What is it about?

Why is terrorism commonly considered the most important security threat in “Western” democracies although the actual risk of dying in a terrorist attack is minute? Why do governments fail to take climate change seriously (or, some at least, to even accept its existence), although there is universal agreement among the scientific community that it presents a significantly greater danger to human health? This article proposes a way to understand why certain things (like terrorism) become widely recognized as a security threat while others (like climate change) are ignored.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Once something becomes accepted as a security threat, it is usually taken much more seriously, and people are more willing to accept greater costs (infringement of civil rights, wars, etc.) to tackle it. The problem is that contrary to common sense assumptions, security threats are not simply there but what comes to be recognized as a threat is the result of power struggles. That opens up the possibility of manipulation.

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Securitization as Discursive (Re)Articulation: Explaining the Relative Effectiveness of Threat Construction, New Political Science, April 2019, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2019.1596682.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page