ASTK18448U Securitization theory and its critics

The theory of securitization has established itself worldwide both as a seemingly quite operational tool to structure empirical studies and as one of the focal points of several major debates in security studies. Or more bluntly put: as a favored target for a sizable and varied critique. Many debaters have noticed that the theory especially during the 1990s and early 00’s was exceptionally receptive to criticism and continued its development in exchanges with other ‘schools’ (Critical Security Studies, Agenda setting theory, feminism, Paris School) as well as ad-hoc critics.

In contrast to this productive, early period, in a ‘middle period’, some major interventions went largely unanswered by the ‘founders’ of the theory. In particular, it became common to depict the state of the art as two competing versions of securitization theory, the original speech act based one from Copenhagen (sometimes called ‘philosophical version’) and a more inclusive and process-centred one spearheaded by Thierry Balzacq (‘sociological version’). Sorting this out demands a close attention to questions about the nature and purpose of theory.

In recent years, the theory has continued to grow worldwide and across disciplines to be applied to a widening range of issues, but at the same time the trend in leading theoretical journals especially in Europe is to depict securitization theory as hopelessly flawed not least as an allegedly ‘critical theory’ and therefore beyond repair and ready to be dumped.

One approach to re-assessing and possibly updating the theory would be to relate it to the evolution of ‘real world’ security affairs. The original theory emerged and evolved in close contact with the security issues of the day – with theoretical moves often prompted by the need to intervene in policy debates – from late Cold War developments to the immediate post-Cold War agenda of migration, ethnic conflict in the Balkans and European integration. Much has happened on the security agenda since the ‘Framework book’ was published in 1998. Climate change has taken on increased urgency, terrorism prompted a global war on it, military security re-entered Europe as a security concern, and a global pandemic was happily securitized in most countries.

One contemporary session will focus on populism. A 30 years old Copenhagen School book could seem to have it covered: ‘Identity, Migration and the new (!?) security agenda in Europe’ (Wæver et al 1993). However, it is doubtful whether the concept of ‘societal security’ promoted in that book actually fits current populist dynamics and it should be confronted with recent theories about risk society and ontological security.

Another crucial security issue might prompt rethinking of fundamentals in the theory: climate change. The theory has always been mostly a warning against the political dangers of accepting claims about security threats at face value; but what if we really need to securitize climate change to deal with it? A lively debate has emerged around this dilemma – with implications for the underlying general theory.

In the course’s re-assessment of the theory, particular attention will be paid to what possible improvements of the theory can be identified and conversely what fundamental errors of construction can be identified that inherently limit any possible evolution of the theory. Thus, a central focus will be discussion of ’theory development’. Two main reference points for assessing this are philosophical/analytical criteria about the quality of a theory and empirical-political-practical ones concerning the ability of a theory to relate productively to actual security practices. The original presentation of securitization theory was anchored (loosely) in speech act theory and one session will examine whether a more thorough engagement with philosophy of language can provide a more solid foundation for an improved version of securitization theory.

The course is expected to serve for participants as 1) an introduction to one specific theory, securitization theory, 2) an insight into the general field of security studies, especially the various mostly European ‘critical’ schools, 3) a state of the art discussion of the current and future shape of securitization studies, 4) an overview of possible forms of usage of the theory and thus a possible launching pad for one’s own analyses, 5) understanding of the dynamics of theory development in general including the motivations and considerations by those actors articulating theory as well as the structure of a field of debate, 6) an introduction to the usage of meta-theoretical and philosophy of science criteria for assessing ‘what is a good theory?’ and what improvements of a theory constitute progress and which ones actually water it out or undermine it.

The course is taught by the person who originally coined the term securitization and therefore liable for most of the problems that followed.