Understanding the social construction of crises: Comparing the crisis‐as‐claim model with securitization theory

Abstract

Spector (2019) introduced the crisis‐as‐claim model to analyze the social construction of crises. Securitization theory offers insights that can complement this crisis‐as‐claim model. Both approaches share an interest in the crisis declarations of actors, the motivations behind such claims, and the public's evaluations of crisis claims. In addition, securitization theory helps us to understand how various actors negotiate crisis declarations, how certain practices can constitute a crisis reality, and how crisis perceptions enable the use of exceptional crisis response measures.

The Securitization of Energy Issues from The Perspective of Security Studies

“…An important point to remember during the securitization process is that these threats can appear in both traditional and non-traditional forms, with the potential to threaten security objects on multiple levels: politically, militarily, economically, environmentally, and socially (Van Rythoven, 2019). Political institutions and political leaders like the president or prime minister can declare the security issue or "speech act" to the audience, namely the people, as an essential process in securitization (Baele & Rousseau, 2022;Kalkman, 2019). An issue cannot be classified as a security issue unless a threat declaration is made.…”

“…According to Jori Kalkman, the declaration would be meaningless if it was not accepted. Furthermore, if there is no audience, the declaration of security issues will be meaningless (Kalkman, 2019). The audience acts as either the receiver or the rejector of the security issue declaration.…”

“…The audience acts as either the receiver or the rejector of the security issue declaration. If the public or the audience accepts the declaration, political institutions must take steps to mitigate the threats that arise (Kalkman, 2019). When declaring a threat, the state must essentially persuade the audience or the general public that the threat of security issues can jeopardize the expected life of its people (Sheikh, 2018).…”

Using ANTi-microhistory to theorize a typology of organizational crisis

“…The vertical dimension of our proposed topology represents a continuum from the objective to the subjective leadership view of organizational crisis. The realist view of organizational crisis as an objective factual event espouses that a crisis may evolve from a triggering event into a process of sequenced events that should be managed (Kilkman, 2019). The proponents of the anti-realist or constructivist view of organizational crisis conceptualize organizational crisis as the leaders’ meaning-making claim that frames the existence of the crisis to fit the leaders’ interests and values (Spector, 2019).…”

Crisis in arms control: an introduction

“…When events are framed as crisis, political leaders “attribute meaning to ambiguous contingencies” and make deliberate choices, e.g., declare a situation as threatening, demand exceptional rights and powers for responding to the specific situation (Spector 2019 , p. 277). For Kalkman ( 2019 , p. 423), such crisis claims work in similar ways to securitization—crisis claims may also grant people emergency powers and enable leaders to deploy the desired resources (Klenk and Nullmeier 2010 ). By pointing to specific crises such as 9/11, Widmaier ( 2007 , p. 785) also underlines the role and relevance of interpretative leadership, which defines threats and crises in order to guide societal debates on events in a desired direction.…”