642 Security Dialogue vol.41,no.6,December 2010 criticized on moral and theoretical grounds;both its legitimacy and its ade- quacy as an academic subfield have been questioned. Third,as Buzan Hansen rightly indicate,some of the main substantive preoccupations of traditional strategic studies-notably nuclear-weapons issues and the superpower rivalry-were among the most compelling issues on the public policy agenda during the Cold War era.Hence,the traditional- ists tended to be deeply involved in the most visible,controversial,signifi- cant debates and the most prominent policy fights.Challengers are usually working in different substantive and conceptual contexts and must battle for attention,recognition,and policy focus.Alternative schools of thought gen- erally believe that more attention should be given to their concerns but find the actual public policy agenda preoccupied with military security and grand strategic issues that are the staple of traditional security studies.But,again,to note that traditionalists work on issues that generally get more public policy focus is not the same thing as establishing that within academe traditionalists have occupied a hegemonic place. Fourth,the perception that traditional security studies is dominant may derive in part from the fact that-apart from realism-the other schools of thought define themselves to a striking degree in reference to traditional strategic studies.As Buzan Hansen (2009:101)write,the alternatives are 'those approaches which in various ways challenged Strategic Studies.These approaches had one thing in common-namely their criticism of Strategic Studies'.In this framework,the traditionalists are in the center of the bull's eye,inevitably and inherently central to the world-view of scholars and schools of thought who define themselves as alternatives or contrasts to traditional strategic studies. Whatever the explanation,the assumption of unquestioned hegemonic dominance by traditional strategic studies is a central element in Buzan Hansen's understanding of the history and evolution of the field.It conveys a sense of the field as a contest involving nine plucky Davids taking on a single overweening Goliath.This may be an attractive notion for the challengers, but it is not how things look from a traditionalist perspective. A Narrow Substantive Agenda? A second fundamental plank in Buzan Hansen's telling of the story is that traditional strategic studies is marked by a narrow substantive ambit in need of the 'widening and deepening'advocated by the challengers.The tradition- alists were and are devoted to a military state-centric agenda and are wedded to assumptions of rationality.Alternative schools of thought arose 'to chal- lenge military-state centrism'(Buzan Hansen,2009:187). What is the substantive domain of traditional strategic studies?There is Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12,2012642 Security Dialogue vol. 41, no. 6, December 2010 criticized on moral and theoretical grounds; both its legitimacy and its ade￾quacy as an academic subfield have been questioned. Third, as Buzan & Hansen rightly indicate, some of the main substantive preoccupations of traditional strategic studies – notably nuclear-weapons issues and the superpower rivalry – were among the most compelling issues on the public policy agenda during the Cold War era. Hence, the traditional￾ists tended to be deeply involved in the most visible, controversial, signifi￾cant debates and the most prominent policy fights. Challengers are usually working in different substantive and conceptual contexts and must battle for attention, recognition, and policy focus. Alternative schools of thought gen￾erally believe that more attention should be given to their concerns but find the actual public policy agenda preoccupied with military security and grand strategic issues that are the staple of traditional security studies. But, again, to note that traditionalists work on issues that generally get more public policy focus is not the same thing as establishing that within academe traditionalists have occupied a hegemonic place. Fourth, the perception that traditional security studies is dominant may derive in part from the fact that – apart from realism – the other schools of thought define themselves to a striking degree in reference to traditional strategic studies. As Buzan & Hansen (2009: 101) write, the alternatives are ‘those approaches which in various ways challenged Strategic Studies. These approaches had one thing in common – namely their criticism of Strategic Studies’. In this framework, the traditionalists are in the center of the bull’s eye, inevitably and inherently central to the world-view of scholars and schools of thought who define themselves as alternatives or contrasts to traditional strategic studies. Whatever the explanation, the assumption of unquestioned hegemonic dominance by traditional strategic studies is a central element in Buzan & Hansen’s understanding of the history and evolution of the field. It conveys a sense of the field as a contest involving nine plucky Davids taking on a single overweening Goliath. This may be an attractive notion for the challengers, but it is not how things look from a traditionalist perspective. A Narrow Substantive Agenda? A second fundamental plank in Buzan & Hansen’s telling of the story is that traditional strategic studies is marked by a narrow substantive ambit in need of the ‘widening and deepening’ advocated by the challengers. The tradition￾alists were and are devoted to a military state-centric agenda and are wedded to assumptions of rationality. Alternative schools of thought arose ‘to chal￾lenge military-state centrism’ (Buzan & Hansen, 2009: 187). What is the substantive domain of traditional strategic studies? There is Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12, 2012