Abstract

In this working paper, we discuss why researchers and policymakers need to better understand how different theoretical accounts of stability lead to different frameworks of analysis. Though ubiquitously mentioned, stability remains an under-theorized notion in security studies. Expert accounts tend to present stability as a generic description, readily applicable to most political phenomena Ð a stabilized state, a stable region, an unstable society. While seemingly equivocal, such uses exhibit different conceptualizations, exhibiting different features and demanding multiple research programs. To date, most accounts of stability tend to take stability to be an (unconstructed) natural phenomenon or a non-derivative social construction. In this introductory paper, we claim that there is a third way to account for stability that remains unexplored in security studies. Simply put, it involves taking stability to be a derivative social construction (i.e., systemic fallout). We then argue that this alternative account should serve as the theoretical basis for an independent research program within stability studies.