The Refugee Crisis: Through a Critical and Biopolitical lens.

Having slightly touched upon the securitization theory's critique of the traditional critical approach’s agenda of deepening and widening in my last blog in the context of the refugee crisis in Europe, the point of departure in this blog is understanding the securitization theory more comprehensively as initially proposed by Ole Weaver in the same context, subsequently looking at the feminist critique of the securitization theory and taking the discussion forward to governance of life and death by security apparatuses, through Foucault’s conception of Biopolitics. 

Securitization Theory and its critique 

Ole Weaver believes that only questions of what or who is threatened or needs to be secured are taken into consideration and never questions about whether a phenomenon needs to be treated in security terms. Therefore, his focus is towards understanding processes through which certain issues are securitized and looking at the possibilities of handling them in non-security terms  (Weaver 1995). This is because once something is made into a security problem, it is believed to threaten the sovereignty or independence of a state, as a result of which the state can claim a “special right, one that will always be defined by the state and its elites” and then such threats are met with mobilization of maximum effort  (Weaver 1995). As far as dealing with security critically is concerned, he pays attention to how certain issues become issues of security, for which Weaver deploys the use of language theory in identifying “security” as a speech act. What this does is that it allows for expansion of the concept of security, that is, allows engagement with questions such as “whether the concept of security should be expanded to cover other issues and whether entities other than the state should be able to make the claim to have its threats located under the security rubric” but makes the actual definition of security dependent on its successful construction in discourse (Lene 2000). However, while Hansen Lene recognizes these strengths of the Copenhagen School, she believes the criteria for who can become a securitizing actor is not specified, and neither is the question about what constitutes a successful case of securitization. Her main problem, which is also the concern of this blog with regard to refugees, is this: the Copenhagen school’s “reliance on speech act theory presupposes the existence of a situation in which speech is indeed possible” (Lene 2000). 

Lene identifies two blindspots in the Copenhagen School Framework, which she terms as ‘security as silence’ and ‘subsuming security’. Security as silence is a situation where the potential subject who needs protection has no or limited possibility of speaking about its security problem. Lene is specifically concerned with the absence of gender-based insecurity from these theories but refugees in general and women in specific within that group can be  seen as having limited possibilities of speaking about their security problems and in order for them to “become a referent object for security they need to find a way into international discourse” (Lene 2000) because the Copenhagen school framework cannot consider threats against them as long as they are “silent security problems.” One option to bring them into the international discourse can be international organisations speaking on their behalf or initiatives by these organisations, which give them a platform to voice their concerns. One example can be the Global Refugee Forum by the UNHCR held every four years, which involves the participation of member states, some refugees themselves, civil society groups, the private sector, and experts. However, as Lene comments, these organisations “rarely qualify as securitizing actors within the Copenhagen School framework” (Lene 2000).

Biopolitics 

One of the recurring points in both blogs has been how individual European states have dealt with the refugee crisis. One of the measures taken to control the inflow and processing of refugees has been the establishment of detention centres. These spaces become what Giorgio Agamben describes as a “state of exception” or, simply put, places that exist outside the normal operation of law, and life exists in the bare and inhumane form. However, as Mbembe believes, the state of exception is not limited to detention centres but has permeated all of society (Mbembe 2003). Underlying this is the concept of biopolitics, as formulated by Foucault, which can be seen as the strategic care of certain people and the strategic degradation of ‘others’. In fact, the state operates by creating indifference towards refugees along with the process of ‘othering’ that takes place, which creates cultures of inhospitality. The indifference keeps getting perpetuated because states are often ready to penalize those who help refugees and have strict surveillance measures used to prevent this from happening. The dehumanization of refugees is a crucial part of their treatment because bodies not seen to have any value by the state are allowed to die. Therefore, biopolitics works through capillary mechanisms throughout society, and this is how it legitimizes its security concerns in the most traditional sense. 

References 

1. Singh, Gayatri. “The Complexities of the Refugee Crisis: A View through the Changing Discourse of Security Studies.” INT204IntSec, 17 Mar. 2024, intsec204.wixsite.com/home/post/the-complexities-of-the-refugee-crisis-a-view-through-the-changing-discourse-of-security-studies. Accessed 13 Apr. 2024.

2. Foucault, Michel. The history of sexuality: An introduction. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage 95 (1990). (Selection: Part Five: Right of Death and Power over Life).

3. Hansen, Lene. 2000. ‘The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School’. Millennium 29 (2): 285–306.

4. Mbembe, Achille. 'Necropolitics.' Public culture 15, no. 1 (2003): 11-40.

5. Ole, Wæver. 1995. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” InOn Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press.https://www.libraryofsocialscience.com/assets/pdf/Waever-Securitization.pdf

6. “The Global Compact on Refugees.” UNHCR, www.unhcr.org/about-unhcr/who-we-are/global-compact-refugees.