Conclusion In this essay, I have asked why securitisation theory has been unable to develop a coherent methodology.In other words, agents socially construct threats in speaking security. These problems emerge when taking a close look at how the CS has framed securitisation as a speech act event. Accordingly, these actors securitized the political marginalization of minority groups in Turkey and the erosion of their political and social rights, emphasizing how joining the EU was essential to protecting them from the threat of state forces and economic deprivation Bilgin ; Kaliber and Tocci This becomes especially clear when securitisation is framed as a co-produced illocutionary event. Such an approach to security, however, is also problematic in that it what follows is an indeterminate conceptualization of the term security. Translated by Kevin Attell. Very few of the empirical studies that employ securitisation explain their methodology but emphasise ontological concerns. The appropriateness of this argument is discussed in the following section. But what if the audience is silenced and cannot participate in the negotiation of the illocutionary event? This resonates with the problem of what audience acceptance entails exactly. Turkmen 61 presented a similar argument, maintaining that being secure in contemporary politics meant being able to engage in political forums and establishing political and economic alliances. In other words, for a speech act to succeed the audience must accept the relevant securitisation move and thus actively engage in the construction of a common narrative of a particular threat. Rather, it tries to offer a different path of doing research that makes possible the inclusion of a variety of experiences, questions, and perspectives. Austin has drawn up a comprehensive and elaborate theory of the use of language. The Methodology of the Copenhagen School In the last two sections, I have demonstrated that the CS conceptualises securitisation in a two-fold, and sometimes contradicting, way: as a speech act event and as an intersubjective process.
For the audience to be able to decide whether a securitisation move should be accepted or rejected, it relies on an extensively defined extra-discursive context Balzacq On a general note, I am concerned that these methodologies might not work well together. Discourse analysis as foreign policy theory.
Hence, a speech act being a self-referential practice accounts for the essentially contested meaning of security.
This position emphasises the role of facilitating conditions and the audience in the construction of a threat. The preferable view, however, is that advanced by Balzacqwho argues that not all actors are in socially effective positions to make claims that an issue is a security issue.
An illocution will also not be successfully performed if there is no securing of uptake by a relevant audience i.
Commonly, this is interpreted in a way that illocutions must be performed in accordance with a conventional framework. Going beyond Jackson, I will show how the theoretical conceptualisation of security prohibits the formulation of a concise methodology.
The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations. Fierke, K.