| |
 Print
Ontological Security
4-04-2016
The fresh tragedies of Brussels and Lahore reminds me of the need for ontological security. This column, reprinted from Jan. 2015, shows we still have much work to do.
I’ve recently come across the idea of “ontological security” and was struck by how aptly it represents what is happening in terms of the barrage shocking atrocities that are shattering our notions of what it means to live in so called civilized society. It’s as if the rules of the game are being rewritten without negotiated consent and with no way for anyone to opt out. At some level, we are all impacted by the actions carried out by our fellow human beings – our continued existence, individually and collectively, is tacitly co-determined. When human decency erodes and trust disappears we are all vulnerable.
Ontological security has its roots in ancient philosophy. The word “ontological” was used to describe “the essence of being, becoming and existing”. At its base, ontological security revolves around feeling secure in your being. Nowadays, the fields of Psychology, Sociology and International Relations have grasped the term ontological security to explain the implications of people feeling physically and emotionally safe or unsafe in the world they inhabit.
It’s both a common sense and nuanced idea. Ontological security goes beyond the baseline of outer safety and includes a sense of confidence in your inner self – your identity. Being ontologically secured indicates a sense of comfortableness with yourself, and being recognized and accepted by others for who you are as an individual and as a member of any specific group. Ontological security revolves around being legitimized as worthy and bestowing that same status on others, even when they are viewed as different. Sociologist Anthony Giddens describes it as “the trust we have in our surroundings, both human and non-human. This sense of security, built on mutual recognition, is fundamental to our capacity for social agency.” Ontological security is the unwritten social contract that life will proceed in a predictable way and that although dangers will be present, they can be anticipated and managed reasonably and rationally. It is the foundational glue that allows us to carry out our daily routines with enough predictability, confidence and optimism to keep us sane.
It’s helpful to understand the state of mind that arises when ontological security is lacking. Its absence generates profound suffering and sense of loss. Ontological insecurity creates an intense desire to protect yourself and your beliefs against perceived threats, even at the cost of fragmenting your own core sense of self. Chaos reigns internally as well as externally. Fear replaces calm assurance. You are not only losing your place in the world, you question your identity and feel overwhelmed and inadequate. Your self-autonomy and agency have been lost so you search for a renewed sense of identity, often turning to religion or nationalism to supply clear and simple answers to complex existential questions. Ontological insecurity feasts on labelling an “other” as the thief of comfort. Retaliation is sought in a never-ending cycle of upping the ante. Witnesses, whether present in reality or virtually, realize that a line has been crossed. Trust is abandoned. Suspicion rules.
For me, ontological security is like my grandmother’s country garden. When I was young, I’d be ushered outside to her garden while the grownups talked. My grandmother put a lot of effort into gardening – planting seeds, pulling weeds and keeping it watered during the long dry summers. Even in old age, her garden gave her a sense of purpose, agency and pride. It reflected her personality – composed mainly of no-nonsense vegetables with a scant border of frivolous flowers, a modest indulgence in her sensible lifestyle. The garden was deemed safe enough for a five-year old to wander unattended. That doesn’t mean it was without danger. I got stung by bees, fell and bloodied my knees, scared by snakes and stuck with thorns. The risks were known and accepted as rational, by my grandmother, parents and, importantly, by me. My freedom would have been seriously curtailed if alligators, snipers or landmines lurked under the watermelon leaves instead of garter snakes.
In contrast, ontological insecurity brings forth the image of an amusement park house of horrors. Designed to be unnerving with unknown terrors waiting beyond every turn. You don’t know what to expect, but you know it will be bad. You are powerless to make it stop. Closing your eyes doesn’t make the horrors go away – they still exist and you are still in the midst of them. The saving grace is understanding that the repulsive exhibits are fake and that an exit is near. In real life, ontological insecurity is knowing that the gruesome acts are all too real and there is no escape.
The notion of ontological security gives an explanation for the atrocities impacting our world, but not a solution. That is up to us. Are your words and deeds building a garden or a house of horrors? Our destiny is in each other’s hands.
Footnotes: Footnotes: Zainab Dhanani can be reached at z_dhanani@yahoo.ca
|