Security is a speech act-the affirmatives framing of environmental threats locks in a larger process of securitization.
Trenell 6(Paul, September, The (Im)possibilty of ‘Environmental Security’, Paul Trenell-- Department of International Politics, University of Wales, http://cadair.aber.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2160/410)
Whilst ‘security’ is a concept imbued with the performative power to alter social relations, there is no guarantee that simply referring to an issue as a security issue will key into this performative capacity . The process of mobilization along security lines follows more complex dynamics which have received scant consideration in the environment-security literature to date. To elaborate on this point it is necessary to delve a little deeper into the realm of security as a speech act . John Austin has split the speech act into three components: locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary (Austin, 1975: 12-14). Jurgen Habermas has in turn claimed that “the three acts Austin distinguishes can be characterised in the following catchphrases: to say something, to act in saying something, to bring about something through saying something” (1986: 288-289, emphasis in original). Where mobilization is what one seeks we are in the realm of the perlocutionary component of the speech act, because the speaker is attempting to alter social relations, to bring about a change in the world. Until all three components have been completed a speech act remains incomplete and the performative capacity of language to alter reality will not be realised.¶ By merely labelling the environment as a security threat the speaker is only fulfilling the locutionary component of the speech act, that is saying something. In order to complete the perlocutionary component, complete the speech act and key in to security’s performative capacity to alter social relations the speaker must engage with and convince his audience that his or her truth claims are valid and warrant action. As Habermas has noted, “through perlocutionary acts the speaker produces an effect upon the hearer” (1986: 289). Therefore when casting an issue in security terms in order to achieve mobilization “what is essential is the designation of an existential threat requiring emergency action or special measures and the acceptance of that designation by a significant audience” (Buzan et al., 1998: 27, my emphasis). The logic behind this stance stands to reason. Until the target audience has accepted the validity of the securitizing actor’s truth claims no mobilization will follow from labelling the issue as security. Therefore, when properly understood “securitization is audience-centred” (Balzaqc, 1998: 25; see also Williams, 2003: 526), because unless the audience accepts the validity of, and acts upon, the labelling of an issue with the ‘security’ tag the mobilization function which forms the very purpose of security linkages will remain absent .
Environmental securitization perpetuates a logic of exceptionalism that makes global violence inevitable