Page 130 [130]
128 | Beata Kovacs
so-called ‘frozen images’ (Petersson 2003, 88), which also play an important
role in the formation of group identity.
Othering is like a reversed mirror, since ‘good, ‘virtuous, or ‘beautiful’
cannot exist without ‘evil’ ‘sinful, and ‘ugly’. These negative stereotypes
associated with the Other are key elements in the formation of enemy
images and in the social process of scapegoating (Petersson 2003). In the
end, everything that is immoral and bad is outside of the dominant social
group (Tsoukala 2008, 142). Finally, the Other is not only something that is
inherently sinful, but also a potential threat to the existing social order and
to the values of society.
Right-wing populist parties use social tensions as a tool and they
instrumentalise the use of different (ethnic/linguistic/religious) minorities
as scapegoats. The nationalist and xenophobic discourse has become a part
of our everyday lives, so fear dominates public discourse. And the object of
fear can be nearly anything: globalisation or climate change can be perceived
as a threat as much as change in traditional gender roles or deterioration in
our financial situation (Wodak 2015).
The discourse of fear can also be understood through the concept of
securitisation. Securitisation has become a remarkable term in the field of
critical security studies (CSS), which broaden the concept of security and
emphasise that the feelings of insecurity and the perception of threat are not
limited to interstate wars. Securitisation refers to a communication process
in which a topic is defined as a security threat.
According to the constructivist logic, security is not given or objective.
Instead, it is socially constructed through discourse, actions, and interactions.
Security, therefore, is a site of negotiation between actors claiming to speak
on behalf of a particular group and members of that group. Successful
securitisation depends on the effective presentation of issues as existential
threats (McDonald, 2008). As Berry Buzan et al. explain, to present an issue as
an existential threat is to say that “if we do not tackle this problem, everything
else will be irrelevant (because we will not be here or will not be free to deal
with it in our own way)” (Buzan et al. 1998, 24).
Therefore, securitisation of an issue or object, calls for extraordinary measures
beyond the routines and norms of everyday politics. This type of security
extension can be dangerous, because security can itself become a security policy
threat, as it may authorise the implementation of inadequate, extraordinary
state measures (Buzan and Hansen 2009). Buzan et al. also note that in some
cases the discourse of securitisation has been so entrenched, established, and
institutionalised that the threat does not even have to be present.
The Copenhagen School introduced societies, their functioning and
identity, as possible objects of security through the concept of ‘societal
security. In the societal sector, the object is large-scale collective identities
that can function independently of the state. In terms of threats to societal
security, the “abilities to maintain a language, a set of behavioural customs,