Paradigms of the Sick, Healthy, and Normal Security in Social Sciences

One of the many divisions of security exposed in the literature dealing with it is the ambivalent division into positive and negative security, which sometimes, somehow combined and mutually limiting, manifest themselves in normal and real security. Starting from this distinction, I develop their descriptions based on Erich Fromm’s explanations of a healthy, sick, and normal society. Simultaneously, I argue that sick societies pursue negative security by preferring war and destruction, while healthy societies pursue positive security by preferring love, peace, and creative activity. It is a preference based on striving, in the case of a healthy society and positive security, “to be”, as Fromm states, and in the case of a sick society and negative security, “to have”, and finally, in the case of normal security, to mutually limiting “to have” and “to be”. I deepen this description by referring to the thought of Bertrand Russell, in which positive and good security is defined “as one that should be by itself”, and negative and bad “as one that should not be by itself”. On the other hand, by bolding and broadening this description, I associate positive security (based on “to be”) with the concept of “civilisation of love”, “civilization of life”, and “civilization of brotherhood”, while negative security (embedded in “to have”) with “civilisation of killing”, “civilisation of overkilling”, and “civilisation of death”, and finally, normal security (embedded on mutually limiting “to be” and “to have”) with the liberal civilisation of security and control.