Sociolinguistics and everyday (in)securitization

Abstract

This Journal of Sociolinguistics dialogue starts from the perception that existential threats to national security have become an increasingly pervasive concern in daily life, spreading fear and suspicion through civil society.Communicative practices play a central role in these processes of (in)securitization, but sociolinguists appear to have paid them less attention than they deserve. So in what follows, six researchers discuss the significance of (in)securitization for our everyday experience and the implications for sociolinguistic theory and research. The dialogue opens with Ben Rampton and ConstadinaCharalambous, who introduce the concept of (in)securitization from International Relations (IR) research and sketch potential connections and challenges to standard sociolinguistic theories and concepts. Then the four papers that follow pick this up from different angles in different geographic locations. Ariana Mangual Figueroa discusses (in)securitization's radical impact on research relationships in ethnography, focusing on the US. Zeena Zakharia addresses the effects of largescale conflict on language education, both in the US and in Lebanon. Erez Levon considers the connections between nationalism and sexuality, bringing in the strategies with which gay and lesbian Israelis navigate the insecuritizing discourses they encounter. Then Rodney Jones discusses the interactional dynamics of surveillance, moving between police encounters and the internet to show the thin line between protection andprecarity. At the end of the dialogue, we address three questions, collaboratively reaffirming the urgency of these issues, the significance of (in)securitization in everyday communicative practice, and the ramifications for sociolinguistics. |

Closing questions

“…Goffman, ), the closer one focuses on practical activity, the less likely it is that, on its own, the “in‐“ prefix will be sufficient to cover the plurality of ways in which people and institutions are positioned and manoeuvre around suspicion and fear (see, for example, Charalambous, Charalambous, & Rampton, , on “ de ‐securitization”). All this is compatible with Rampton and Charalambous’s characterization of the “lived experience of (in)securitization as an intensifying apprehension of institutionally authorized vulnerability and existential threat, produced (and received) in communicative practice in a range of social settings (both more and less elite)” (). But it underlines the potential instability in secure/insecure relationships, the scope for collusion, and the tactical intricacy of the positioning involved.…”

“…Indeed, the notion of (in)securitization can operate as a powerful “scalar bridge,” allowing us to connect large‐scale, institutionalized inequalities to ground‐level practices, potentially extending to the psychology of individuals (Levon, ). But at the same time, there are elements of unpredictable instability in relations of (in)security that can create unexpected possibilities for solidarity (Mangual Figueroa, ), and in at least some circumstances, an understanding of the range and subtlety of (in)securitization management strategies can be constructively shared—for example, in post‐conflict reconciliation settings, or helping school teachers handle acute insecurities in class (Jones, ; Levon, ; Rampton & Charalambous, ).…”

“…For certain aspects of (in)securitization, sociolinguistics does need to develop new avenues of enquiry, surveillance being the prime example (Jones, ; Rampton & Charalambous, ). More generally, it may well be a matter of either mainstreaming topics that have hitherto featured more as specialist niches within the discipline, or of extending established concepts in the same way that we now need to supplement but not replace “gatekeeping” with “bordering.” But whether or not there are already resources to hand, “enemy” and “alien” need to be added to the list of “Othering” identifications that sociolinguists analyse; “endangered” as well as “expressive” bodies deserve consideration; and suspicion, coercion, and violence require attention alongside ideology, conviviality, and consent.…”

In the name of security: Governmentality apparatus in a multilingual mine in Arctic Finland

“… 1 1 A recent but growing body of sociolinguistic studies has discussed (in)securitization in different contexts, as well (see e.g., Charalambous, Charalambous and Rampton, 2015; Khan 2017; Kraft, 2019; Rampton and Charalambous, 2020; Jones, 2020). Securitization refers to institutional technologies and regulations that aim at preventing threats to the state or other institutions (Charalambous et al, 2015: 2). …”

Language Education and ‘Conflicted Heritage’: Implications for Teaching and Learning

“…Using the metaphor of a mobius strip, Bigo and McCluskey () argued for “the consubstantiality of security and insecurity” (p. 126), and, thus, suggest the terms ( in ) security and ( in ) securitization to highlight that what is considered security for some might be insecurity for others, depending on the point of view. Their notion of (in)security also has significance for language policy and language education (Charalambous et al., ; Rampton & Charalambous, ), as national security is increasingly being evoked in relation to heritage languages, often blurring the boundaries between heritage and foreign (Zakharia & Bishop, ). However, there is not much discussion of the implications on teaching and learning when a language carries the stigma of conflict, involves deeply felt contestations over identity or controversial identities, and is associated with feelings of threat, suspicion, and trauma.…”