Advantages Of Securitization

It is cautious, however, to point out that though the speech act makes up a substantial part of securitization, it is not in itself securitization. The act of simply speaking security alone is not a successful case of securitization but rather is classified as a securitizing move or a political move. Buzan et al argue that securitizing actors securitize an issue through persuasion as a matter of “security through illocutionary speech acts”, by means of reciprocal interaction with an audience. Otherwise put, the audience holds a great amount of power as the members of the audience are ultimately entrusted to decide whether a securitizing move succeeds or fails. Granting the audience this power lends a sense of normative utility to the securitization framework. An innate strength in the securitization paradigm is that it acts as a viable process through which agents can start and stop speaking security in an effort to mandate action or inaction depending on the circumstance. The utility that can be harnessed from the securitization construct can aid in setting up a framework for
For example, there may be instances when an audience is silenced. Silence is a phenomenon unfortunately not explained by the fieldwork of critical studies, nor does the CS take it into account. This shortcoming potentially renders the entire framework problematically narrow. In her article, “The Little Mermaid’s Silent Secret Dilemma”, Lene Hansen attempts to highlight these flaws in the CS’ speech act framework. She stresses that voice and body are extremely important constructs of subjectivity but that when ‘security as silence’ descends, the construction of subjectivity can fundamentally endanger the actor. This silence occurs “when insecurity cannot be voiced, when raising something as a security problem is impossible or might even aggravate the threat being