The growing literature on ontological security theory (OST) in international relations, ontological security studies (OSS), is characterized by great internal diversity. This internal pluralism is one of its greatest strengths, but it is also potentially confusing, for example, when different works using an ontological security lens arrive at contradictory conclusions without it being obvious why. In order to make sense of this diversity, this article traces two interrelated conceptual divergences related to the notion of anxiety. The first one concerns the observation that anxiety is seemingly both debilitating and an impediment to action, as well as a call to action, inspiring adaptation and change. The second divergence centers on whether ontological security is at all attainable, which is largely a matter of whether anxiety is best understood as an extraordinary and temporally limited condition or as an ever-present and normal part of life. This article argues that the divergent answers to these questions, and the problems they give rise to, are primarily the result of ambiguity with regard to the key concept of anxiety. The malleable nature of the concept of anxiety engenders deviating interpretations and applications among scholars. While awareness of these issues already goes a long way toward making sense of some of the diversity within OSS, this article further suggests ways to increase the conceptual clarity of anxiety and to address the two issues of change and attainability. Doing so increases our conceptual understanding of OST.

中文翻译：

---

本体安全研究中的焦虑概念

国际关系中关于本体安全理论 (OST) 的文献越来越多，本体安全研究 (OSS) 的特点是具有巨大的内部多样性。这种内部多元化是其最大的优势之一，但它也可能令人困惑，例如，当使用本体论安全镜头的不同作品在没有明显原因的情况下得出相互矛盾的结论时。为了理解这种多样性，本文追溯了与焦虑概念相关的两个相互关联的概念分歧。第一个涉及观察到焦虑似乎既使人衰弱又阻碍行动，以及对行动的呼吁，激发适应和改变。第二个分歧集中在本体论安全是否可以实现，这在很大程度上取决于是否最好将焦虑理解为一种非凡的和暂时受限的状况，还是作为生活中永远存在的正常部分。本文认为，对这些问题的不同答案以及它们引发的问题，主要是由于对焦虑这一关键概念的模糊性造成的。焦虑概念的延展性导致学者之间的解释和应用出现偏差。虽然对这些问题的认识已经对理解 OSS 中的一些多样性大有帮助，但本文进一步提出了提高焦虑概念清晰度并解决变化和可实现性这两个问题的方法。这样做可以增加我们对 OST 的概念性理解。