. I thought the explanation of intersections between gender and current discourses was well drawn out and useful as a new addition to the field of ESS. I especially liked her emphasis on the different experiences that occur even within genders, and her linking of anthropocentrism and androcentrism – if I were to explore a topic more in depth this week I would chose this link in systems of domination. Admittedly, my previous biases make it difficult to dissuade me on the importance of gender equality and the effects of social constructs. On the other hand, the chapter does not convince me that gender needs to be the focal point of all environmental security analyses. Though I think actors should account for gender differences in their diagnosis of problems and solutions, I am afraid that too great of a focus may be a distraction to solving the problem of environmental insecurity as a whole.
Although Parenti still intrinsically links environmental insecurity and conflict, he appears to agree with the other authors that military planning is not the best response to environmental security. On page 13, he writes, “Planning too diligently for war can preclude peace.” On another note, his accounts and chapters opened my eyes even wider to the stakes in environmental security issues.