A call for abolition: The disavowal and displacement of race in critical security studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We offer a rejoinder to Security Dialogue’s call for reparative work on race and racism in Critical Security Studies, questioning the ability of a discipline at the heart of an Antiblack world, to engage in truly reparative practices. The attempt to incorporate questions of race and racism into the discipline requires a disavowal, as it denies that Critical Security Studies emerged from and is embedded in systems, structures and institutions of power that rely on Antiblackness. This leads to a displacement, for it assumes that race and racism remain separable from Critical Security Studies, refusing to acknowledge that the discipline has always been part of the problem. Thus, we make two main points in response to calls for reparation from within Critical Security Studies. Firstly, that there can be no openings for truly reparative work from the position of the discipline, it remains within the grounds of Antiblackness. Secondly, that there can be no repair of Critical Security Studies, there can be no ethico-political future for it other than abolition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".