103

Balzacq et al.

The Essence of securitization:

Theory, ideal type, and a
sociological science of security
Thierry Balzacq

The Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM), Paris

Introduction
Ordinarily, scholars refer to securitization theory in singular, assuming that we can ferret
out a unique theory that the concept of securitization really corresponds to.1 In the literature, however, there coexist various theories of securitization, each of which is committed to distinctive ontologies and epistemologies, as well as to different orientations
toward empirical material2 (methodology); yet, the adherents to these different theories
all subscribe to the same concept: securitization. In this light, I submit, securitization
(not securitization theories) is an ideal type, that is, a set of essential qualitative features
which, when combined, constitute a logical whole.3 The ideal-typical construct spurs
various theories of securitization (linguistic or philosophical, sociological, etc.). These
theories derive their identity from the degree to which they come close to, or deviate
from, the ideal type of securitization.
This essay delineates the characteristics of a sociological theory of securitization,
whose nature and functioning are indebted to Webers ideal type.
I discern three main advantages in recasting securitization as an ideal type. The first
is that it improves understanding of the internal coherence of securitization, without
which the concept might be indefinitely stretched out. Second, it enables researchers to
gauge the extent to which alternative readings and uses of securitization are commensurable or not. Third, following Max Webers account,4 capturing securitization through
the lens of ideal type makes it possible to blend interpretative understanding and causal
explanation.
I proceed in three sections, the first of which discusses the conceptual apparatus of
Webers ideal type in order to bring its structuring and differentiating logics to the foreground. This analysis sets the stage for spelling out the implications of the ideal typical
construct on the concept of securitization. To this purpose, section Essentials of securitization suggests the logical characteristics (i.e. essentials) of securitization.5 The concept
of securitization stands for the structural-significant components of various empirical
phenomena. In this sense, securitization once again, not particular theories accounts
for threat construction in a way that is not situation bound. In other words, the logical
structure of securitization is non-contingent, even if the meaning of security is often
contextual.6 I argue that when the essentials of securitization are established, different
theories of securitization can engage in fruitful discussions, by emphasizing both how

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

104

International Relations 29(1)

each relates to the ideal type and how its specific component parts give prominence to
some factors and not others. However, the decision to include an element into a particular
theory of securitization is not case-specific, but entirely constrained by the essentials of
the ideal typical construct. In section Desiderata of a sociological theory of securitization, I connect the proposed ideal type to a sociological theory of securitization. The
bulk of the section compares a sociological theory of securitization to other approaches.
I contrast, in a systematic fashion, my approach to securitization with alternative views,
using three cases, from one of the most debated to the neglected theme: audience, the
relation between politics and security, and the status of responsibility in securitization. I
specify the type of ontology and epistemology which underwrite a sociological theory of
securitization.

The functional status of ideal types

According to Giovanni Sartori, the primary goal of social science is conceptual design.7
Concepts provide ideal typical accounts of social phenomena by structuring empirical
observations into systematic facts.8 Thus, an ideal type is a useful instrument in producing analytical statements about our experience of the world. The nature and contents of
the ideal type are co-dependent with its function in social research. In other words, an
ideal type denies priority to either epistemological or ontological commitments. The
ideal type is a mental construct, which aims to sort out the logical status of concepts. The
construction of an ideal type is carried out inductively from the extensive study of relevant materials9 out of which the researcher selects certain segments of the empirical
reality. Specifically, as Weber puts it:
an ideal type is formed by the one-sided exaggeration of one or several points of view and
by the synthesis of great many diffusely and discretely existing component phenomena
which are sometimes more and sometimes less present and occasionally absent, which are in
accordance with those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints, and which are arranged into an
internally consistent thought-image.10

As this citation makes clear, the construction of an ideal type aims to put in relief the
unique traits that certain phenomena have in common, which are brought together, in an
idealized fashion, under the same concept. Ideal type comprises typical elements, characteristic features that are shared by a set of phenomena. The form of an ideal type is
general in that its component parts are not equally present in all things it designates. The
reason for this differentiated realization of an ideal type is that, empirically, social phenomena exhibit recurrent constellations of characters, but in different degrees.
The ideal types description is hypothetical in that it does not apply to what is unavoidable, but refers to what is empirically possible. It does not predict, but conditions the
realization of a specific outcome to the fulfillment of certain sequences of actions, in
specific kind of instances. The different elements and situations are structurally significant, as they underline various social phenomena to which the type refers. The task of the
ideal type is therefore to offer explanations whose scope and relevance supersede a particular situation or instance. As key elements are found within many instances, they

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

105

Balzacq et al.

denote essential tendencies11 of the phenomenon. This suggests that a crucial attribute
of an ideal type is its internal coherence, which is to say that the features that an ideal
type encompasses are logically connected. In short, contradictions are fatal to ideal types.
Hence, an ideal type will not try to cast its net too widely, but will instead resort to an
intensional abstraction that will help it keep all the subsidiary parameters out of its realm.
It would be a mistake, then, to construe the ideal type as a one-to-one correspondence
between pure elements of the type and the empirical reality. In fact, following Carl
Hempel, ideal types are not copies of empirical instances.12 Rather, he argues, the latter
are approximations of the former. That which singles out deviations from the ideal type
is determined by the theory which embodies the ideal type.13

Essentials of securitization
Having delineated the content and scope of ideal types, the question is begged: to what
extent is securitization an ideal type? How does an ideal typical view change our understanding of the meaning, content, and use of securitization? The move from the former
to the latter poses problems of its own, the consideration of which will be investigated in
section Desiderata of a sociological theory of securitization wherein the case for a
sociological science of securitization will be made.

Methodology
In order to devise an ideal type, Weber advises that we conduct extensive work on a
variety of instances, from which core features of the type are abstracted, accentuated, and
generalized. To that effect, I have resorted to content analysis. Although space constraints
forbid an extensive description of my coding manual, it is important to be transparent
about how I proceeded in order to sort out the essence of securitization. In very broad
terms, I examined the articles compiled in the recent Special Issue of Security Dialogue
on The Politics of Securitization. Furthermore, I have done the same with the chapters
included in my 2011 edited volume on Securitization Theory.14 In total, 23 documents
were analyzed individually.15 In addition to including all the main trends of securitization
scholarship, these two sources brought extensive and up-to-date reviews of the literature,
across a broad range of issues. My objective was to uncover the semantic universe of
securitization, that is, the constellation of concepts associated with securitization. After
reading these documents, I conducted a deductive content analysis. Behind this investigation, there was the idea that the meaning of securitization varied from one paper to
another, but authors seemed to use similar concepts in relation to securitization (referent
object, existence, audience, securitizing moves, context, exceptional measures, etc.). The
hypothesis I tried to probe was that the difference in the meaning came from the distinctive ways in which scholars arranged the concepts generally associated with securitization. To create my categories, I submitted the documents to the following question: what
did they mean by securitization? For documents containing a case study, an additional
filter was inserted: what evidence did the documents use to decide that this was an
instance of securitization or not? An associated word search in sentences was conducted
running the Adelaide Text Analysis Tool (AdTAT). The AdTAT is primarily a

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

106

International Relations 29(1)

concordance software, which is useful in finding co-occurrences of words or sentences.16

In the corpus, I excavated co-occurrences of securitization with any other words that
are often linked to it (e.g. existential threat, audience, power, securitizing move, etc.).

Results
In the following table, the words in bold are those that were associated with securitization. I deleted any non-relevant co-occurrence (e.g. articles, prepositions, pronouns, or
specific places such as the EU or China). Of course, presenting the ideal type as a
system of statements is not immune from subjectivity, however. Elo and Kyngs argue
that a distinctive feature of content analysis is that each researcher interprets the data
according to their subjective perspective.17 Mine is expressed in the way in which the
words in bolds are embedded in sentences (see Table 1). As with any ideal type, therefore, this one will have to be checked against its ability to capture securitization in
practice.
I should emphasize that exceptions can be found in each of the characteristics identified above. Evidently, there are other features that can be culled from the literature, but
they are usually of an idiosyncratic import. These features can be case-specific or profoundly tied to one particular theory of securitization, and as a result can be correlatively
ignored, if not contested, by others. This is normal. For the ideal type of securitization is
not meant to integrate all the factors that turn a phenomenon into a threat. Precisely,
because its scope is so focused, the proposed ideal type does not stipulate whether securitization is a speech act event or a perlocutionary act, nor does it make any indication as
to whether context is primarily a causal or a constitutive factor.19 By the same token, the
ideal type does not privilege any view on the audience design (form and constitution), for
instance, whether it predates the securitizing move or co-emerges in the process. Finally,
the ideal type of securitization does not state the conditions under which an audience will
accept a securitizing move, of which one might think of plenty of variations.
Three things emerge from this. First, adherents to different theories of securitization
accentuate elements that are compatible with their ontological and epistemological
claims.20 Second, the ways in which the features of the ideal type can be articulated
Table 1. An ideal type of securitization.
Threats are social facts whose status depends on an intersubjective commitment between
an audience and a securitizing actor
Securitizing moves and context are co-dependent
The drivers of securitizing moves are knowledge claims about an existential threat to a
referent object
Power relations among stakeholders structure both the processes and outcomes of
securitizing moves
Securitizing moves are engraved in social mechanisms (persuasion, propaganda, learning,
socialization, practices, etc.)
Securitization instantiates policy changes for example, deontic powers (rights, obligations,
derogations exceptional or otherwise, etc.)18
Securitization ascribes responsibility

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

107

Balzacq et al.

depend on the assumptions and hypotheses generated by the specific theory. Third, following from this, an ideal type is not exhaustive, nor is it set in stone. It is a provisional
mental construction.21
The significance of any given theory of securitization rests, most of all, on the extent
to which it exploits the core characteristics of the ideal type of securitization. Indeed,
theories differ from the ideal type by degrees. Each theory exhibits peculiar features of
the social phenomenon that are not included in the ideal type. These claims owe something to the fact that individual theories account for exceptions that separate it from the
component parts of the ideal type. Obviously, then, it can be said that a specific theory of
securitization can expose elements that are not integral to the ideal typical construct.
Even so, elements that distinguish one theory of securitization from the others should not
contradict any of the component parts of the ideal type. In the next section, I use the
concept of securitization to ascertain what a sociological theory might tell us about the
design and emergence of threats that other views would probably find difficult to analyze. The argument is, if anything, a brief one.

Desiderata of a sociological theory of securitization

In this section, I connect the ideal type to the basic theoretical resources of a sociological
view of securitization. In order to ensure a direct continuity with the sections above, I
start by setting out the peculiarities of a sociological theory in comparison to some of the
available alternative theories of securitization, in particular Wvers. I do so along three
lines: audience, politics, and responsibility. Second, I delineate the ontological prescription yielded by a sociological theory. Third, I translate the epistemological rationale of
the ideal typical construct into the theoretical nature of the sociological theory sketched
here. Finally, it is worth noting that while I call my approach sociological, it is possible
to encounter other sociological views in the literature, which would not be necessarily
committed to the theoretical premises developed below. For instance, while Huysmans
would come close to the treatment of audience proposed in the sociological theory, he
might not be entirely at ease with the ontological content that I associate with a sociological theory of securitization.22

Appropriation of the ideal type by a sociology theory of securitization

The distinctive features of a sociological approach to securitization are discussed in
detail elsewhere.23 Here, I want to use three cases, to indicate how a sociological theory
of securitization nudges certain essentials of the ideal type of securitization into a specific direction.
The first case relates to the thorny issue of audience. Scholars are wont to claim that
audience is a crucial element in sanctioning the intersubjective nature of securitization.
On the one hand, the philosophical (called also linguistic) view of securitization posits
that audience decides a successful securitization.24 However, the literature seldom
provides clear examples of cases that meet the overriding assumption that an (observable) audience has agreed with the securitizing claims.25 In A Theory of Securitization,
I have argued that there are indeed two main obstacles.26 First, threat images that become

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

108

International Relations 29(1)

prevalent in a society, without explicit audience assent, cannot be captured in terms of

the linguistic theory, nor participate in the development of its conceptual apparatuses.
Second, as a consequence, other approaches to understanding the emergence of security
issues are treated either as subordinate of, or as substitute for, that approach. This is
unwarranted. In fact, keeping the assumption of audience assent in securitization theory
bears difficult inference obstacles. But, at the same time, dropping it would be fatal to the
ideal type view of securitization as an intersubjective process.
A very different style of concern informs a sociological theory of securitization. It
proposes, on the basis of several empirical case studies, to restrict (not to repudiate) this
premise in order to integrate the ideas of alternative views of the formation of security
problems, and bring to light results that were previously untapped. In this perspective,
audience is but one element of a larger theoretical pattern in securitization studies, one
which draws its importance in relation to others (e.g. practices, bureaucratic routines,
policy instruments such as technologies, etc.).27
A second case concerns one of the most contentious elements of the ideal type, namely,
the view that securitization creates deontic powers. At root, this issue refers to the relation
among security, policy, and politics. The Copenhagen School is famous for arguing that
when a securitizing actor takes an issue out of what under those conditions is normal
politics, we have a case of securitization.28 For a sociological approach to securitization,
by contrast, exceptionalism is but an extreme possibility inherent to deontic powers.
The enactment of deontic powers discloses one of the most intriguing liberal features of
securitization that seems, surprisingly, never to have been pointed out: that the intersubjective character of securitization establishes a social contract of sorts. More importantly, a
sociological theory departs from the philosophical theorys claim that these deontic powers presuppose a separation between normal and exceptional politics,29 as it rejects the
disconnection between security and politics. Michael Williams makes this claim quite
explicit. He uses Andreas Kalyvas in a useful attempt to bridge my position and Wvers.
But I read Kalyvas in a more radical way, meaning that his work does not sit well within
the framework developed by Wver, wherein securitization is separate from politics.30 For
the sociological theory, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have a security discussion, devoid
of any political games and/or implications as it is impossible to have a security debate
without normative features. At least, this is a lesson we can derive from critical theory. That
is, the sociological theory of securitization I propose examines the relationship between
security and politics in terms of degrees, not in absolute terms. In other words, rather than
trying to isolate a putative political moment, I suggest that we emphasize how security
and politics (re)define, and constantly enter into each others orbits.
Politics does not evaporate at the doorsteps of securitization. That is, security is neither above nor beneath or beyond politics. This has always been the position of many
scholars using a sociological approach to securitization (e.g. Bigo, Salter, Bourbeau,
etc.). In contrast, Wvers treatment of the relationship between politics and security has
often varied from one paper to another, sometimes even within the same work, as it
becomes conspicuous in this Forum. Overall, if Wver now agrees that security and
normal politics do not operate under radically opposite logics, is not that a sea change
of his theorys center of gravity? Would focusing on Hannah Arendts reading of politics
solve the problem? Probably not. In the Promise of Politics, Arendt argues that politics,

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

109

Balzacq et al.

whose essence is freedom, should be set apart from the necessity of life, violence, or
war.31 In short, Arendt promotes a purified version of politics. While intellectually
stimulating, detaching security from politics is of little, if any, practical use.
The third and final case I want to address is the status of responsibility within securitization theories. In this Forum, I share with Wver the position that securitization establishes a form of responsibility (and the underlying idea of deontic powers). But our
premises are different and the implications of our arguments diverge. He draws on Marina
Sbis, while I follow John Searle, who was among the first to investigate, rather extensively, the question of deontic powers within speech act theory. However, would it help
the reader to claim that our positions part ways just because we dwell on different authors?
I am not sure. To put it simply, Sbis and Wver conflate the deontologies inherent in
language, which make communication possible and enable illocution to produce their
(conventional) effects, and the deontologies which result from the speakers ability to get
people to accept the facts that (s/he) is creating.32 Commenting on speech acts, Sbis
argues that different effects pick out different actions.33 For Searle, if people who make
the claims can get others to accept the claims, then they have created a kind of deontology
that goes beyond the deontology of the speech act.34 Questions: if Searle is right that
deontic powers deduced from the acceptance by A (say, the audience) of the claims made
by B (say, the securitizing actor) supersede speech act, what kind of deontic powers is
Wvers theory calling for? Could it be that illocution is at the heart of the securitizing
move, while perlocution constitutes the center of securitization? Wouldnt that allow us to
understand why Searle argues that the deontology intersubjectively created goes beyond
that of the speech act? Isnt this a possibility we should explore further?
The implications of our understanding of responsibility might also differ. In Austins
philosophy, according to Sbis, responsibility is meant to apply to actions independently
of their being blameworthy or blameless.35 While I understand this argument, it fails to
capture what is at stake in securitization. Responsibility is not only about ascribing a
certain effect to an agent. Rather, in the context of securitization, responsibility is always
already ethically loaded; securitization establishes a type of shared agency. If things go
wrong, both the speaker and the audience are held accountable for the effects.

Ontology
How can we wring out the ontological gist of a sociological theory of securitization? Cut
to the bone, a sociological approach to securitization is a theory of processes and structures. It holds that an intersubjective representation of reality (constructivism about
facts) need not be necessarily incompatible with the possibility that some features of the
world, independent of actors and their beliefs about them, are capable of explaining why
a community holds that something is a threat (objectivism about rational explanation).36
This is different from arguing that the meaning of such features is independent from
actors. The trade-off between constructivism about facts and objectivism about rational
explanation allows a sociological theory of securitization to relate language and mind to
the impact of the external world in regulating the content of the previous two. In this way,
the ontology of a sociological theory parts way with that of a post-structuralist treatment
of securitization.37

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

110

International Relations 29(1)

Epistemology
The function of an ideal type in epistemology comes in direct relation to its ontological
aspects. Conceiving securitization as an ideal type reinforces the sociological attempt to
explain the construction of threats by revealing the social actions and structures that
underline them. Here, however, explanation cannot be put only in terms of a deductive
nomological procedure. Rather, it requires an abstraction of characteristic features of a
social phenomenon in order to ascertain whether these elements are instances of typical
traits of the ideal type. In his sophisticated study of Webers theoretical proposals, Dieter
Henrich notes, ideal types are explanations accomplished in the form of concept of
events by reference to the circumstances which made their existence possible.38 A
theory of securitization of this sort brings out relevant factors or conditions, which tell
scholars what brought about a phenomenon or why is that a securitizing move succeeded.
In The Meaning of Theory, Gabriel Abend calls this theory2.39
Indeed, as the events or phenomena are social, it is worth emphasizing that their existence depends, to a great extent (but not exclusively), on the meaningful cause through
which they are designed. The task of a sociological theory of securitization is not just to
grasp what it means to say that a phenomenon is a threat, however; it wants to decipher
the sequences of cause-and-effect in securitization (in the sense that the definition of a
threat leads to similar consequences: the creation of deontic powers). So far as it goes,
this enterprise would establish the investigation of social mechanisms at the center of its
explanatory architecture.40 I assume that Wvers endorsement of social mechanisms
makes our positions a bit closer. But Wver argues that he does not apply causal mechanisms to what brought securitization into being. Only to the effects of securitization.41
But then, what is left of the idea of causal mechanisms, if we only examine effects, not
the causal processes that produce a given outcome?42 Not that causal processes are the
only forces that matter in securitization; instead, the problem lies with some lack of consistency. To agree that causal mechanisms are important conveys its own set of epistemological commitments. It is not la carte type of preferences.

Conclusion
Drawing upon Webers ideal type, this essay has attempted to map if in broad strokes
the features and content of a theory of securitization with a sociological complexion.
Its main characteristics where discussed using three cases: the role of audience, the relationship between politics and security, and the status of responsibility in securitization
processes. This was then steeped into a distinctive ontology and epistemology.
Furthermore, I have argued that the evolution of securitization studies, and the provocative results generated by the available alternatives, demonstrate that the concept of
securitization has given rise to a rich cluster of theories, each of which sets the center of
gravity that is, the component parts of the concept into an original track. Put differently, theories of securitization intersect through the ideal typical construct, but diverge
on the extent to which they conform to, accentuate, or downplay some elements of the
ideal type. Moreover, they can (and often do) reveal distinctive features that are
case-specific.

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

111

Balzacq et al.

In this light, I suggest, each theory should be judged in its own terms.43 For whether
or not (assumptions of a theory) are acceptable depend on the merit of the scientific
structure of which they are part.44 To be sure, there is always an evaluative component
to securitization studies, not only in a fashion of just/unjust or good/bad securitization
theory (which is different from claiming that anything goes) but also in the sense that
each analysis establishes whether or not the theory under consideration is beneficial, useful, or fruitful in understanding the action of the agents involved in particular processes
of securitization.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented to the faculty and graduate students at Kings
College London, in 2012. I am grateful to Didier Bigo for giving me the opportunity for rewarding
intellectual exchanges. I thank Stphane Baele, Philippe Bourbeau, and Ole Wver for their comments and suggestions. Several anonymous reviewers also helped clarify the argument.

Notes
1. For a review of securitization and the main issues it raises, see Barry Buzan, Ole Wver and
Jaap de Wilde, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998);
Thierry Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve
(London: Routledge, 2011).
2. Robert K. Merton, Sociological Theory, American Journal of Sociology, 50(6), May 1945,
p. 464.
3. See in particular Thomas Burger, Max Webers Theory of Concept Formation: History, Laws,
and Ideal Type (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1976), pp. 15479; Susan J. Hekman,
Webers Ideal Type: A Contemporary Reassessment, Polity, 16(1), November 1983, pp.
11937.
4. See Max Weber, The Methodology of the Social Sciences, edited and translated by E. Shils
and H. Finch (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949).
5. Aronovitch points this out as a very important objective of an ideal type: what Weber seeks to
capture is the essence or underlying tendency of certain practices, elements that may not be
visible or prominent in the majority of cases. Emphasis added. Hilliard Aronovitch, Interpreting
Webers Ideal-Type, Philosophy of the Social Science, XX(X), September 2012, p. 5.
6. A tight argument for the contextual understanding of security can be found in Felix Ciut,
Security and the Problem of Context: A Hermeneutical Critique of Securitization Theory,
Review of International Studies, 35(2), April 2009, pp. 30126.
7. See Giovanni Sartori, Concept Misformation in Comparative Analysis, American Political
Science Review, 64(4), December 1970, pp. 103353.
8. Patrick T. Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Social
Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 151.
9. Nicholas Timasheff, Sociological Theory: Its Nature and Growth (New York: Random House,
1957), p. 178.
10. Weber, The Methodology, p. 90.
11. Ben Nefzger, The Ideal-Type: Some Conceptions and Misconceptions, The Sociological
Quarterly, 6(2), March 1965, p. 170.
12. Carl G. Hempel, Typological Methods in the Natural and Social Sciences, in Carl G. Hempel
(ed.) Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science (New
York: The Free Press, 1965), pp. 15571.

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

112

International Relations 29(1)

13. Giovanni Camardi, Ideal Types and Scientific Theories, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy
of the Social Sciences and the Humanity, 82, 2004, p. 280.
14. Cf. The Politics of Securitization, Special Issue of Security Dialogue, 42(45), August
October 2011; Balzacq (ed.), Securitization Theory.
15. In total, 152,632 words were examined. This is more than what is required by the software I
used (AdTaT). It holds that 100,000 words, made a suitable corpus for examining the terms
and language features used in writing in particular disciplines of science. See below.
16. I thank Stphane Baele for his assistance in this regard.
17. Satu Elo and Helvi Kyngs, The Qualitative Content Analysis Process, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), April 2008, p. 113.
18. John R. Searle, Language and Social Ontology, in C. Mantzavinos (ed.) Philosophy of
the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2009), p. 19.
19. Of course, some might claim that inserting context here is not fair, and tilts the ideal type toward
a contextual reading of securitization. As I explain below, elements included can be taken in
different directions by different theories of securitization. In this respect, Buzan, Wver, and
de Wildes 1998 book has a distinctive understanding of context (p. 32). Other features of
this discussion can be found in Thierry Balzacq, The Three Faces of Securitization: Political
Agency, Audience and Context, European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), June
2005, pp. 18084; Philippe Bourbeau, The Securitization of Migration: A Study of Movement
and Order (London: Routledge, 2011), pp. 98124; Nils Bubandt, Vernacular Security: The
Politics of Feeling Safe in Global, National and Local Worlds, Security Dialogue, 36(3),
September 2005, pp. 27596.
20. See Ringer R., Max Webers Methodology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).
21. See William Caspary, Dewey on Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).
22. Jef Huysmans, The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU (London:
Routledge, 2006).
23. For a start, see Thierry Balzacq, A Theory of Securitization: Origins, Core Assumptions, and
Variants, in Balzacq (ed.) Securitization Theory.
24. Buzan, Wver, and de Wilde, Security, p. 31.
25. See Holger Stritzel, Towards a Theory of Securitization: Copenhagen and Beyond,
European Journal of International Relations, 13(3), September 2007, pp. 35783; Mark B.
Salter, Securitization and Desecuritization: A Dramaturgical Analysis of the Canadian Air
Transport Security Authority, Journal of International Relations and Development, 11(4),
December 2008, pp. 32149; Matt MacDonald, Securitization and the Construction of
Security, European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), December 2008, pp. 56387.
26. Balzacq, A Theory of Securitization, p. 8. This paragraph and the following are taken from
there.
27. See also Didier Bigo, Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality
of Unease, Alternatives, 27(4), February 2002, pp. 6392; Huysmans, The Politics of
Insecurity; Sarah Lonard, EU Border Security and Migration into the European Union:
FRONTEX and Securitization through Practices, European Security, 19(2), January 2010,
pp. 23154.
28. Buzan, Wver, and de Wilde, Security, pp. 245; emphasis added.
29. For one of the most solids discussion of this point, see Michael C. Williams, Words, Images
Enemies: Securitization and International Politics, International Studies Quarterly, 47(4),
December 2003, pp. 51131.
30. See Andreas Kalyvas, Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 67.

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016

113

Balzacq et al.

31. Hannah Arendt, The Promise of Politics, edited by J. Kohn (New York: Schocken Books,
2005); For an astute Reading, see Danna Villa (ed.), The Companion to Hannah Arendt
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
32. Searle, Language and Social Ontology, pp. 18, 19.
33. Marina Sbis, How to Read Austin, Pragmatics, 17(3), 2007, p. 467.
34. Emphases added. Searle, Language and Social Ontology, p. 17.
35. Sbis, How to Read Austin, p. 467, footnote 6.
36. Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 2231.
37. On a post-structuralist reading of securitization, see Lene Hansen, The Politics of
Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis: A Post-Structuralist Perspective, Security
Dialogue, 42(45), AugustOctober 2012, pp. 35769.
38. Dieter Henrich, Die Einheit der Wissenschaftslehere Max Weber (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr
(Paul Siebeck), 1952), p. 88. Cited in and translated by Burger, Max Webers Theory, p. 127.
39. Gabriel Abend, The Meaning of Theory, Sociological Theory, 26(2), June 2008, p. 178.
40. For the discussion of social mechanisms in the context of securitization, see Thierry Balzacq,
Enquiries into Methods: A New Framework for Securitization Analysis, in Balzacq (ed.)
Securitization Theory, pp. 4650; Stefano Guzzini, Securitization as a Causal Mechanism,
Security Dialogue, 42(45), AugustOctober 2011, pp. 32941; Wver, Politics, pp. 469,
477.
41. Correspondence, August 13, 2013.
42. See, for instance, Peter Hedstrm and Richard Swedberg (eds), Social Mechanisms: An
Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
43. Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry, pp. 20712.
44. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), p. 10.

Downloaded from ire.sagepub.com by guest on April 23, 2016