Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2007
This article examines the complementarities among Laclau and Mouffe's discourse theory, Bourdieu's notions of habitus and field, and Huysmans's conception of discursive security strategy as a mediator of people's relation to death. The interplay among these theories explains how hegemonic security discourses emerge. The self-referential aspect of the Copenhagen School's Securitisation Theory (ST) does not contradict the existence of a relation of forces among securitising actors and audiences in given security fields, based on the ownership of social capital. This article rejects the theoretical positions adopted by Bigo, Tsoukala and Balzacq in terms of which ST is regarded as intersubjective. Utilising the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe, it is possible to verify how hege-monic security discourses are determined. Bourdieu's concepts of habitus and field and Huysmans's premises about security strategy also have implications for ST, mainly for the discussions about whether it has an intersubjective or self-referential aspect. As discourses of danger construct the political identities of states, the study of their influence on foreign policy is relevant to international relations. This article concludes that when the degree of otherness gets closer to the radical Other, extraordinary measures are easily tolerated by the agents involved in the securitisation process.
European Journal of International Relations, 2005
The prime claim of the theory of securitization is that the articulation of security produces a specific threatening state of affairs. Within this theory, power is derived from the use of ‘appropriate’ words in conformity with established rules governing speech acts. I argue, however, that a speech act view of security does not provide adequate grounding upon which to examine security practices in ‘real situations’. For instance, many security utterances counter the ‘rule of sincerity’ and, the intrinsic power attributed to ‘security’ overlooks the objective context in which security agents are situated. As a corrective, I put forward three basic assumptions — (i) that an effective securitization is audience-centered; (ii) that securitization is context-dependent; (iii) that an effective securitization is power-laden. The insights gleaned from the investigation of these assumptions are progressively integrated into the pragmatic act of security, the value of which is to provide rese...
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009
International Studies Quarterly, 2003
2015
This Working Paper provides a dual historisation of ‘securitisation’, i.e. of the origins of the Copenhagen School in terms of its direct world historical context and of the historical origins of the specific bias in our political discourse which is prompted by security discourses. Born almost as a rationalisation of German Ostpolitik, and hence with desecuritisation, the Copenhagen School understood the speech act less as a kind of conspiratorial or elite manipulation than as the manifold processes that give prominence to the discourse of security (the reversal of Clausewitz) in public debate or diminish it, as in the processes of desecuritisation. This means that I see ‘securitisation’ not in the ‘act’ of those ‘speaking’ security, but in the possibly unintended and unconscious de-/mobilisation of the inherent logic, or grammar, of the discourse of security.This begs the question, however, of where the discourse of security would have gained its inherent logic from. It is here whe...
Critical Studies on Security, 2020
This paper concerns how we understand and deploy securitisation—fol-lowing speech act theory—from within a constative–performative continuum. The oscillation between each pole not only has analytical implications—moving from Schmitt-inspired prescriptive politics to performativity informed by Derrida—but also informs the actors and agency involved in the securitising move. Using this continuum as a point of departure, the paper has two aims. The first is to provide a state-of-the-art account of the Copenhagen school by locating the speech act, the securitiser and the audience within this continuum. Here, the securitiser shifts from a fixed agent to one constituted through the securitising move, while the audience moves from a proscriptive subject interpellated by the securitiser to an agent whose everyday life is integral to securitisation. The second aim is to interrogate the performative side of the spectrum wherein both the securitiser and the audience are subjects-in-process. A process-orientated account of securitisation is put forth in which the securitiser and the audience are enacted through the securitising move. Such an account rethinks the chronology of securitisation—placing greater emphasis on the enabling conditions that precede the utterance—and underlines the quotidian nature of security.
Issues in Clinical Child Psychology, 2013
Middle and Late Helladic Laconia. Competing principalities?, 2022
Review of Scientific Instruments, 2016
Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacy, 2024
International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2019
Molecular Pharmacology, 2007
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015