Can securitization theory be saved from itself? A decolonial and feminist intervention

Abstract

Introduction Recently, the article ‘Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School’, by Howell and Richter-Montpetit (2020), sparked an intense debate in security studies by highlighting what the authors viewed as the racism of the Copenhagen School. Subsequently, Wæver and Buzan (2020) pleaded their case that many securitization studies use the race variable and are aware of racism. The relevance of the debate is undeniable. Several authors have explored the possibilities (and limitations) of connecting gender, racial studies, postcolonial and decolonial thought, and securitization theory (Bertrand, 2018; Gray and Franck, 2019; Hirschauer, 2014; Ibrahim, 2005; Moffette and Vadasaria, 2016; Saeed, 2016). Our objective in this intervention is to contribute to this debate with two main arguments. First: We understand that securitization theory can be racist through negligence. Racism through negligence is unintentional and occurs through the perpetuation of whiteness (Ware and Back, 2001) and the coloniality of knowledge (Quijano, 2000). Whiteness is the maintenance of privileges of white people, in all areas, without any inquiry into the racial problem. The coloniality of knowledge corresponds to whiteness at the level of knowledge production – that is, it concerns a production of white knowledge that does not reflect on race and racism. The concepts of whiteness and coloniality of knowledge help us to understand racism through negligence, which is perpetuated through silence. Our first argument states that it is this type of racism that has marked a large part of security studies, including securitization theory. Drawing on the concepts and authors referred to above, we venture that racism through negligence can be corrected through a recognition of its existence. For this to happen, it is necessary to highlight what was being neglected – in this case, to recognize the importance of coloniality and therefore race in contexts of securitization. The consideration of the colonial dimension in securitization studies should find race relevant in