Grigor'eva, K. (2024). Others as Security Threats: Securitizing Discourses, Social Magic, and the Bureaucratic Field. Changing Societies & Personalities, 8(2), 418–442. Grigor`eva, K. (2024). Others as Security Threats: Securitizing Discourses, Social Magic, and the Bureaucratic Field. Changing Societies & Personalities, 8(2), 418–442.ISSN 2587-6104DOI: 10.15826/csp.2024.8.2.281EDN: HXVGTTРИНЦ: https://elibrary.ru/contents.asp?id=68638994Размещена на сайте: 31.07.24Текст статьи на сайте журнала URL: https://changing-sp.com/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/556/282 (дата обращения 31.07.2024)Статья на англйиском языкеСсылка при цитировании:Grigor'eva, K. (2024). Others as Security Threats: Securitizing Discourses, Social Magic, and the Bureaucratic Field. Changing Societies & Personalities, 8(2), 418–442. DOI: 10.15826/csp.2024.8.2.281. EDN: HXVGTT.Grigor'eva, K. (2024). Others as Security Threats: Securitizing Discourses, Social Magic, and the Bureaucratic Field. Changing Societies & Personalities, 8(2), 418–442. doi: 10.15826/csp.2024.8.2.281 DOI: 10.15826/csp.2024.8.2.281.Авторы:Grigor’eva K.S.АннотацияFor over 20 years, there has been an ongoing debate about what is primary in the process of securitization—discourses or practices. Traditional research on securitization tends to analyze discourses and practices separately, which can be seen even in studies that attempt to combine these two approaches. In this context, the concept “discourses” refers to a wide range of public political statements, while the concept “practices” mainly refers to the strategies of security professionals. I argue that, in order to gain a better understanding of securitization processes, the research focus should be narrowed to first-order securitizing performatives and the related securitizing practices. This approach will highlight political statements that can genuinely alter social reality, bridge the gap between discourses and practices, facilitate the analysis of institutional mechanisms of securitization, and help obtain much new relevant empirical material. The potential benefits of the proposed approach are illustrated through the analysis of two cases: the Italian case and the Russian case. For the Italian case, the analysis includes declarations of states of emergency related to the exacerbation of the “nomad issue.” For the Russian case, it examines legal acts stipulating the official recognition of migrants as prone to terrorism.Ключевые слова:securitization Pierre Bourdieu symbolic power performative speech acts securitizing practices Рубрики: ЭтносоциологияВозможно, вам будут интересны другие публикации:Григорьева К. С.Секьюритизация: дискурсы, практики и социальная магия // Вопросы национальных и федеративных отношений. 2022. Т. 12. № 11(92). С. 4189-4195.Grigor’eva, K. Maps and Symbolic Power: Cartographic Discourse and the Rise of Spy Hysteria in the Russian Empire on the Eve of World War I. Cartographica. 2023. Vol. 58, No. 1. Pp. 47-57.Григорьева К. С.Расовое профилирование цыган: операция «Табор» как непреднамеренный результат политизации безнадзорности и секьюритизирующая практика // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2024. № 2. С. 96–115.Григорьева К. С.Секьюритизация миграции: обзор зарубежных эмпирических исследований. Научное обозрение. Серия 2: Гуманитарные науки. 2021. № 4-5. С. 48-63.Григорьева К. С.Расовое профилирование как разновидность надзора и секьюритизирующая практика // Социологическое обозрение. 2024. Т. 23. № 1. С. 60-80.