It's not a Muslim ban!' Indirect speech acts and the securitisation of Islam in the United States post-9/11
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5808690 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Clara Eroukhmanoff (0000-0002-9045-4369, London South Bank University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 8 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 5-25 |
| Publication date | 2018-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Global Discourse (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2043-7897 • E-ISSN: 2326-9995 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/23269995.2018.1439873 |
| OpenAlex | W2788545549 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 13 |
| References cited | 27 |
According to the Copenhagen School, a political issue is prioritised, or 'securitised', when an audience accepts a speech act with a particular security grammar pointing to the dangerous nature of the threat and calling for extraordinary security measures. This article probes the opposite: what if not saying 'security' and instead saying 'friend' also contributes to the securitisation? I explore this logic with the ways in which Islam has been securitised in the United States from the Bush administration to the beginning of the Trump administration and offer an analysis of what this article calls the 'indirect securitisation of Islam.' Drawing on the philosophy of language of John Searle, an indirect securitisation is one that is successful through indirect securitising speech acts, that is, utterances that comprise two illocutions, one direct and one indirect, with the latter being the 'real' request of the utterance. Using covert forms of speech such as indirect speech acts enables elite speakers to 'deny plausibility' and claim they are not securitising (or 'the least racist person' as Trump claims), thereby 'saving face.' Indirect securitising speech acts are therefore an important strategic tool in elite actors' securitising playbook. The article seeks to make sense of a climate of American politics that seem ungoverned by conventional rules of speech by offering a timely study of how political leaders can 'have their cake and eat it too' in matters of national security
Covert · Direct speech · Elite · Indirect speech · Utterance · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · Global Security and Public Health · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Chinese Macrosecuritization
The Comparison of The United States Foreign Policy Against The Islamic World Under President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump Administration
‘They Are All the Same’
Spatialising Security, Securitising Space
The abject other in Turkish politics
Crisis, narratives, and the construction of US-Middle East relations
Same difference? Interrogating the security politics of Covid-19 in the ‘democratic’ United Kingdom and ‘authoritarian’ Thailand
Contestations and cooperation in Muslim–Jewish neighbourhood encounters
Polarised Security
Securitizing Beijing through the maritime commons
Securitization as a context-changing speech act
Making a safer space? Rethinking space and securitization in the old town redevelopment project of Kashgar, China
A Feeling of Unease
Rhetoric, Legitimation, and Grand Strategy
Contesting Security
The Cultural Politics of Emotion
The logic of indirect speech
Foundations of Speech Act Theory
Securing the Sacred
Terror, Insecurity and Liberty
Security
The Race Card
The remote securitisation of Islam in the US post-9/11
What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings
Critical Approaches to Security in Europe
Between Normalisation and Exception
The Moral Rhetoric of American Presidents
Rhetoric, Legitimation, and Grand Strategy
Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms
Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization
Expression and Meaning
Rationales for indirect speech
Trump, Islamophobia and US-Middle East relations
Trump's 100 days
Normalization and Legislative Exceptionalism
Obama's Foreign Policy
Resilience, Critical Infrastructure, and Molecular Security
| Unique citing works | 13 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,86 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2026 (8) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 13 |