Between Sociological Theories and Security Work in INGOs: A Dual Reading of Risk in Humanitarian Fields.

By: Tayel Alshobaki

June 27, 2025

In fragile humanitarian settings, is it enough to address threats as they appear? Or are the dangers facing field teams not limited to weapons and explosions, but also rooted in hidden social meanings and delicate balances that can only be read from within?

In humanitarian work, traditional security responses often treat threats as direct actions that can be neutralized through plans or preventive measures. Yet, as field experience has shown, risks are not only shaped by events, but also by symbols, contexts, and interwoven social structures that produce and interpret danger in their own unique ways.

A Field Scene: The Unspoken Threat

During one phase of the conflict in northwest Syria, humanitarian organizations operated near an area where a local armed group was mobilizing. The initial assessment recommended activating security protocols: limiting movement, preparing an evacuation plan, and initiating communication. However, contextual analysis revealed that the group’s movement was not overtly hostile, but rather saturated with local symbolic meanings—centered around a location that held deep emotional weight for the community due to its historical association with power and control.

Our presence at that site was not inherently dangerous, but it was interpreted by local actors as an implicit alignment. The threat was not only visible—it was symbolic and expressive.

Conflict Theory: Risk as a Language of Power

To understand this backdrop, I turned to Conflict Theory, rooted in the work of Karl Marx, which posits that society is not built on balance, but on the struggle between classes and interests. From this perspective, security threats in the field reflect social injustice or a chronic sense of exclusion, prompting weaker actors to restore balance by asserting power or disrupting operations. Here, risk is not a military tactic—it is an unspoken language of protest.

Symbolic Interactionism: When Risk Is Constructed Through Meaning

But the issue goes beyond structural imbalance. According to Symbolic Interactionism, as developed by George Herbert Mead, social interaction is not based on “reality” itself, but on how people interpret it. From this angle, small details—such as team attire, organizational logos, or tone of voice—become social codes that are interpreted in multiple ways. Even the simplest gestures can trigger security tension if misread during moments of stress.

Multidimensional Knowledge: The Hidden Capital of Security Teams

In light of this, it becomes essential for security advisors or team leaders to possess cognitive and behavioral diversity that enables them to understand threats in a layered way. This includes:

• Reading political and social structures (theory).

• Interpreting symbolic meanings and spontaneous reactions (practice).

• Behavioral flexibility that balances firmness with empathy, and neutrality with credibility.

These skills are not taught in security manuals, but are acquired in the field—and often remain invisible to organizations, even though they are the true difference between crisis and stability.

Humanitarian Dilemmas: The Ongoing Tension Between Principles and Reality

Even with sound analysis and appropriate behavior, humanitarian workers face difficult dilemmas:

• Neutrality versus political interpretation of the field.

• Humanitarian access versus community acceptance.

• International funding versus local population priorities.

These contradictions cannot be resolved through technical tools alone. They require ethical and sociological insight that enables decision-makers to strike a delicate balance between professional action and human sensitivity.

Conclusion: Toward Security That Sees Structures and Interprets Symbols

Effective security response does not stop at the coordinates of a threat—it begins with understanding the structure that produces it and the symbols that give it shape and meaning. When the security advisor becomes a social reader and contextual interpreter, security becomes more than protection—IT BECOMES A FORM OF UNDERSTANDING.