馃攳
Securitisation theory - International Relations (3/7) - YouTube
Channel: OpenLearn from The Open University
[9]
securitisation theoria has taken a quite
[11]
radical departure from the way we used
[14]
you to talk about security because when
[15]
we talk about security we tend to assume
[17]
that there must be things out there that
[19]
are security threats and that's why we
[21]
have the word security and then we take
[22]
this word security and we go around and
[24]
see where it fits to those things and we
[27]
assume that the task of security
[29]
analysts basically is to assess one of
[32]
the biggest threats
[33]
what are how to be deal with what and
[36]
then tell the policymakers these are
[38]
really serious things you better do so
[39]
and so on the point of securitisation
[42]
theory is to say well it's actually the
[45]
other way around there are no natural
[47]
things out there that are security
[49]
threats and others that aren't it's more
[51]
that we as communities politically
[54]
choose sometimes to deal with things in
[57]
a particular way we name certain things
[59]
security problems and when we do that
[62]
something happens to that issue and to
[64]
our interaction around it the point here
[67]
is that when you say terrorism is a
[71]
security threat or you say climate
[72]
change is a security threat you're
[74]
saying this is something existential
[78]
that could be overriding normal issues
[81]
it's not a normal issue we can leave to
[82]
normal politics and see maybe we deal
[84]
with it maybe we don't maybe we do this
[86]
maybe we didn't that no it's a necessity
[88]
in something that should not be allowed
[91]
to happen
[91]
there's an existential threat here if we
[93]
allow it to happen everything else will
[95]
be lost it will be too late it will be
[97]
gone we have to deal with and because
[100]
it's in necessity it is outside the
[102]
normal bounds of political rules and we
[105]
therefore can allow extraordinary
[106]
measures like war political violence
[109]
secrecy in the way we keep documents we
[111]
all know that for reasons of security
[113]
so-and-so is is not public and so on we
[116]
can have conscription other measures we
[118]
usually wouldn't do we can violin is the
[120]
international treaties and so on so the
[122]
point here is that instead of assuming
[124]
that issues out there run around somehow
[127]
being are not being security issues and
[129]
we should try to run after them and put
[132]
labels on them it sounds like we try now
[134]
to understand what is that particular
[136]
thing we are doing when we are labeling
[139]
something a security issue and more
[142]
specifically
[142]
is happening in is in a process where a
[145]
securitizing actor says this is an
[149]
existential threat therefore we have to
[151]
act upon it therefore it's legitimate to
[153]
do something we otherwise couldn't do
[155]
and the relevant audience say yeah we
[158]
accept that thereby we grant you the
[160]
right to use extraordinary measures
[162]
securitisation theory works with with a
[164]
relatively small number of core concepts
[167]
that are closely linked to each other
[169]
and that's kind of the apparatus you
[171]
take and use and in a specific case
[174]
they're also close to time because
[175]
they're all closely your mention all of
[178]
them when you tell the basic idea of
[180]
securitisation so the fact that a
[182]
securitization is a situation where
[185]
referent object depicts an existential
[187]
threat and justifies the to the relevant
[191]
audience the use of extraordinary
[192]
measures it all goes in one sentence but
[194]
you all have to pick up each of the key
[196]
concepts out and say what was it we said
[198]
here we said there's a referent object
[201]
something is depicted as existential
[204]
threatened and that obviously has to be
[206]
something we want to survive it doesn't
[208]
help to go out and say some nasty bug is
[211]
existential threatened then people was a
[212]
great you can't justify extraordinary
[214]
measures and that it has to be the
[216]
nation or the state of freedom or our
[220]
future welfare it's something by people
[222]
say that has to survive that can't go
[224]
therefore you can justify extraordinary
[226]
ways so the referent object is something
[228]
constructed in the move itself that's
[231]
the performativity of it but it has to
[233]
be one that you are able to get away
[235]
with saying it has to survive a key
[238]
concept in the construction which has
[241]
maybe get got too little attention in
[243]
the early versions of the theory but I
[245]
would today say is maybe the most
[247]
important is the audience because it's
[251]
not just a matter of threat speak anyone
[254]
can stand up and say this or that is a
[257]
threat something happens at the moment
[261]
when audience accepts that because of
[264]
this threat alleged threat they are
[268]
willing to accept that we go to war keep
[271]
secrets shut down this debate make
[275]
whatever extraordinary
[276]
otherwise you wouldn't do so the crucial
[279]
decision is in some sense taken by the
[282]
relevant audience a lot of people take
[284]
then the audience to mean the Democratic
[286]
public and say therefore the theory can
[287]
only be used in the West or something
[289]
like that
[289]
now the relevant audience can be very
[291]
different depending on what kind of
[292]
issue it is what kind of political
[293]
system it is maybe in a autocratic
[296]
system the ruler only has to convince
[298]
and inner circle of 20 generals around
[300]
the table but if they usually would do
[302]
this and he suddenly said now we have to
[304]
do that if he would say we have been
[306]
doing so for until now but now we should
[308]
invade Kawai then you would still have
[310]
to make an argument that is beyond text
[313]
or the usual justify something
[315]
extraordinary like invading the
[317]
neighbouring country so there's always
[319]
an audience you have to convince and
[320]
that is the crucial event that's the
[323]
difference that securitisation makes
[325]
that when you have thought that that
[327]
issue has changed from being one kind of
[329]
issue to another kind of issue and it
[331]
has new implications then there is a
[333]
securitizing actor doing this in a lot
[336]
of the traditional security theories you
[338]
wouldn't be very clear on where the
[340]
referent object or actors the same you
[342]
talk about state security but it is to
[343]
state the actor or the referent object
[345]
and so on when you move into all the new
[347]
threats it's quite clear you have to
[349]
make this distinction because you can
[351]
maybe say the state wants to securitize
[354]
for the state to survive but when you
[356]
start to talk about the survival of the
[358]
nation as an identity community it
[360]
becomes very dubious if you say the
[362]
nation acts that's kind of mysterious
[364]
you can say this right-wing group stands
[366]
up and claims that it speaks on behalf
[368]
of the nation and therefore we should
[369]
stop immigrants because it's a security
[371]
threat or you go to the environment the
[373]
whales have to survive because otherwise
[375]
we will no longer be able to begin the
[378]
world we want to be and but it's not the
[379]
waves or saying that it's Greenpeace who
[381]
say is the way you'll have to search to
[382]
survive and so on so the referent object
[384]
and the securitizing actor a two key
[386]
concern implied in this thread is also
[389]
then that that is an existential threat
[391]
you have to say it's not something that
[394]
just go in the weighing normal weighing
[396]
of issues maybe this maybe that is
[398]
something that has to be solved it is
[401]
unacceptable but we don't deal with so
[403]
it has to take priority
[404]
therefore urgency there for
[405]
extraordinary measures in the ages a lot
[408]
of critical acts
[410]
this peace movement another sort it's a
[412]
great idea to have more kinds of
[414]
security it's in a sense a way to keep
[416]
the military down you're not the only
[418]
ones doing security the the
[420]
environmental movements that dealing
[421]
with security as well health is the
[423]
security issue as well it was a way to
[425]
relativize the the importance of the
[428]
military and then I was a little worried
[431]
that people took it so lightheartedly
[435]
and and said all we can call this
[438]
security we can call that security as if
[439]
it had no price to do there so the whole
[442]
argument of securitization theory is to
[444]
say you pay a very high price if you
[447]
want to deal with something in a
[448]
security mode it's always a trade off
[452]
you gain something by calling something
[454]
a security issue typically you gain
[456]
urgency priority focus ability to act
[462]
and so on but you pay a price in terms
[465]
of freezing it mentally as something
[468]
given by D democratizing you're saying
[472]
this is a necessity this is something we
[474]
can't discuss by creating a kind of a
[477]
them construction where the problem is
[480]
out there we are the solution and so on
[482]
for instance in relation to the
[484]
environment that is maybe problematic
[485]
because in some sense we are the problem
[487]
and we're the solution but we buy
[489]
securitizing to be able with the problem
[491]
out somewhere so in that sense the idea
[493]
of securitization theory is to enter
[496]
that discussion about whitening and say
[499]
hmm let's be a little more careful about
[502]
just thinking the more security the
[504]
better security is at best and necessary
[507]
evil
[507]
at best you might say we don't really
[510]
believe we can handle this problem with
[512]
normal measures we might have to use
[514]
extraordinary measures that is a kind of
[517]
failure so callous Asia theory is not an
[518]
IR theater in the sense that it has it
[520]
is that it being a general theory about
[523]
international relations as such it's a
[525]
security theory so it's taking its clue
[529]
from the area of security developing a
[531]
theory and you can go out and use that
[533]
theory on lots of areas some of them
[536]
even to some extent beyond but was
[537]
traditionally seen as security the
[540]
theory has then been used in different
[541]
ways a lot of people have used
[543]
it on specific case studies and say
[545]
let's see what happened in the
[548]
escalation of this conflict how access
[551]
and one side started to depict an
[553]
existential threat from the other side
[554]
justifying extraordinary measures maybe
[557]
you even study the whole conflict
[558]
constellation look at the other side see
[560]
how they build up a security
[562]
construction that justifies
[564]
extraordinary messages you might even go
[566]
on then try to do what you do about this
[568]
conflict can you what D securitize it as
[571]
you would say in the language of the
[572]
theory take it out of the security
[574]
framing and thereby maybe get it what
[576]
not one notch down but you also a lot of
[578]
people have used the theory on
[580]
specifically the new security issues of
[583]
saying what is happening now when we
[586]
take in an issue that previously was not
[589]
considered security like religion or
[591]
climate change what happens when issues
[594]
that are very unlike the old security
[597]
issues suddenly get into the security
[599]
framing does it kind of shape that issue
[603]
in unfortunate ways that suddenly has
[605]
the security labeling does it enable new
[609]
form of actions problematic actions or
[610]
useful actions etc so a lot of the
[614]
literature has been about this what
[616]
happens when something transforms from
[618]
being not security to being security
[620]
where the theory has most often not been
[624]
seen as the most attractive is when you
[627]
get very close to classical issues
[629]
things that everyone take to be security
[631]
issues classical military issues
[634]
classical great power issues where
[636]
everyone will say sure that's a security
[638]
issue we don't want to discuss how it
[639]
got there we know it's there because
[640]
it's there because it has to be there
[643]
and where the question it could also
[644]
have been a non security issue is maybe
[646]
not the most relevant I naturally think
[649]
securitization theory has something to
[651]
contribute and I would say we can then
[653]
study how different securitizing actors
[656]
want to make different reference objects
[659]
the center of attention focus on
[661]
different threats different
[662]
extraordinary images so the variation
[665]
the struggle going on within something
[667]
that is generally accepted as a security
[669]
issue is still a powerful tool to
[671]
understand
[676]
get more from the Open University check
[680]
out the links on screen now
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage