Securitisation and the function of functional actors

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines the neglected category of functional actor in securitisation processes. I argue that functional actors are a useful analytical category only if such actors are functionally distinct from other actors. A close analysis of Security: A New Framework for Analysis reveals that this is not the case; the majority of the functions such actors have are covered by other actors. The exception is that they may contest securitisation; yet in securitisation studies this function has become associated not with functional actors but with audiences. I show that when the audience is conceived in line with its meaning in common usage (i.e. as the addressee of speech (acts)) only specific actors (most notably, referent objects who are promised protection via securitising moves) can object to securitisation, and only on securitisations (ostensibly) intended to save them. Given that actors other than referent objects/threateners regularly object to securitisation, I go on to locate the ability to veto/endorse securitisation on behalf of others with functional actors. The remainder of the article distils functional actors into different categories/roles. I show that scholars too are functional actors; ergo they do not need likeminded audiences to stage critical interventions.