Theoretical Framework of Visual Securitization

Theorising security

This chapter provides a theoretical framework of analysis for the study of the Hollywood and the 9/11. The aim of this chapter is to present the theoretical framework on which the dissertation draws. My argument is that popular culture, especially movies, make government policies legitimate and possible by acting as vehicles of visual securitization. In the first part of this chapter, I introduce the securitization approach as laid out by the Copenhagen School and its key notions of speech-act. I argue that this view of security is limited, however, because it doesn’t include the visual aspect of securitization. In the second section, I analyse how visual securitization differs and goes beyond textual securitization. Finally, in the third part, I link text, context, and visuals by supplementing my analysis of securitization with a discourse analysis open to structural questions such as the production of knowledge, power relations as well as social differences.

Securitisation Theory

Copenhagen School and the securitisation theory is in the centre of modern security research. In this section, first, I examine the background and ontological assertions of securitisation theory and second, its’ political and ethical position as a ‘speech-act' and lastly, I develop its criticism and limits. The Copenhagen School became popularized thanks to its prominent theory of securitisation (Waever (1995), Buzan et al (1998) and Buzan & Wæver (2003)). The securitisation theory highlights the widening of the security. This approach can be linked to both constructivist school and the classical realism of Carl Schmitt (Williams, 2003). Additionally, writings of John L. Austin and Jacques Derrida improved the post-structuralism aspects of the Copenhagen School ideas (Hansen, 2011). The securitisation theory has been resistant to much of criticism addressed against it. There has been, however, a growing debate among scholars about expanding Securitisation theory from the mere speech act to visual analysis, focusing on the necessity of conceptual and theoretical attention on the popular culture including the media and cinema (Butler, 2004, Debrix, 2007, Shapiro, 2008, Weber, 2010).

The term ‘securitisation' simultaneously implies a form of commitment with the ‘realpolitik'. Carl Schmitt and Hans Morgenthau located their ontological premises on this idea. The Copenhagen School doesn't find its argument on the realpolitik assumptions, yet it takes some points from it. Wolfers (1952) argues that the meaning of security is ambiguous. Since the Cold War, there has been a shift from the view of National Interest as welfare security. More increasingly, the concept of security is used as means to achieve various political goals. Understanding of security is so broad that many of the policies can be moulded into security issues. As a result, security is broadening and widening. Broadening of agenda means going beyond ‘traditional' security issues such as state security and military security. Deepening refers to combining individual, sub-state groups, and global security matters. Even though one must be aware of the changing security agendas, the Copenhagen School focuses on the social construction of security questions. Securitisation happens through speech act (Weaver, 1995). The political and ethical position of the securitisation theory as a speech act lies not only within the sociological framework but also political and discursive understanding. This reasoning broadens security research, yet at the same time, it limits the securitisation to a certain structure and analytical framework. In spite of widening understanding of security, the Copenhagen School is limited by focusing narrowly only on speech-act and a certain structure of the analytical framework. There are three issues with that: first, all people have different capacities such as power, influence, and capital, the speech act arises within certain context and time. For Buzan, Waever, and Wilde (1998) only a certain speech act has a capacity to become securitised. It has to be presented as ‘existential threat'. The administration of exclusion, enmity and placing the argument outside normal limits have roots in realist thinking and can be referred to psychological processes. Schmitt (1996) in ‘The Concept of Political' argues that the shift from framing issues as non-political is a powerful tool. Using Freudian language, such rhetoric guides our unconscious, repressed desires. Wæver (1995:51) uses realistic concept of the ‘survival' of the state to underline that to securitise any issue if proper means are used: a rhetoric of urgency, legitimacy or existential threat.

A psychological process of grouping social identity theory Tajfel, Turner, is reflected in the politics of exclusion in securitisation of an identity. The securitisation is achieved when an actor has the power to decide on certain group identity (the in and out groups: us versus them). There exist a number of identities (Buzan, Wæver, and Wilde, 1998). Securitization enables the decision- making the process as what identity is favourable and which one is not. Through a construction of identity, a certain issue or a group can be simultaneously shaped into obtaining unfavourable and even dangerous features that threaten ‘our' positive character. However, Wæver (1995) believes that securitisation is neither entirely subjective nor objective. It is an act that carries meaning. Meanings, therefore, are culturally produced and construct ideology. The Copenhagen school ought to be recognized as a possibility but at the same time existing matter. While acknowledging huge contribution of the Copenhagen School in the study of security, one must remember the wider conditions under which a speech act is constructed. The speech process itself is complicated and requires justification (Habermas, 1984). Moreover, it must be persuasive and accepted by the audience.

The language can be questioned and although the social consensus is a norm, the public sphere is able to change. Securitisation theory is not immune from criticism, however; it provides a good basis for further analysis.

Visual Securitisation

The Copenhagen School is limited by its focus on speech act. This section, therefore, aims to refer to the visual aspect of securitisation. First, I present how visual securitisation is as an act of presenting and receiving and fills the limits of the Securitisation theory. Second, I explore the ways in which power is inseparable of images, and lastly the methodology of the study by which images/ movies are presented. Spritzed (2007) proposes a critique of the securitisation theory developed by the Copenhagen School. He believes that limiting security to a speech act is too narrow, and three issues should be included in the analysis: the executed force of the subject matter, its entrenchment within existing structures and discourses and power of an actor who presents the ‘threat'. However, one can not address the security issue without being constrained by images as a vital aspect of the communicative act. Instead, the visual images, television, and cinema should be taken into consideration as can be seen by increasing political discourse reflected in media and cinema. Heck & Schlag (2013) argues that study of images requires understanding how they are socially entrenched. Rose (p.137, 2012) argues that ‘it is possible to think of visuals as a sort of discourse'. There has been growing debate among scholars about visuality and security. Moeller (2007) and Weber (2010) focus on visual securitisation and the 9/11. Because of the ubiquitous presence of images, movies and cartoons the use of military force is more accepted and justified. Political language is intertwined with the production of movies and images. Images and movies carry powerful meaning and constitute the value system and understanding of the world. 9/11 is connected to an image of the falling twin towers, and securitisation process of this event is inseparable with these images. According to Shapiro (1997), understanding security requires a range of factors to be considered such as visual reception and representation of an act, its context, and techniques. Shapiro (2008) underlines how culture is understood through social relations which function as counter-thought for events and individuals which are usually obstructed by securitisation. The movies are used as a tool to reproduce war not only as good but as necessary. Hansen (2011), argues that insecurities are visually constructed and the relationship between culture, power, and visuality is very close.

The meaning of certain visual is constructed through a conscious and unconscious level. The ‘making sense' part or ‘giving meanings' relates to understanding. Therefore, through images and attached meaning the individual grasps meaning about the world, and these meanings result in ideology. Culture is constructed through meanings and these meanings create how one understands the world and their ideology (Hall, 1997). That is to say, habits are a manifestation of ideologies. Ideologies equal with power. When these ideologies are deeply embedded within our value system and unconsciousness it is harder (but not impossible) to understand or challenge them. It can be argued that ‘images speak security' (Hansen, 2011: 51). Visuality means some ambiguity, however, it is a powerful per formative tool. Images exist in a certain structural framework, not in a vacuum. Therefore, Butler (2004) argues that even without a narrative to describe an image or without an explicit political framework, a photograph carries meaning. Weber (2010) believes that movies have the same power of transmitting political purposes. Visual securitisation focuses on how security images or movies are publicly established. Therefore, to study an image or a movie means analysing the construction of the discourse around it. The ‘CNN-effect' theory also underlines the inquiry of how images or the news coverage enables and generates certain foreign policy reactions. Significance and implication of image enter certain political discourse. Haraway (1995) notes that nature is constructed. That is to say, she is concerned how visuals create social power. The access to media construction, movie industry, or the news, is limited to few people and institutions. Movies, therefore create a certain view of social difference but at the same time declare to be universal. She focuses how some institutions construct certain ideas of images to mould the world in beneficial ways to them. This process can be described as visual securitisation. Seeing the world in a different way is a critical effort because the dominant visual discourse rejects other ways to see the world.

Overall, the visual securitisation focuses on the social effects of the movies and images. It builds on the Copenhagen School and the securitisation theory of Buzan and Wæver. However, analysis of the visual is always constructed within a certain structure, certain technologies, knowledge, and practices. Therefore, the next section expands on a critical approach, namely discourse analysis.

Discourse Analysis

The goal of this final section is to develop the securitisation theory and visual analysis through adding the post-structuralism influence and the discourse level of understanding. Previous chapters proved that more attention should be paid to the social practices and power structure. Discourse analysis focuses on the preconception of the speech act or a visual. Foucault (1972) argues that individuals are not just born, they are produced. The concept of discourse is vital in Foucault's analysis on both hypothetical and methodological aspects. Discourse is not just a language but a distinct form of communication, which gives one meaning and constitution of knowledge about how to comprehend the world, how things are or should be. To put it differently, discourse exists in particular sphere of understanding and circulates within groups or institutions alongside with creating power relations which exist within these institutions or groups. It produces a way individuals speak about certain things. Discourse is a ‘linguistic practice through which security policy is represented’ (Shapiro, 1990:327). According to Foucault (1972), discourses produce meanings. Foucault (1972) believes that discourse allows understanding of the materialization of the external realities without objective and subjective dichotomies because it exists within broader structures. The subjective element is, however, put into place through legitimation of certain issue (security policy) through attaching meaning to it by using language (Hansen, 2011). In language, according to Derrida (1976), there is no neutrality and existence of dichotomous pairs always makes one inferior and one superior. Therefore, in securitisation practices, dichotomies have a status to govern a discourse. The discursive structure consists of a statement (such as threat), object (terrorism) and choices (war on terror). Particular habits and institutions determine what it means to be human or ‘normal'. The process in which discourse is created is also very important. Intertextual method refers to not only understanding text or visual itself, but also the meaning brought by other texts and visuals. Discourses create the world and the sense of self. For Foucault, power is not enforced from a top-down. Instead, it presides everywhere. Some discourses are more powerful than others, mainly because they are infused with knowledge and production of social consequences and assumptions.

War on Terror and securitisation is based on assumptions and consists of structural practices, political narratives, certain forms of knowledge and cultural rhetoric. Discourse combines the aspect of Copenhagen School speech act and visual analysis but also includes symbolism, assumptions, meanings and emblematic representations that constitute the practice (Jackson, 2005). Therefore, discourse, unlike Securitisation Theory focuses on giving meaning to an event from a particular point of view. In George W. Bush's official speeches, which will be discussed later, we hear that there is a clash of ‘the West' and ‘the rest', the ‘good' and the ‘bad'. This process is called discursive construction. That is to say, the language creates a practice, but the discourse consists of symbols such as flags, colours, gestures and even the tone of the voice, selective historical myths and facts and insignia. The process is an act of ‘truth' creation that strikes our unconsciousness, morals, and self-control. It is ‘obvious' that this hegemonic creation has to be ‘true'. Foucault (1972) argues that although movies are not socially constructed, talking about certain issues creates a new reality. Popular culture makes official political discourse more popular and common sensual. To evaluate the argument that movies often reproduce the governmental rhetoric, I have chosen two movies which are especially good for the analysis: Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper. The movies are particularly useful for the study for three reasons: first, they are connected to War on Terror rhetoric after 9/11, second, they have been very popular and made a staggering profit in the box office and third, there are reoccurring topics and repeating discourses in both movies.

Compared the limits of Securitisation Theory and Visual Securitisation, discourse analysis has obvious advantages. It looks at the visual and the speech act or text and the broader context and intertextual integration within the institutional framework. This aim of this chapter was to present a theoretical basis for the further analysis. Securitisation theory, visual analysis, and discourse analysis were presented as a part of security studies. First part demonstrated the approach of Copenhagen School approaching a textually of security and a speech-act. This view of security analysis is limited because it doesn't include the visual aspect of the study. Therefore, the second part developed the complex visual aspect of the process of securitisation. Finally, further developments and linking both text and visuals were combined under discourse analysis. The discourse analysis addressed the production of knowledge and power relations as well as social difference. As previously noted, intertextuality and broader structural context are vital in discourse analysis.