This research paper ascertains, by means of the Social Identity Theory, the social psychological characteristics that facilitate the occurrence of the securitizing act on behalf of the actor of the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Theory, termed as functional actor, and more commonly known as ‚significant addressed audience’. By this,it aims at the understanding of the factors that determine the functional actor to consent to securitization, since this category of actor has been left untheorized, despite of its key role in the securitization process.
The departure point is a question that the authors of the securitization theory, themselves address: “When does an argument […] achieve sufficient effect to make an audience tolerate violations of rules that would otherwise have to be obeyed? […] For individuals and groups to speak security does not guarantee success” as “securitization is not decided by the securitizer, but by the audience of the speech act.” (Buzan 1998:25,31) The only stipulation refers to the functional actor’s power to materialize securitization, being neither the referent object, nor the securitizing actor. The deficiency of theorization has impelled a social psychological elaboration of the functional actor’s distinguishing features that causes it to accept the securitizing act, since the absence of details in this respect leaves much space for interpretation, and leads to the investment of resources, when securitization analysis should not be centered upon the establishment of the actors, but upon the process and dynamics of securitization.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Theoretical frame
1.1 The Securitization Theory
1.2 „Auxiliary Theories“
1.2.1 Henri Tajfel’s and John Turner’s Social Identity Theory
1.2.2 Fritz Heider’s Social Balance Theory
2. The Consideration of the Functional Actor from the Perspective of the „Auxiliary Theories“
2.1 The Functional Actor’s Position in the Securitization Constellation
2.2 A Possible Classification of the Functional Actor
2.3 Features Resulting From the In-Group Processes
2.4 Features Resulting from Intergroup Processes
2.5 Why and when is there a Securitizing Act? The Balance Theory Confirmed by SIT
3. Critique on the Limits of SIT in Clarifying the Functional Actor
Conclusion
References
Research Objectives and Themes
This research paper aims to identify the social-psychological characteristics of the "functional actor" (or "significant addressed audience") that facilitate the securitization process. By integrating the Social Identity Theory and the Social Balance Theory into the Copenhagen School’s securitization framework, the author seeks to understand why these actors consent to extraordinary measures and how internal group dynamics influence political security decisions.
- Theoretical integration of Social Identity Theory and Social Balance Theory into securitization studies.
- Classification of functional actors based on institutionalization and social-psychological factors.
- Analysis of in-group processes, such as salience, loyalty, and commitment, in the context of security threats.
- Examination of intergroup conflict dynamics and the role of identity in legitimizing securitizing acts.
Excerpt from the Book
2.3 Features Resulting From the In-Group Processes
The functional actor’s consent to the securitization act is an indices that the functional actor has crossed the key processes of definition and assessment of its social identity, since only their outcome can support the functional actor’s justification for conflict, (Zick 2008:413) and its engagement in whatever actions necessary to protect the referent object and thus the integrity of the in-group. This implies first of all that the functional actor has dimensioned its reality in dichotomous terms, that is, in an in-group – out-group paradigm, and organizes its behavior accordingly, being in favor of the in-group, as affected group, accentuating its (psychological and behavioral) involvement with the in-group (the securitizer and the referent object), and asserting the adversity towards the out-group, as the threat source. (Worchel 1986:12)
The consent to the securitizing act implies not a whatsoever identification with the in-group, but a high degree of identification (strong psychological engagement), since this is a prerequisite for engagement in extreme actions for the group’s sake. According to the field studies of Simon et al. (1998) the level of identification of the individuals with the affected in-group is a reliable predictor of collective action. (Simon in Brown 2000:332) “The more they identify (with the group), the less they want to leave (it)”. (Ellemer in Brown 2000:327) This would also serve as an indicator for the functional actor’s engagement readiness in the causes of the group and may reflect its perception of the in-group: a high status group, since these tend more to display a cooperative behavior than low status groups. (Hogg/Terry 2001:154, Tyler 2000:149)
Chapter Summary
Introduction: Outlines the research gap regarding the "functional actor" in securitization theory and proposes the use of Social Identity Theory and Social Balance Theory to better understand their psychological motivations.
1. Theoretical frame: Presents the foundational concepts of the Copenhagen School’s Securitization Theory, alongside Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory and Fritz Heider’s Social Balance Theory as explanatory auxiliary frameworks.
2. The Consideration of the Functional Actor from the Perspective of the „Auxiliary Theories“: Analyzes the position and classification of the functional actor, detailing how in-group and intergroup processes influence the actor's readiness to support securitization.
3. Critique on the Limits of SIT in Clarifying the Functional Actor: Examines the theoretical shortcomings of using Social Identity Theory to explain all facets of actor behavior, particularly regarding institutional versus non-institutional actors.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, confirming that while psychological approaches are complementary to securitization theory, they do not cover the entire spectrum of political and structural drivers of security policies.
Keywords
Securitization, Functional Actor, Social Identity Theory, Social Balance Theory, Significant Addressed Audience, In-group Processes, Intergroup Relations, Security Studies, Collective Action, Existential Threat, Referent Object, Securitizing Move, Social Psychology, Political Decision-making, Conflict Resolution.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on identifying the social-psychological requirements that drive the "functional actor" to support or reject a securitization move as defined by the Copenhagen School.
What are the primary theoretical frameworks used?
The study utilizes the Securitization Theory as the base, supplemented by Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory and Fritz Heider’s Social Balance Theory to analyze actor behavior.
What is the main research question?
The research asks which social-psychological characteristics facilitate the functional actor's facilitation of securitization, analyzed through the lenses of identity and balance theories.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a connective and integrative theoretical analysis, synthesizing primary sources from the Copenhagen School with secondary psychological literature to profile the functional actor.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the position of the functional actor in the securitization constellation, their classification, the impact of in-group and intergroup processes on their consent, and the utility of SIT in explaining these dynamics.
Which keywords best describe this work?
Key terms include Securitization, Functional Actor, Social Identity Theory, Social Balance Theory, and Collective Action.
How does the Social Balance Theory apply to securitization?
It is used to schematize the "actors' constellation" and define the interpersonal and inter-group relations that drive an actor to choose conflict over cooperation to protect its identity.
What does the author conclude about SIT's role in security analysis?
The author concludes that while SIT provides necessary psychological depth to understand actor motivation, it cannot fully explain political decision-making without also accounting for structural and historical factors.
- Quote paper
- Ricarda Popa (Author), 2009, The Functional Actor in the Securitization Process, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/141994
