Steven E.Miller Traditional Strategic Studies In Context 645 on nuclear-weapons issues or the role of war in the policies of states?These are both important subjects.There is nothing in the study of the one that precludes the study of the other.I am unaware of any inclination among the traditionalists that other scholars should be prevented from working on their own agendas.The so-called challengers to the traditionalists apparently see themselves as intellectual insurgents engaged in a protracted campaign against the hardened'defenses of the traditionalists(Buzan Hansen,2009: 162).But the history of the field would unfold quite differently if the devel- opment of multiple schools of thought were regarded as a natural evolution involving a healthy and desirable intellectual division of labor rather than an ongoing mortal struggle for the soul of security. Third,at what point does the 'widening and deepening'process go so far that it begins to exceed sensible boundaries for the field or to encompass domains of scholarly inquiry so far afield from the traditionalist agenda that they appear to be different realms altogether?With the rise of challeng- ers,say Buzan Hansen (2009:200),'came also a widening of the sectors or areas to which security analysis should be applied,adding development, the environment,economics and social-welfare issues'.Each of these subjects is,obviously,a field in its own right,and together they encompass much of human political experience.While there can be dimensions within each that have implications for the traditionalist agenda,people working in these areas are experts in completely different spheres from those working on questions relating to the political uses of force.Why cannot this simply be work done in a different way on very different,very important topics? Buzan Hansen,however,are averse to drawing a clear and tight bound- ary around the field.Thus they quote Stephen Walt's(1991)argument that international security studies should retain its focus on the role of force and not be regarded as so elastic as to encompass everything under the sun.Walt acknowledges the importance of other issues and respects the need for seri- ous work on them but suggests that no single field can tackle a sweeping agenda while retaining coherence.This Buzan Hansen(2009:163)regard as a 'repudiation of widening approaches'.They insist,instead,that the cacophony created by these eleven diverse schools of thought constitutes a single conversation within the confines of the field of international security studies.One of the influential concepts to arise from the Copenhagen School is the notion of securitization,defined as 'the process of presenting an issue in security terms'(Buzan Hansen,2009:214).One might say that Buzan, Hansen,and the other challengers they identify are engaged in the securitiz- ing of whole vast realms of academic inquiry. Traditionalists and challengers have a different attitude toward the location of boundaries for the field and hence have different judgments about what is in and what is outside the field.This may account for the sense among chal- lengers that they are assaulting defined and defended territory. Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12,2012Steven E. Miller Traditional Strategic Studies In Context 645 on nuclear-weapons issues or the role of war in the policies of states? These are both important subjects. There is nothing in the study of the one that precludes the study of the other. I am unaware of any inclination among the traditionalists that other scholars should be prevented from working on their own agendas. The so-called challengers to the traditionalists apparently see themselves as intellectual insurgents engaged in a protracted campaign against the ‘hardened’ defenses of the traditionalists (Buzan & Hansen, 2009: 162). But the history of the field would unfold quite differently if the devel￾opment of multiple schools of thought were regarded as a natural evolution involving a healthy and desirable intellectual division of labor rather than an ongoing mortal struggle for the soul of security. Third, at what point does the ‘widening and deepening’ process go so far that it begins to exceed sensible boundaries for the field or to encompass domains of scholarly inquiry so far afield from the traditionalist agenda that they appear to be different realms altogether? With the rise of challeng￾ers, say Buzan & Hansen (2009: 200), ‘came also a widening of the sectors or areas to which security analysis should be applied, adding development, the environment, economics and social-welfare issues’. Each of these subjects is, obviously, a field in its own right, and together they encompass much of human political experience. While there can be dimensions within each that have implications for the traditionalist agenda, people working in these areas are experts in completely different spheres from those working on questions relating to the political uses of force. Why cannot this simply be work done in a different way on very different, very important topics? Buzan & Hansen, however, are averse to drawing a clear and tight bound￾ary around the field. Thus they quote Stephen Walt’s (1991) argument that international security studies should retain its focus on the role of force and not be regarded as so elastic as to encompass everything under the sun. Walt acknowledges the importance of other issues and respects the need for seri￾ous work on them but suggests that no single field can tackle a sweeping agenda while retaining coherence. This Buzan & Hansen (2009: 163) regard as a ‘repudiation of widening approaches’. They insist, instead, that the cacophony created by these eleven diverse schools of thought constitutes a single conversation within the confines of the field of international security studies. One of the influential concepts to arise from the Copenhagen School is the notion of securitization, defined as ‘the process of presenting an issue in security terms’ (Buzan & Hansen, 2009: 214). One might say that Buzan, Hansen, and the other challengers they identify are engaged in the securitiz￾ing of whole vast realms of academic inquiry. Traditionalists and challengers have a different attitude toward the location of boundaries for the field and hence have different judgments about what is in and what is outside the field. This may account for the sense among chal￾lengers that they are assaulting defined and defended territory. Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12, 2012