Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Securitization and Science : Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. / Berling, Trine Villumsen.
In: Security Dialogue, Vol. 42, No. 4-5, 2011, p. 385-397.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Securitization and Science
T2 - Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts
AU - Berling, Trine Villumsen
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - The interface between science and securitization has not been systematically addressed. This article argues from a Bourdieusian viewpoint that scientific arguments and ‘facts’ are at work in at least three distinct mechanisms within and around securitization. First, science communities/explanations can come to objectify an issue to the extent where securitization – and even politicization – becomes next to impossible. Second, science co-determines the status of a securitizing actor and thus influences the authority of the speaker in specific fields. Third, scientific facts can be mobilized in securitization claims by securitizing actors in attempts to seek back-up in the objective, disinterested aura of the scientific vocation. The RAND Corporation’s objectivation of the issue of nuclear deterrence is taken as an example of the first mechanism, while climate change and democratic peace illustrate the other two mechanisms. The article questions whether securitization theory has adequately addressed the issue of context, points to a new research agenda and carves out practical reflexivity for security experts.
AB - The interface between science and securitization has not been systematically addressed. This article argues from a Bourdieusian viewpoint that scientific arguments and ‘facts’ are at work in at least three distinct mechanisms within and around securitization. First, science communities/explanations can come to objectify an issue to the extent where securitization – and even politicization – becomes next to impossible. Second, science co-determines the status of a securitizing actor and thus influences the authority of the speaker in specific fields. Third, scientific facts can be mobilized in securitization claims by securitizing actors in attempts to seek back-up in the objective, disinterested aura of the scientific vocation. The RAND Corporation’s objectivation of the issue of nuclear deterrence is taken as an example of the first mechanism, while climate change and democratic peace illustrate the other two mechanisms. The article questions whether securitization theory has adequately addressed the issue of context, points to a new research agenda and carves out practical reflexivity for security experts.
KW - Faculty of Social Sciences
KW - Science studies
KW - securitization
KW - Pierre Bourdieu
KW - theory/practice
KW - practical reflexivity
U2 - 10.1177/0967010611418714
DO - 10.1177/0967010611418714
M3 - Journal article
VL - 42
SP - 385
EP - 397
JO - Security Dialogue
JF - Security Dialogue
SN - 0967-0106
IS - 4-5
ER -
ID: 33742360