Gender in Securitization Theory

CHAPTER 1 Context

“Securitization theory is sexist” (Gomes & Marques, 2021, p. 79). This was the crude criticism directed by feminist scholars towards the long-standing theory that has defined critical security studies since the end of the Cold War. The “striking absence” (Hansen, 2000, p. 286) of gender was first denounced by Lene Hansen in 2000. Since then, the Copenhagen School has collected increasing critiques regarding its gender blindness and inability to consider gender as a significant factor in the securitization process. Scholars argue that this neglect contributes to the perpetuation of sexism within securitized policies and negatively impacts the experiences of women and men in real life. Thus, it is imperative to address it. Gomes and Marques (2021) suggest that “to overcome the sexist neglect of securitization theory, there is a need for empirical studies recognizing gender (and race) as structural conditions” (p. 79).

Therefore, it is crucial to recognize gender as an essential factor in the securitization process. In particular, this monograph focuses on the most popular application of securitization theory: migration. While the gendered implications of securitized migration policies have been the subject of several recent analyses (Freedman, 2016, 2019; Luthman, 2017), few studies have explored the role of gender in the securitization of policies on migration management, creating a significant knowledge gap. This monograph aims to fill such a gap by answering the research question: How does gender influence the securitization of migration in the European Union (EU)? The research seeks to overcome the gender-blind approach prevalent in the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory from a post-colonial feminist tradition.

In particular, the aim is to identify “which gendered (and racialized) crisis narratives are institutionally anchored and inscribed” (Sachseder et al., 2022, p. 6) into the migration management architecture of the EU. On the basis of previous literature, gendered and racialized constructions of threat and vulnerability are believed to mutually reinforce the securitization of migration policies in the EU. The research aims to find how, on the one hand, the perceived vulnerability of refugee women has been framed as a referent object in the EU’s securitization process by drawing from theories of humanitarian securitization and, on the other hand, how migrant men have been securitized in light of their alleged dangerousness. The construction of refugees as both threats and in need of protection can be explained through gender lenses, with the implementation of masculinized notions of dangerousness and feminized perceptions of vulnerability. The successful securitization of migration in the EU is argued to rely on gendered constructions of femininity and masculinity.

While previous research has examined how these gendered constructions are perpetuated in some areas of EU migration governance – namely, through the analysis of the policies of Frontex (Stachowitsch & Sachseder, 2019) and the European Agenda on Migration (Welfens, 2020) –, a central piece of EU border management has never been addressed in the context of the gendered influence on migration’s securitization. Smuggling and trafficking governance are crucial instruments of border control and migration management and are thus selected as the case study of the monograph. The EU has developed increasingly supranational competencies on smuggling and trafficking as part of the Europeanization of migration and the communitarization of border control, engaging in a ‘war against smugglers and traffickers’ that has received renewed attention since the 2015 refugee crisis. These phenomena have been securitized and framed as threats to the EU’s internal security and to the migrant victims of the crimes. A Critical Frame Analysis is conducted in order to understand whether and how gendered constructions of vulnerability and masculinity have affected smuggling and trafficking policies.