^aSchool of Politics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5. E-mail: msalter@uottawa.ca

Abstract

Securitization theory has evolved over the past 10–15 years and has fuelled much exciting research, demonstrated through recent contributions by Balzacq, Stritzel, Taurek, and Floyd. Despite a growing number of case studies of successful securitization and desecuritization processes, scholars have retained the statist view of securitization: actors identify an existential threat that requires emergency executive powers, and, if the audience accepts the securitizing move, the issue is depoliticized and is considered a 'security' issue outside the rules of normal politics. This article demonstrates that there are multiple settings of securitizing moves and parses the audience within securitization theory, suggesting a model of at least four distinct types of audiences and speech contexts (popular, elite, technocratic, and scientific). The process of securitization is not a moment of binary decision but rather an iterative, political process between speaker and audience. We must not ask, 'was a securitizing move made' but 'how does a securitizing move mean?' Particularly if one adopts a more interventionist or activist notion of scholarship, a key question for experts must be: how are securitizing moves accepted or rejected? What are the politics of that successful process of (de)securitization? Using dramaturgical analysis, we suggest that securitizing moves take place within different sociological settings that operate with unique rules, norms, and practices. The example of the Canadian Air Transport Security Association is provided.