ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses that a pragmatic practice-centred approach provides a way to overcome existing divisions in ethical security studies. It presents pragmatism as a path for moving beyond the current gridlock. It proceeds in three parts: it sketches the central divisions in studies of ethics and security; it then outlines pragmatism and how it has been used in IR; and lastly it considers how this can help us bridge divisions and move forward in productive engagement. The weak foundationalism which underpins pragmatism emphasises the contingent nature of claims, and shows that security doesn't have to always be negative but likewise, any ethical' or positive' notion of security should not be considered to be fixed or permanent. It also helps to move past arguments by poststructuralist and Copenhagen School authors who suggest that the way in which security has traditionally been attached to problematic national security politics means it is tainted' by association.
