10th ISTANBUL SECURITY CONFERENCE (2024)
"Technopolitic New World: Security of Security
"Mind, Generation, Family, Faith, and State Security"
(21-22 November 2024, Istanbul)
"Technopolitic New World: Security of Security
"Mind, Generation, Family, Faith, and State Security"
(21-22 November 2024, Istanbul)
SCOPE
The world is going through a critical phase, where boundaries are being pushed excessively in almost every aspect. Various social and political structures such as family, society, and the state, including the individuals themselves, are facing a profound security crisis, both in terms of mind and body. The changes experienced in the international arena produce consequences not only functionally but also epistemologically. For instance, the classical understanding of sovereignty and the definition of anarchy in International Relations have already begun to erode. Instead of the Security Dilemma, now we talk about the "Security Paradox." With deep-rooted "security paradoxes" at its core, this "security crisis" increasingly blurs the answer to the question, "What is the ontological mission of humanity?" In other words, the question "What does humanity live for?" is increasingly abandoned in favor of "What does humanity live with?" This situation renders humanity a primary "operational target," including its minimal anthropological characteristics that distinguish it from other species.
The long-term side effects of technopolitical "searches for solutions", which are justified through national defense imperatives and geopolitical competition are reaching alarming dimensions. The portrait necessitating a thorough questioning of trust in all social and political structures to which humans are connected can be considered a reflection of a historical rupture that requires redefining the position of both animals and humans losing ground in the balance of animal-human-machine against machines.
Presented as a comprehensive project and yet existing as a delicate sphere where "science" and "fiction" intertwine, offering largely "theoretical" answers to "big questions," and having goals for the "scientific sphere," – including the world and its surroundings – that are still largely based on "hope," the intersection of "science" and "fiction" is becoming a "public space" where "scientific reality" and "fictional nonsense" are intermingled, gradually turning into the domain of "totalitarian sovereignty" in the political power and its relationship with pressure groups.
In essence, a world panorama with "destructive competition", further fueled by technological leaps, reveals that hardly any security strategy born from such a world can reach its goal at any level. The concept of security, in fact, is an ordinary result and is largely the outcome of stable solidarity rather than persistent conflict.
In the dynamic technopolitical world war depiction framed by the illusion that conflict is happening elsewhere, consisting of conflicting individuals, families, societies, and states, what is deeply felt as lacking is the widespread promotion of a sense of solidarity in favor of law and justice. However, this situation largely requires putting law and justice parameters in parentheses, not ‘growth’ and ‘development’ parameters.
It is clear that there is a need for an "authority" with legal, political, and, more importantly, sanctioning power and authority to prevent the direct or modified manipulation of the current technopolitical framework for whatever reason necessary. However, it is understood from the deep violations of rights in both internal and external policy engagements that hardly any global or regional actor can be the architect of such a strategic transformation. The adaptation of new security concepts to this new technopolitical context and how they can be revised, when necessary, also remains uncertain in many aspects.
The evolution of this unsettling technopolitical landscape may depend on how the increasingly felt system crisis, – which has natural, structural, tactical, and strategic aspects – associated with polarization and regionalization phenomena, can be overcome. There seems to be a cyclical relationship between the deepening "security crisis" and the increasingly apparent "system crisis."
In this process where criticisms of the system are growing, but unfortunately, are not of a self-reflective nature, correctly identifying the differences that separate "artificial crises" from "real crises" is critically important for regionally oriented strategies.
The world is going through a critical phase, where boundaries are being pushed excessively in almost every aspect. Various social and political structures such as family, society, and the state, including the individuals themselves, are facing a profound security crisis, both in terms of mind and body. The changes experienced in the international arena produce consequences not only functionally but also epistemologically. For instance, the classical understanding of sovereignty and the definition of anarchy in International Relations have already begun to erode. Instead of the Security Dilemma, now we talk about the "Security Paradox." With deep-rooted "security paradoxes" at its core, this "security crisis" increasingly blurs the answer to the question, "What is the ontological mission of humanity?" In other words, the question "What does humanity live for?" is increasingly abandoned in favor of "What does humanity live with?" This situation renders humanity a primary "operational target," including its minimal anthropological characteristics that distinguish it from other species.
The long-term side effects of technopolitical "searches for solutions", which are justified through national defense imperatives and geopolitical competition are reaching alarming dimensions. The portrait necessitating a thorough questioning of trust in all social and political structures to which humans are connected can be considered a reflection of a historical rupture that requires redefining the position of both animals and humans losing ground in the balance of animal-human-machine against machines.
Presented as a comprehensive project and yet existing as a delicate sphere where "science" and "fiction" intertwine, offering largely "theoretical" answers to "big questions," and having goals for the "scientific sphere," – including the world and its surroundings – that are still largely based on "hope," the intersection of "science" and "fiction" is becoming a "public space" where "scientific reality" and "fictional nonsense" are intermingled, gradually turning into the domain of "totalitarian sovereignty" in the political power and its relationship with pressure groups.
In essence, a world panorama with "destructive competition", further fueled by technological leaps, reveals that hardly any security strategy born from such a world can reach its goal at any level. The concept of security, in fact, is an ordinary result and is largely the outcome of stable solidarity rather than persistent conflict.
In the dynamic technopolitical world war depiction framed by the illusion that conflict is happening elsewhere, consisting of conflicting individuals, families, societies, and states, what is deeply felt as lacking is the widespread promotion of a sense of solidarity in favor of law and justice. However, this situation largely requires putting law and justice parameters in parentheses, not ‘growth’ and ‘development’ parameters.
It is clear that there is a need for an "authority" with legal, political, and, more importantly, sanctioning power and authority to prevent the direct or modified manipulation of the current technopolitical framework for whatever reason necessary. However, it is understood from the deep violations of rights in both internal and external policy engagements that hardly any global or regional actor can be the architect of such a strategic transformation. The adaptation of new security concepts to this new technopolitical context and how they can be revised, when necessary, also remains uncertain in many aspects.
The evolution of this unsettling technopolitical landscape may depend on how the increasingly felt system crisis, – which has natural, structural, tactical, and strategic aspects – associated with polarization and regionalization phenomena, can be overcome. There seems to be a cyclical relationship between the deepening "security crisis" and the increasingly apparent "system crisis."
In this process where criticisms of the system are growing, but unfortunately, are not of a self-reflective nature, correctly identifying the differences that separate "artificial crises" from "real crises" is critically important for regionally oriented strategies.
