Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics

Paul Roe*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract (may include machine translation)

The purpose of this article is to revisit the normatively defined debate over securitization as a negative conception. Claudia Aradau's work has largely served to define this debate, with Aradau arguing that securitization/security is an inherently negative conception inasmuch as its mode of extraordinary politics necessarily both institutionalizes fast-track decisionmaking ('process') and produces categories of enemy others ('outcome'). In making evident the main assumptions therein, my argument is that this debate has taken place not only in terms of a specific - and indeed contestable - rendering of the securitization concept, but also in terms of a more general acceptance of an essentialized (Schmittian) logic of security. The article thus seeks ultimately to demonstrate the value of de-essentializing the practices evoked by speaking security and to show how this enables meaningful engagement with other emerging conceptions of 'positive' security.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)249-266
Number of pages18
JournalSecurity Dialogue
Volume43
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2012

Keywords

  • Copenhagen school
  • Desecuritization
  • Human security
  • Positive security
  • Securitization

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Is securitization a 'negative' concept? Revisiting the normative debate over normal versus extraordinary politics'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this