Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School

Abstract

This article provides the first excavation of the foundational role of racist thought in securitization theory. We demonstrate that Copenhagen School securitization theory is structured not only by Eurocentrism but also by civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack racism. Classic securitization theory advances a conceptualization of ‘normal politics’ as reasoned, civilized dialogue, and securitization as a potential regression into a racially coded uncivilized ‘state of nature’. It justifies this through a civilizationist history of the world that privileges Europe as the apex of civilized ‘desecuritization’, sanitizing its violent (settler-) colonial projects and the racial violence of normal liberal politics. It then constructs a methodologically and normatively white framework that uses speech act theory to locate ‘progress’ towards normal politics and desecuritization in Europe, making becoming like Europe a moral imperative. Using ostensibly neutral terms, securitization theory prioritizes order over justice, positioning the securitization theorist as the defender of (white) ‘civilized politics’ against (racialized) ‘primal anarchy’. Antiblackness is a crucial building-block in this conceptual edifice: securitization theory finds ‘primal anarchy’ especially in ‘Africa’, casting it as an irrationally oversecuritized foil to ‘civilized politics’. We conclude by discussing whether the theory, or even just the concept of securitization, can be recuperated from these racist foundations.

Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts

“…22 Howell and Richter-Montpetit's recent work on securitisation theory sees it as reproducing civilisationist, White-centred, and anti-Black concepts and tropes. 23 These works elaborate Whiteness in IR theories by highlighting its erasures of violence and dualist logics, focusing our attention on representational practices which generate accounts of the world as divided into hierarchies of the human.…”

Unruly wives in the household: Toward feminist genealogies for peace research

“…Wifesization, thus, must also be read as a manifestation of deep-rooted patriarchal capitalist modes of expropriative production in academia and activism that position the one-third world (Boulding’s phrase) as the origin of all (relevant) knowledges. The field of peace research, it turns out, not only suffers from gender-bias, but also from methodological whiteness, since it fails to begin from the “racialized histories of colonialism and enslavement that continue to configure our present” (Bhambra, 2017: 227) and hence restricts a fuller understanding of the types of disciplines that can contribute to understanding conflict, violence, and peace (see also Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2020).…”

Researching race, racialisation, and racism in critical terrorism studies: clarifying conceptual ambiguities

“…They have significant potential to stir debates and start the breaking down of institutionalised hierarchies. This in not only obvious in real-life politics, demonstrated, for example, by the contemporary anti-racism protests spurred by the death of George Floyd, but also in academic debates, as is shown by the current dispute between Waever and Buzan (2020) and Howell and Richter-Montpetit (2019). By using these concepts to analyse racial logics and structures, scholars thus make explicit their criticism of these phenomena.…”