This commentary engages with the critique of ‘idealist–cynicism’ offered in Barnett’s article. It outlines the geographical misconceptions of critical research in security studies identified by Barnett and summarizes the alternative approaches offered as a counterpoint. The commentary points towards the need for further elaboration on the precise account of mechanisms of subjectification on offer here and speculates about the problems posed by Barnett’s analysis for providing a clear basis for critical social science research.
