What is it about?
This article theorises the simultaneous enaction of securitising and desecuritising moves. It arguesthat the frequent simultaneity of these two processes, which are normally considered mutuallyexclusive within Securitisation Theory (ST), has previously gone unnoticed given a set of metho-dological, temporal, and ontological biases that have developed within ST. Demonstrating how thesebiases can be overcome – and even reconciled with the seminal texts of ST - by drawing on workfrom within social theory and elsewhere, we argue that the frequent simultaneity of (de)securitisingmoves most urgently requires us to reconsider the normative status of desecuritisation within ST.Although desecuritisation has traditionally been viewed as normatively positive, we argue that itstemporally immanent enaction alongside securitising moves might introduce more violence intosecurity politics and, in fact, exacerbate protracted conflicts. Ultimately, we make the normativeambitions of some within ST more opaque. Desecuritisation is not a shortcut to the ethical-politicalgood within ST.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This article theorises the simultaneous enaction of securitising and desecuritising moves. It arguesthat the frequent simultaneity of these two processes, which are normally considered mutuallyexclusive within Securitisation Theory (ST), has previously gone unnoticed given a set of metho-dological, temporal, and ontological biases that have developed within ST. Demonstrating how thesebiases can be overcome – and even reconciled with the seminal texts of ST - by drawing on workfrom within social theory and elsewhere, we argue that the frequent simultaneity of (de)securitisingmoves most urgently requires us to reconsider the normative status of desecuritisation within ST.Although desecuritisation has traditionally been viewed as normatively positive, we argue that itstemporally immanent enaction alongside securitising moves might introduce more violence intosecurity politics and, in fact, exacerbate protracted conflicts. Ultimately, we make the normativeambitions of some within ST more opaque. Desecuritisation is not a shortcut to the ethical-politicalgood within ST.
Perspectives
This article theorises the simultaneous enaction of securitising and desecuritising moves. It arguesthat the frequent simultaneity of these two processes, which are normally considered mutuallyexclusive within Securitisation Theory (ST), has previously gone unnoticed given a set of metho-dological, temporal, and ontological biases that have developed within ST. Demonstrating how thesebiases can be overcome – and even reconciled with the seminal texts of ST - by drawing on workfrom within social theory and elsewhere, we argue that the frequent simultaneity of (de)securitisingmoves most urgently requires us to reconsider the normative status of desecuritisation within ST.Although desecuritisation has traditionally been viewed as normatively positive, we argue that itstemporally immanent enaction alongside securitising moves might introduce more violence intosecurity politics and, in fact, exacerbate protracted conflicts. Ultimately, we make the normativeambitions of some within ST more opaque. Desecuritisation is not a shortcut to the ethical-politicalgood within ST.
Jonathan Austin
Universite de Geneve
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: (De)securitisation dilemmas: Theorising the simultaneous enaction of
securitisation and desecuritisation, Review of International Studies, November 2017, Cambridge University Press,
DOI: 10.1017/s0260210517000511.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
