Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Standard

Securitization and Science : Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. / Berling, Trine Villumsen.

I: Security Dialogue, Bind 42, Nr. 4-5, 2011, s. 385-397.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Berling, TV 2011, 'Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts', Security Dialogue, bind 42, nr. 4-5, s. 385-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418714

APA

Berling, T. V. (2011). Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. Security Dialogue, 42(4-5), 385-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418714

Vancouver

Berling TV. Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. Security Dialogue. 2011;42(4-5):385-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418714

Author

Berling, Trine Villumsen. / Securitization and Science : Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts. I: Security Dialogue. 2011 ; Bind 42, Nr. 4-5. s. 385-397.

Bibtex

@article{1db9a0caa4df4b62b1dbf1729624fb95,
title = "Securitization and Science: Objectivation, the authority of the speaker and mobilization of scientific facts",
abstract = "The interface between science and securitization has not been systematically addressed. This article argues from a Bourdieusian viewpoint that scientific arguments and {\textquoteleft}facts{\textquoteright} 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{\textquoteright}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.",
keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, Science studies, securitization, Pierre Bourdieu, theory/practice, practical reflexivity",
author = "Berling, {Trine Villumsen}",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1177/0967010611418714",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "385--397",
journal = "Security Dialogue",
issn = "0967-0106",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "4-5",

}

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