Securitization Theory has been applied and advanced continuously since the publication of the seminal “Security – A New Framework for Analysis” by Buzan et al. in 1998. Various extensions, clarifications and definitions have been added over the years. Ontological and epistemological debates as well as debates about the normativity of the concept have taken place, furthering the approach incrementally and adapting it to new empirical cases. This paper aims at contributing to the improvement of the still useful framework in a more general way through testing it for several well established findings from another discipline: Social Psychology.
The exploratory article will point out what elements of Securitization Theory might benefit most from incorporating insights from Social Psychology and in which ways they might change our understanding of the phenomenon. Some well-studied phenomena in the field of Social Psychology play an important role for the construction and perception of security threats and the acceptance of the audience to grant the executive branch extraordinary measures to counter these threats: stereotypes and intuitions, risk assessment and fear appeals are central concepts of Social Psychology that can help us to better understand how Securitization works, and in which situations securitizing moves have great or little chances to reverberate.
The empirical cases of the 9/11 and Paris terror attacks will serve to illustrate the potential of this approach, allowing for variances in key factors, among them: (point in) time, system of government and ideological orientation. The paper will conclude by discussing further research possibilities in the fields of Securitization and Security Studies in general.
