The Everyday Security of Living with Conflict: Extended Summary

In their article, “The Everyday Security of Living with Conflict,” Jessica McClearn, Reem Talhouk, and Rikke Bjerg Jensen provide an ethnographically grounded study of security in conflict-affected contexts, particularly focusing on communities in Lebanon and similar regions. Their primary argument challenges the traditional notion of security as state-centric or militarised, proposing instead that everyday experiences of insecurity and the mechanisms people use to manage them are critical lenses for understanding conflict. This reframing moves away from conventional political discourse and instead situates security in the realm of the social, material, and emotional realities that shape daily life.

The article draws on long-term ethnographic research and situates its findings within broader academic debates on security, humanitarianism, and lived experience. Through detailed vignettes, the authors highlight how people facing conflict—particularly women and marginalised groups—navigate routines and risks. These vignettes explore how individuals avoid danger zones, adjust to curfews, use mobile phones for situational awareness, and forge informal networks of information sharing and support. These small but significant acts form the infrastructure of everyday security. One key contribution of the article is its methodological orientation. By grounding the study in ethnography, the authors depart from top-down analysis and invite readers to consider how security is produced from below. They argue that the dominant frameworks used by governments and international institutions often fail to capture how conflict is lived on the ground. For example, one vignette describes how a mother in a Beirut suburb manages daily mobility by negotiating checkpoints and coordinating routes with neighbours, showing how individuals strategically mitigate danger.

This granular view also underscores the gendered dimensions of insecurity. Women, the article reveals, often bear the burden of managing domestic safety and social cohesion, while simultaneously being subjected to particular forms of vulnerability such as harassment, control over movement, and the psychological toll of caregiving under threat. Such insights expand our understanding of security to include the emotional and relational labour of sustaining life during conflict. Another central argument is the concept of 'anticipatory action.' Individuals living in unstable settings must constantly read their environments for cues, adjust behaviours in advance, and make calculated decisions. These anticipatory acts include monitoring social media for reports of violence, modifying public appearance or dress to avoid attention, or even stocking supplies. These behaviours are not always formally recognised as security practices, yet they are vital to survival and dignity. McClearn, Talhouk, and Jensen also discuss the limitations of international humanitarian actors who often design interventions based on static definitions of vulnerability.

The article critiques the reduction of civilians to passive victims or mere numbers, arguing instead for a more nuanced appreciation of their agency and context-specific knowledge. Security interventions that fail to understand local dynamics risk exacerbating harm or missing critical needs. The article is also significant in its theoretical contribution to the field of security studies. It aligns with scholars advocating for a shift from 'securitisation' (as policy discourse) to 'vernacular security'—the informal, lived, and localised understandings of what safety means. This approach allows for a broader recognition of what constitutes a security issue: access to clean water, a functioning school, or the ability to walk without fear. Importantly, the authors point to the resilience and creativity of civilians, who often build their own systems of support in the absence of state protection. These include neighbourhood watch groups, women-led information networks, and youth-led digital alerts. Such examples challenge the narrative that security only flows from the state to the people, and instead illustrate a two-way dynamic of governance from below.

The conclusion of the article argues that policy-makers, NGOs, and scholars alike must take seriously the complexity of everyday security. Doing so requires listening to those directly affected, designing flexible and responsive interventions, and acknowledging the multiplicity of risks that people face—not just physical violence but also social exclusion, economic hardship, and psychological trauma. Ultimately, “The Everyday Security of Living with Conflict” makes a compelling case for rethinking the foundations of how we study and address conflict. Rather than relying solely on political actors and events, the article demonstrates that a more ethical and effective approach lies in understanding the ordinary lives lived in extraordinary conditions. It calls for a research and policy agenda that is deeply informed by the lived realities, voices, and needs of those on the frontlines of insecurity.

Reference: McClearn, Jessica, Reem Talhouk, and Rikke Bjerg Jensen. “The Everyday Security of Living with Conflict.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09580v1 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09580v1.