Skip to content
February 10, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Answering the security critique–the K links to itself

The K’s claims of securitization as an urgent existential threat make it link to itself
Charrett ‘9
[Catherine Charrett, International Catalan Institute for Peace, “A Critical Application of Securitization Theory: Overcoming the Normative Dilemma of Writing Security”, CATO International Institute in Barcelona, Spain, December 2009,…pdf/WP7_ANG.pdf, Accessed 7/17/10] soap

Theorizers and critics of the CS discuss how its particular understanding of securitization is involved in the reproduction of dominant subjectivities of security and the validation of oppressive or exclusionary securitization processes. The argument posited in this article, therefore, is that ST, uncritically applied, contributes to the negative securitization of a referent. Williams explains how the logic of securitization employed by the CS in order to broaden the security agenda without loosing conceptual specificity, that which characterizes a security problem as demanding urgent action by the state, mirrors “the intense condition of existential division, of friendship and enmity that constitutes Schmitt’s concept of the political” (Williams 2003: 516). Williams analyzes the CS’ conceptualization of securitization through a Schmittian lens to identify how their theoretical approach to security works to reproduce the same ‘friend-enemy’ logic as Schmitt’s understanding of the political. He explains how Schmitt’s “decisionist theory of sovereignty” can be located in the CS understanding of securitization as the suspension of normal politics (Williams 2003: 516). Bigo shares a similar concern with the CS’ particular conceptualization of security, which he argues validates the view of security professionals who purport that “exceptionalization,” or a “beyond the law” politics is required of securitization (Bigo 2002: 72-73). The critique formulated against the CS is, therefore, that its conceptualization of securitization reinforces traditionalist or realist views of how securitization processes take place. Hence, the uncritical application of ST reproduces the subjectivities of fear and othering generated from such an understanding of security, and replicates the notion that state power and ordering are required to manage threats. Despite their social constructivist approach to defining security threats, the CS utilizes a particular understanding of security which does not challenge the dominant or militarized view of security; rather it17 accepts it as the “truth” about what security is (Bigo 2002: 73). ST thus feeds into the logic that immediate and undemocratic state action is the only method to manage security concerns, which often result in the negative securitization of a sector.

Other possible tags–
The K replicates the same friend vs enemy logic it critiques.


One Comment

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Feb 10 2013 10:49 pm

    Here is the search for “security critique” on learn policy debate:

    My guess is the 3rd one down–answering the security critique is probably the most helpful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: