Intervening in the Language of Security: Emotion, Appraisal, and Securitization Theory by Eric Van Rythoven A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Political Science Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2011 Eric Van Rythoven Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre r6terence ISBN: 978-0-494-83106-9 Our file Notre rGf&rence ISBN: 978-0-494-83106-9 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. 1+1 Canada For Laura -1- Abstract How can one intervene in the language of security? If using the language of security involves wrapping issues in tropes about threat, danger, and the need to act immediately, then how do we, as scholars, policy makers, and even activists, disrupt this kind of linguistic logic? While the Copenhagen School and its affiliates provide both the analytical framework and the normative impetus to understand this question, attempts to develop an ethical-political practice of desecuritization thus far are flawed due to an implicit commitment to seeing security speech acts as open to rational deliberation and contestation. Such a view obscures the role of emotion, especially fear, in shaping an audience's reaction to claims of an existential threat. In response, I suggest a theory of securitization based on cognitive appraisal theory which argues that audience appraisal and the resultant emotions they produce make or break the success of a security speech act, and that this should be the focus of any attempt at intervention. -2- Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Securitization and Ethics - Towards an Evaluation 20 3 Evaluating Different Ethics of Securitization 43 4 Emotion, Appraisal, and Securitization Theory 82 5 Securitization, Emotion, and Iraq 122 Bibliography 144 -3- Chapter 1 - Introduction How can we intervene in discussions of security? Using the language of security involves wrapping issues in tropes about threat, danger, and most importantly, the need to act immediately because 'if we don't act today then we won't be able to do so tomorrow'. The overwhelming need to act in the face of security issues can be used for both subverting attempts at open and public debate, as well as justifying exceptional measures (i.e. preventative war) which exist outside of normal day-to-day legal frameworks. Some security analysts and policy makers have hoped to use the language of security to mobilize political power to resolve seemingly intractable problems. Such was the case with emergence of 'environmental security' (Deudney, 1991; Dalby, 2009; Floyd, 2007). However, this strategy frequently backfires as advocates fail to comprehend the full implications of the language of security. The frame of environmental security, something that ostensibly requires broad-based cooperation, leads to viewing the problem of biosphere degradation from the perspective of an antagonistic 'us vs. them' mindset (Deudney, 1991). As the language of security depends on the enunciation of clear and distinguishable threats, it is often trapped in its own grammatical structure by the need to establish a clearly defined and identifiable enemy. Even for political projects which work to harness the mobilizing potential of security language for benign purposes, whether it be for the environment, humanitarian aid, or some vision of political emancipation (Booth, 1991), the result can be the reproduction of the logic of security in harmful ways. In the most extreme cases the language of security can be seen as a discursive runaway train, resistant any outside force that might slow it down or change its direction. How then can we stop it in its tracks? -4- This project is focused on examining the possibility of intervening in social situations where the language of security has become dominant.1 These are situations in which issues of politics are discursively framed in terms of imminent danger and even existential threat. The point of departure for this investigation is the increasingly popular securitization framework where issues are 'securitized' by means of a security speech act occurring between agents and audiences. In this view, intervening in the language of security depends on one's ability to influence the social and linguistic conditions of the security speech act. If, for example, the act is depends on the securitizing agent invoking the grammar of security to discuss immigration, the desecuritizing agent must offer an alternative grammar to frame the subject (Huysman, 1995; Aradau, 2004a). Here immigration is to be transformed from being discursively framed as an imminent danger to the body politic, to something understood in much broader terms, such as an economic or demographic necessity, or even a humanitarian obligation. While in broad agreement with this approach, I suggest its understanding of the security speech act obscures the role of affect; the necessary conveyance of emotion that is required for an audience to see an issue as threatening. This analytical gap is most demonstrable in the normative approaches to securitization which argue for interventions in security speech acts, but do so in a manner which presupposes a rational and deliberative exchange, and by extension the absence of affect. Correspondingly, I suggest a new approach to the security speech act informed by cognitive psychology, what I call appraisal securitization theory. Appraisal theory allows us to understand how the emotional disposition of the audience is shaped by the claims of the securitizing agent, and how these claims can elicit feelings of fear. Long at the core of 1 The kind of security we are talking about here is often international in character, but the analytical distinction between domestic and international security has increasingly becoming untenable as the discussion below will show. 21 use the terms 'affect' and 'emotion' interchangeably. I treat the word 'feeling' as broader sensory perception, which can include emotion, but can also include other perceptive experiences (i.e. tactile). -5- theories of security, a public's fears work to motivate an audience to see security measures as legitimate. This approach shifts the analysis of securitization away from the more problematic concept of existential threat and refocuses the analysis on the more complex and dynamic concept of fear. I conclude by arguing that normative approaches which call for interventions into the practice of securitization can only be successful if they recognize the role of affect and configure their strategies to focus on challenging the emotional dynamics of securitization, rather than relying solely on its rational contestation. The goal of the present chapter is threefold. First, the bulk of the chapter is dedicated to problem specification: why does the way people use the language of security even matter? What does it mean to intervene in a security discourse? What idea of security are we invoking when we talk about the 'language' of security? These questions can be answered with a brief review of the development of security studies. I contend that interest in the interventions in the language of security can be seen as the natural outgrowth of the expansion of security concepts at the end of the Cold War. The emergence of new security concepts, and a growing consciousness of the harms associated with them, makes understanding how to suppress or prevent their emergence a research priority. The remainder of the chapter is dedicated to providing a brief thematic overview of major arguments, as well laying out the general chapter structure for the remainder of the project. Security! What do you mean?3 A brief review of the history of security studies is the best way to situate the present inquiry. The study of international