Speech Act Theory

S Speech Act Theory Amitabh Vikram Dwivedi Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and School of Languages and Literature, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra, India Keywords Security · Speech Act Theory Definition Posited by J.L. Austin, the Speech Act Theory considers language use as a type of action, and not merely as a medium to convey information and express thoughts. For example, the sentence “For security reasons, the girls are not allowed to come out from their hostels after 08.00 PM.” is considered as a speech act as it has two elements in it: to provide protection to girls as well as forcing them to remain inside their hostels. So, the speech act for security reasons is performative. Introduction Unlike the objectivist approaches which define security in terms of a threat and recommend that it can be controlled by the military force acted by state actors (Walt 1991, p. 212), the Copenhagen School challenges this stance and defines security as a speech act. The School conceptualizes security within the analytical framework of “securitization,” and not as an objective condition. Weaver, an advocate of this framework, argues that security is a speech act (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 26). The speech act theory informs us that utterance is itself an act; therefore, an utterance also represents and recognizes “security” and provides a special status to it, while legitimizing extraordinary measures (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 26). The Copenhagen School broadens the security paradigm by incorporating many issues and objects related to economic, environmental, societal, military, and political (Buzan et al. 1998, p. 1); however, this is also a reductionist approach which reduces a social phenomenon to textual markers, and studies it through lens of speech acts. Does security not exist outside the speech act? The reminder of the chapter will critically discuss security with reference to the speech act theory and social construction in detail. Discussion There is a saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. When the Copenhagen School limits security to the speech act, would it not be interesting to examine the existence of security outside of the speech act in media where truth and knowledge produce and reveal itself through images? We acknowledge that security does exist outside of the speech act, and we problematize the stance © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Romaniuk et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_132-1 2 propounded by the Copenhagen School that security is a speech act because security cannot be understood as fixed. However, we accept the social construtedness of security and acknowledge the role of context and physical practices in the construction of security. When security becomes the speech act or language then securitization merely relies on a specific rhetorical structure. The Copenhagen School first focuses on the differentiation-what security is and how it is different from its political process aka securitization. Accordingly, the “securitization is structured by the differential capacity of actors to make social effective claims about threats and accepted as convincing by an audience and by the empirical factors or situation to which these actors can make reference” (https://www. e-ir.info/2011/10/09/does-security-exist-outsideof-the-speech-act/). For instance, Modi government’s Constitution (Amendment) Act (CAA) 2019 in India readdresses and redefines illegal immigration of Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian immigrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who have lived in India without documentation, and grants fast track Indian citizenship in six years on the basis of 12 years of residence in India (https://economictimes. indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/citizenship-amend ment-bill-what-does-it-do-and-why-is-it-seen-as-aproblem/articleshow/72436995.cms?utm_ source¼contentofinterest&utm_medium¼text& utm_campaign¼cppst). We can consider CAA as a speech act which is accepted by an audience but not by all audience, and as a result it does not create societal security because the community identity (we-ness) was threatened by two factors: first, by the dynamics such as population movements and secondly by excluding Muslims from this provision. Every nation accepts that illegal immigration is a potential security threat for a nation, but the CAA fails as a speech act because it naively relates securitization in terms of discourse-legitimation-action sequence. “Speaking security does not guarantee success,” and when a political party equals security as a speech act and focuses on its performative role then the “conditions in which securitization becomes possible” is compromised (https://www. Speech Act Theory e-ir.info/2011/10/09/does-security-exist-outsideof-the-speech-act/). Instead, security is a site of negotiation more than an act of articulation. Security is contextual, where acquiescence, consent, and support are more important than the speech act. And if political leaders articulate their intentionality through solely a subjective nature of security then security for some will eventually become a threat for others. A broad reading of security, hence, incorporate social construction, and the social, political, ad historical contexts in which particular discourses of security become possible. Waever (1995, p. 57) argues “that security is articulated only from a specific place, in an institutional voice, by elites. This state-centricism serves to marginalize the experiences and articulations of the powerless in global politics” (https://www.eir.info/2011/10/09/does-security-exist-outside-ofthe-speech-act/). Conclusion The chapter argues that security is a speech act, and it is performative. But when security transforms into securitization under political process, the site of negotiation becomes a mere act of articulation. Providing security must not compromise with the democratic rights of the citizens, and it should not emerge as a social regulating mechanism. Cross-References ▶ Border Security ▶ Civil Wars ▶ Ethnocentrism ▶ Homeland Security Further Reading Buzan, B., Waever, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security a new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019: What is it and why is it seen as a problem. (2019, December 31). The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ Speech Act Theory news/et-explains/citizenship-amendment-bill-what-doesit-do-and-why-is-it-seen-as-a-problem/articleshow/ 72436995.cms?utm_source¼contentofinterest&utm_ medium¼text&utm_campaign¼cppst Does security exist outside of the speech act? (2011, October 9). E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir. 3 info/2011/10/09/does-security-exist-outside-of-thespeech-act/ Waever, O. (1995). Securitisation and desuritisation. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On security (pp. 46–87). New York: Columbia University Press. Walt, S. M. (1991). The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly, 35, 211–239.