Securitisation theory - International Relations (3/7)

Summary

Securitization theory challenges traditional views of security by arguing that security threats are not inherent in the world but are socially constructed. It emphasizes that communities, through political processes, decide what constitutes a security threat, and this designation justifies extraordinary measures like war, secrecy, or political violence. The theory highlights the key role of the audience—those who accept the threat and grant legitimacy to such measures. Securitization theory also explores the implications of framing issues like climate change or terrorism as security problems, questioning whether this approach is helpful or harmful in the long run.

Takeaways

• 😀 Securitization theory challenges the traditional view that security threats are pre-existing and objective, suggesting instead that security threats are socially constructed by political actors.
• 😀 The theory emphasizes that security issues are not naturally occurring but are framed as existential threats through political processes, which justify extraordinary measures.
• 😀 A referent object in securitization theory is something that is constructed as being under existential threat, such as a nation, state, freedom, or welfare, and needs to be preserved at all costs.
• 😀 The concept of the audience is critical in securitization theory: the audience must accept the framing of an issue as a security threat for extraordinary actions to be legitimized.
• 😀 Securitizing actors are those who label an issue as a security threat, framing it in such a way that requires urgent action, often bypassing normal political procedures.
• 😀 The performativity of securitization means that labeling something as a security threat brings it into existence and necessitates urgent, extraordinary responses.
• 😀 Framing an issue as a security threat has serious consequences, including freezing the issue in a particular narrative, creating divisions (us vs. them), and limiting public discourse and democratic debate.
• 😀 While securitization can lead to focused action and urgency, it also entails risks such as limiting democratic discussion and sometimes ignoring the complex causes of the issue.
• 😀 Securitization theory is particularly useful in analyzing how non-traditional security issues (e.g., climate change, religion) are framed as security threats, with both positive and negative consequences.
• 😀 De-securitization is the process of moving an issue out of the security realm, reducing its urgency and allowing for more conventional political debate and solutions.

Q & A

What is the central idea of securitization theory?

Securitization theory argues that security threats are not inherent but are socially constructed through political processes. It posits that issues are framed as existential threats, which justify the use of extraordinary measures like war, secrecy, or conscription.

What is meant by a 'referent object' in securitization theory?

A referent object is the entity that is depicted as facing an existential threat, such as the state, nation, or even the environment. The referent object must be something that people believe must survive or be protected at all costs.

What role does the 'securitizing actor' play in the securitization process?

The securitizing actor is the individual or group that asserts an issue is a security threat. They attempt to frame an issue as existentially threatening in order to justify extraordinary measures.

Why is the 'audience' crucial in securitization theory?

The audience is essential because the securitizing actor must convince them that the issue is an existential threat. The audience's acceptance of this framing legitimizes the use of extraordinary measures.

How does securitization differ from traditional security approaches?

Traditional security approaches focus on identifying inherent threats, while securitization theory argues that security threats are constructed through political and social processes. It's not about finding threats out there, but about understanding how and why certain issues are framed as security concerns.

What are some examples of extraordinary measures that may be justified through securitization?

Extraordinary measures include actions like war, political violence, secrecy in governance, conscription, or violating international treaties, all of which are justified by framing an issue as an existential threat.

What does securitization theory say about the trade-off involved in labeling something as a security issue?

Securitization theory highlights that while labeling something as a security issue gives it urgency and priority, it also comes with costs, such as limiting democratic debate, freezing the issue in a fixed context, and potentially enabling harmful actions.

What is the significance of 'de-securitization' in securitization theory?

De-securitization refers to the process of removing an issue from the security framing, potentially reducing its urgency and allowing for more normal political measures. It is a critical concept for understanding how issues can shift in their importance and the actions that are taken in response.

How does securitization theory apply to non-traditional security issues, like climate change or religion?

Securitization theory can be applied to issues not traditionally viewed as security concerns, such as climate change or religious conflict. These issues are framed as existential threats, which can justify extraordinary measures, even though they may not have been considered security threats initially.

What concerns does securitization theory raise about framing issues as security matters?

Securitization theory warns that framing an issue as security can have unintended consequences, such as militarizing the issue, restricting open debate, and creating a 'them vs. us' mentality. It also highlights the risk of justifying problematic actions or policies based on the security label.