THINK PIECE 10 Summary • idea of a»monopoly of force« can be more adequately described as a compulsory security formation. However, it is by no means the only way in which security can be provided. • a perspective of political economy, security practices can be distinguished in terms of either the compulsory or commercial provision of security services. This distinction cuts right through established epistemologies of political science, with their emphases on state/non-state or public/private dichotomies. It shifts the main focus from actor-type to the types of relations and exchanges we encounter in security networks. • a brief empirical overview demonstrates, different types of agents assume different positions in both compulsory and commercial formations. •»state,« it follows, does not matter from this perspective; it is but one actor among many, which may provide security and accumulate capital in different ways. 1 The Political Economy of Security Practice Marc von Boemcken Security can be understood as a good or, in the terminology of Karl Marx, a use-value. This is not to automatically inject it with an ontological value, positing security as an objective condition of existence that answers to some»real« human need. It is simply to argue that many people evoke the term in order to articulate a thing they deem necessary or at least desirable. Such use-values may show themselves in the guise of some material artifact, such as a padlock, a gun, or a CCTV camera. They could also consist in certain practices or services, be it fighting a war against a dangerous enemy or guarding a building to keep away burglars. A general definition might extend to all those artifacts and activities that identify perceived threats and endangered objects and/or set out to engage them in one way or another. Importantly, security does not appear out of nowhere. It needs to be»done,« produced and enacted, thus always requiring some sort of human labor. Padlocks do not grow on trees. Every security use-value is of value only inasmuch as labor has been invested into its production. In some cases, use-values will be immediately consumed and enjoyed by the very persons or institutions that produced them in the first place. For example, I might decide to build a wall in order to secure my belongings from potential burglars. Both my labor(building the wall) and its use-value(the wall itself) remain exclusively in my possession. Security comes in the form of self-governance. In other cases, I could decide to transfer my labor and/or the use-values it produces to another. It is at this moment that security practice goes nodal(and, one might argue, political). Security can thus be described in terms of the relations between distinct positions. These transactions, in turn, adhere to at least two basic set of rules. On the one hand, security use-values(and/or labor) might be given away»for free« as a gift. Cultural anthropologists have described at great length how gifting practices set into motion a dynamic of symbolic exchange and thereby establish lasting social relations between people. Anything but an arbitrary gesture, the gift – including the gift of security – is an inalienable good that demands reciprocal action, thus binding the receiver to the giver. On the other hand, security can be exchanged directly for not purely symbolic but economic capital, usually money. It becomes a commodity, a thing that is offered and sold on a market. Sometimes only the labor(to produce security use-values) will be commodified,