Constructing a Security Threat?
Identifying Securitization in US State Level Politics Framing of the BLM Protests
Rebecka Bjuremalm
Supervisor: Josefina Erikson Bachelor Thesis, Political Science Department of Government Uppsala University, Spring 2021
Abstract
This thesis investigates US state level politics framing of the BLM protests during 2020, by inductively identifying frames and then proceeding to study if and on what grounds
securitization occurs in these. Press statements, interviews and documents from eight Mayors and Governors in six of the states where the protests have been the most prominent are analyzed.
From this material, four frames have been identified: the alienated outsider frame, the constructive rage frame, the limited guardian frame, and the desecuritizing frame. Recent developments in securitization theory investigate human life and dignity as a reference object, making a case for integrating humanitarianism in terms of grounds for justifying extraordinary measures. Three grounds for securitization are investigated empirically in the identified frames:
state, social and humanitarian security. The study concludes that whilst both state security and to a lesser degree humanitarian security are detected in the identified frames, societal security seems to be the most prominent. This suggests that large-scale identities are the most common reference objects in the treated context. Further research is encouraged, especially in terms of distinguishing potential frame alignment processes by looking at a greater number of states over a longer period of time.
Key words: securitization, Copenhagen School, framing analysis, protest movements, Black Lives Matter, securitized citizens, contentious politics
List of Abbreviations
BLM: Black Lives Matter
ACLED: The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project PACT: Protecting American Communities Task Force
DHS: Department of Homeland Security B.I.E.: Black Identity Extremists
IACHR: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Aim and Research Questions 6
1.2 Disposition 7
2. Theoretical Framework 8
2.1 Securitization Theory 8
2.2 Three Grounds for Security 9
3. Previous Research and Background 10
3.1 Securitization of BLM, other Minority Groups and Public Protests 10
3.2 Perceptions of Protests as Illegitimate or Threatening 12
3.3 Perceptions of Protests as Legitimate and Rights-Based 13
3.4 The Case of BLM 13
3.4.1 Contested Tactics: Peaceful or Violent? 14
3.4.2 The Federal Response to the Protests 14
4. Research Design 15
4.1 Choice of Methodology 15
4.2 Analytical Framework 16
4.3 Validity and Reliability 18
4.4 Sample and Material 19
5. Findings and Discussion 21
5.1 Findings 21
5.1.1 The Alienated Outsider Frame 21
5.1.2 The Constructive Rage Frame 23
5.1.3 The Limited Guardian Frame 26
5.1.4 The Desecuritizing Frame 27
5.2 Discussion 29
6. Conclusion 33
References 35
Appendix 39
Analytical matrix accounting for frame classifications 39
Analysed Material 41
“Law without force is ineffectual, and human beings without laws miserable”
- G.E.M Anscombe (Goodin & Pettit, 2005)
1. Introduction
The use of force requires grounds for justification. Sovereign states hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force, which serves to protect citizens from undue violence from each other as well as the state. What happens then, when that protection is perceived to be unequal or discriminatory in nature? Such questions have been raised by the Black Lives Matter movement.
In the recent court case of State of Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin, police officer Derek Chauvin was tried and convicted of the murder of George Floyd (Minnesota Judicial Branch -
27-CR-20-12646: State vs. Derek Chauvin). The verdict was highly anticipated all over the world, illustrating the high stakes of handling matters of systematic racism and disproportionate use of force. Before the verdict, massive protest mobilisation culminated in tensions and civil unrest. The BLM protests call attention to the salient nature of black human security, and problematize ineffectual legal remedies for promoting justice. However, these protests have not been uncontroversial in nature. How politicians justify clamping down on or increasing state induced law enforcement against such protests, for example calling in the National Guard, is an action that may be expressed in different terms with varying motives and justifications. One possible ground for justification could be securitization. Moreover, the Armed Conflict Location
& Event Data Project (ACLED)’s 2020 report on demonstrations and political violence in America highlights a dissonance: whilst more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the BLM movement did not engage in violence or destructive activity, 42% of respondents in a recent Morning Consult poll believe that most BLM protesters are trying to incite violence or destroy property (The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, 2020). One possible mechanism for this discrepancy could be securitization, which further points to the relevance of exploring such trends.
Earlier research on the securitization of public protests and minority groups has demonstrated that identifying such phenomena and groups as security threats has enabled the state to disrupt and restrict the rights of these groups. For example, labeling them as a threat to national security
and/or identity (Taylor Saito, 2019), or securitizing critical infrastructure in order to withhold a group from their rights, for example securitizing oil assets to deprive indigenous groups of land rights (Plotnikoff, 2020). Securitization of BLM has earlier been applied mostly to Washington politics or analyzed through media framing (Leclercq, 2019). This thesis therefore aims to examine how BLM protests have been framed by state-level politicians: eight Mayors and Governors in six different states in the context of the spring 2020 protests. Furthermore, recent developments in securitization theory present humanitarianism as a new ground that may rival other grounds for security in legitimizing emergency measures (Watson, 2011). This thesis therefore seeks firstly to identify how the protests are framed, secondly if securitization occurs and thirdly to differentiate between three different grounds for securitization: state, societal and humanitarian. Elected state-level politicians face multiple and potentially contradictory concerns at once. These politicians are responsible for ensuring overall security in their states and cities, whilst also obligated to listen to their electorate which positions them in an intersection. It is therefore of interest to map out which strategies are used to balance protests rights with public safety.
1.1 Aim and Research Questions
The overarching aim of this study is to understand how state actions to counter public protests are legitimized, through a case study of US state level politics framing of the BLM protests. By employing securitization as a possible mechanism for such legitimization, the study aims to explore how three different types of security are balanced against other grounds for justification by elected politicians. The research questions are as follows:
How are Black Lives Matter protests framed in recent US state level politics statements?
To what extent does securitization occur in these frames?
Is state, societal or humanitarian security most prominent in these frames?
This paper will utilize framing analysis to examine press statements, interviews and documents from eight Mayors and Governors in six of the states where the protests have been most
prominent. The overarching contributions of this study are of both empirical and theoretical
nature. The empirical aspiration of this thesis is to examine official political perceptions of problems, causes and solutions in the case of the BLM protests. The study is further motivated by the fact that to the best of the author’s understanding, these empirics have not previously been studied. The theoretical aim of this thesis is twofold. The first aspiration is to explore recent developments in securitization theory that present humanitarianism as a subfield, by weighing human life and dignity as a possible reference object when interpreting the material. The second aspiration is to supplement earlier research on the topic. The securitization framing of protest movements and minority groups in general and of BLM in particular has focused on media framing. By studying politicians, this thesis aims to address this horizontal research gap.
Furthermore, focus has been directed toward federal politics. By studying the local level, this thesis aims to address this vertical research gap. As security threats constitute grounds for
justifying extraordinary actions outside the normal bounds of political procedure, such as secrecy and violations of civil and political rights, it is of utmost importance to understand the grounds for legitimizing such measures.
1.2 Disposition
The first section of this thesis will introduce a theoretical framework on securitization, including conceptualizations of the three grounds for security. The second section will present previous research on the securitization of BLM, public protests and minority groups as well as theoretical grounds for understanding protests as either illegitimate or rightful. The third section will put forward a brief background to contextualize the treated issue. The fourth section will present the research design, an analytical framework presenting operational definitions, the sample and material. In the fifth section, the findings will be accounted for and discussed. Finally, the sixth section will conclude the thesis with finishing remarks and suggestions for further research on the topic.
2. Theoretical Framework
In this segment, a theoretical framework of securitization will be provided. The segment will be rounded off with a conceptualisation of the three grounds for securitization analysed in this thesis, and their highlighted reference objects.
2.1 Securitization Theory
Securitization has emerged as one of the most prominent new approaches to the study of security, and research in the field has grown substantially during the last decade. Coined by the
Copenhagen School in 1997, securitization theory takes a poststructural point of departure in relation to military and state-centered security studies (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 22). This means that security is not considered to exist objectively, but is instead constructed. This construction occurs through something being presented as a threat towards a reference object by a securitizing actor, who then adopts emergency measures stretching beyond what normal rules would allow (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 24). Security threats can arise from different sectors, for example economic, cultural, environmental, political or military threats (Watson, 2011, p. 5). Such defined threats challenge the survival of a highly valued reference object: for example a territorial state, an abstract principle or a physical object. An issue can therefore be placed on the security agenda after a leading securitizing actor successfully has performed a securitizing speech act. Political agents are thereby enabled to place the implementation of emergency measures, such as rapid military response, above normal political procedure by skipping ahead of for example debating implementation (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 23). The strategy of using a vague threat definition to justify broad law enforcement action can be considered an example of justifying extraordinary means, with securitization functioning as a mechanism (Taylor Saito, 2019).
Securitization fundamentally consists of speech acts (Skidmore, 1999, p. 1010). According to the Copenhagen School, a successful securitization consists of a linguistic dimension as well as an external, contextual and social dimension. (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 32). A state of security implies the stabilization of conflictual or threatening relations. Whilst security in general is preferred over insecurity, the securitization of such relations does not necessarily result in the upheaval of the initial conflict. Therefore, it may sometimes be preferable to desecuritize matters by shifting issues from emergency status back to normal political deliberation (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 4). As illustrated by Figure 1, securitization can be understood as a process marked by the
establishment of an existential threat with enough saliency to generate political effect. Therefore, it is instrumental who can “do” or “speak” security successfully, about what, under what
conditions, and with what effects (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 25). In summary, securitization theory
aims to explain the politics through which the security character of public problems is established (Balzacq et al., 2016, p. 494).
Figure 1: Securitization theory as a process, as illustrated by the author
2.2 Three Grounds for Security
Firstly, societal security is concerned with large scale collective identities that function independently of the state. Such identities function as the valued reference object. Buzan et al (1998) state that collective identities transform and evolve as a response to both internal and external developments. Challenges to self-concepted community identities may be constructed as a threat, as such changes can call into question the values that bind together a certain community.
Secondly, state security concerns existential threats to the concept of sovereignty. Anything that questions the organizational stability or recognition of a state as well as the ideologies that give governments and states their legitimacy may be understood as a threat to state security (Buzan et al., 1998). Compared to societal security, state society is built on notions of fixed territory and formal membership in the form of citizenship. Thirdly, the novel proposal of humanitarian security is distinguished by lifting human life above the interests of both states and or societies.
A range of developments can be considered existentially threatening enough to justify employing emergency action in the name of protecting human life and dignity: armed conflict, disease,
poverty and large-scale human rights violations are some examples. Watson argues that
humanitarianism should be reconceptualized as a sector of securitization, in order to extend the applicability of securitization beyond states and societies (Watson, 2011, p. 3). Table 1 illustrates the main dividing lines between the three grounds of security. While state and societal security may in some cases also concern human life, they do so by prioritizing the security of the state and or society as the means for protecting human life and dignity (Watson, 2011, p. 5).
Security domain Main valued reference object
State security Sovereignty
Societal security Identity
Humanitarian security Human life and dignity
Table 1: Security domains according to reference object
3. Previous Research and Background
In this segment, previous research on the securitization of BLM on the federal level and in the media as well as of other public protests and minority groups will be presented. A brief literature overview on protest movements will be laid out, presenting the span of official perception ranging from illegitimate and threatening to legitimate and rights-oriented. This will be followed by a short presentation of the background of the BLM movement, its commonly employed tactics and the federal response including allusions to securitization.
3.1 Securitization of BLM, other Minority Groups and Public Protests
Earlier research on securitization framing of BLM has focused overwhelmingly on media framing. Banks demonstrates that BLM’s own goals are ignored or questioned by the news media, for example that non-violent protests are reported about as riots. The rhetorical strategies of news media results in the delegitimization of the problems concerning racial killings that the Black Lives Matter group protests (Banks, 2018, p. 709). Lecqlerq has studied the effects of framing in conservative news reporting, and concludes that BLM is framed as a threat to
American society by conservative media in two ways. Firstly as a threat to national security, and
secondly as a threat to white American identity (Leclercq, 2019, p. 39) which ties on to both state and societal security.
Furthermore, attention has been directed towards securitization of BLM on the federal level. A report from the FBI counterterrorism division leaked in 2017 identified “Black Identity
Extremists” as an emerging threat to law enforcement officials in particular, and the US as a nation in general (Patel, 2021) also implying notions of both state and societal security.
Considering a historical perspective, the denomination B.I.E. has been pointed out by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to be reminiscent of Hoover’s FBI Cointelpro program of the 1960s and 70s, which investigated and intimidated black civil rights groups and leaders (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2018, p. 76). Methods involved extensive spying to identify and disrupt black civil rights groups, but also other
movements such as socialists and environmental rights activists (Deukmedjian, 2013, p. 64). The securitization of Black people in the US extends beyond political activists and social movements.
Public gatherings of African American youth in the streets of Philadelphia's commercial districts have been categorized as threats to public order by Philadelphia news media and city officials (Massaro & Mullaney, 2011). The city has furthermore mobilized extraordinary measures to punish alleged participants, despite a lack of evidence of violence or criminal conduct (Massaro
& Mullaney, 2011, p. 592). Massaro & Mullaney thereby shed light on how city officials among others constructed a collective figure of these grouping as perpetrators of urban terrorism, and the subject of state intervention.
Looking towards the securitization of other rights-based movements in the US, law enforcement agencies have earlier targeted indigenous peoples, especially in relation to those protesting environmental damage caused by extractive industries. Indigenous activists claiming treaty rights have been labeled as extremists who attempt to exploit situations for their own ideological
purposes by the DHS (May 2017 Field Analysis Report, n.d.). Plotnikoff has held that the securitization of critical infrastructure in Canada and the United States such as oil assets has enabled the use of security measures against environmental and indigenous activists (Plotnikoff,
2020, p. 17). This goes to show that nuances of securitization can be detected on the national level.
Hussain and Bagguley have introduced the concept of securitized citizens (Hussain & Bagguley, 2012). They claim that whilst it is common to view securitization as a process that applies to social or political problems, so that civil liberties are sacrificed without the normal procedures of political debate, British Muslims who are UK citizens instigate a particular dynamic in the securitization process that has called into question their relationship to Britain and Britishness (Hussain & Bagguley, 2012, p. 718). Furthermore, they posit that “whiteness” is becoming increasingly visible as an ethnic identity, in particular in areas that have experienced ethnic conflict (Hewwit, 2006). Hussain and Bagguley conclude that the sense of British-white identity became embattled as a consequence of the 7/7 London bombings, as it became perceived to be under “threat from Islam” (Hussain & Bagguley, 2012, p. 721), tying on to notions of societal security.
3.2 Perceptions of Protests as Illegitimate or Threatening
Street protests as a means of political participation is one of the most known forms of non-electoral political activity, yet is often denoted as anti-establishment and as a political strategy of the disempowered. Affected groups taking part in protests that are identified as
‘security threats’ may be discriminated against, marginalized and stereotyped (Williamson et al., 2018, p. 402). Edwards and Arnon hold that repression of protests is a common response that involves cracking down on protesters (Edwards & Arnon, 2021, p. 489). They furthermore investigate the triple nexus between protests, repression and public opinion. They state that nonviolent resistance can win public support for a movement, but that regimes may counter by framing a protest as violent and instigated by outsiders (Edwards & Arnon, 2021, p. 490). They highlight that political elites may frame contentious events involving many tactics and types of participants by emphasizing a specific subset of the actions or participants, for example most or least violent tactics or sympathetic participants according to self-interest (Edwards & Arnon, 2021, p. 490).
3.3 Perceptions of Protests as Legitimate and Rights-Based
In contrast to protests being perceived as threatening or illegitimate, they may also be perceived to embody a variety of fundamental democratic rights. The civil and political rights of American citizens are codified in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment encompasses freedom of speech and assembly (First Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Its central values could be highlighted as an expression of protests as legitimate. Civil rights in the U.S. hold a cultural connotation, as it refers not only to a body of rights but also to a social movement fighting to achieve equal rights for Black Americans. The IACHR has held that in democracies, state authorities should act according to the assumption that public
demonstrations or protests are not a threat to public order. Instead, the approach should be guided by promoting high levels of citizen participation and lifting streets up as a privileged arena for the freedom of expression (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2018, p. 124). Whilst the U.S. is not bound by these statements per se, such norms express the importance of civil and political rights related to protests.
3.4 The Case of BLM
BLM was founded in 2013 with a social media hashtag, #BlackLivesMatter, after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 (Black Lives Matter Definition, Goals, History, & Influence | Britannica, n.d.). Following the death of George Floyd, an estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 BLM protests in the US making it one of the largest movements in the country's history (Harvard Kennedy School Carr, Center for Human Rights Policy, 2020). BLM has spearheaded demonstrations around the world protesting police brutality and systematic racism that disproportionately affects black people.
According to their own mission statements, the movement aims to build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities (Capatosto, 2018). As a movement, BLM is
characterized by a decentralized structure and local organizing over national leadership (Clayton, 2018, p. 449).
3.4.1 Contested Tactics: Peaceful or Violent?
The movement typically utilizes hashtag activism (Fletcher, 2015) and physical protests (Goldberg, 2020). Chenoweth has concluded that BLM protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and that in cases where violence has occured, this has been mainly due to police, counter-protesters or “agents provocateurs” functioning as infiltrators (Chenoweth, 2020). One of BLM’s founders has commented that local chapters of BLM are asked to commit to certain guiding principles such as nonviolence, but that there are no structures for policing who is or is not part of the movement (Fletcher, 2015). The DHS has stated that there were “a hundred days of violence and destruction” in cities across the country during the summer of 2020 in response to the police killing of Floyd (Chenoweth, 2020). This perception was later found to be incorrect (Udoma, 2020). Concerning the cases of protests that have resulted in violence, several BLM chapters have condemned this violence (Polk, 2020). In sum, visibly split opinions and expressions regarding the nature of the protests are evident in the discourse.
3.4.2 The Federal Response to the Protests
Actions taken by the federal government allude to potential securitization, which serves as the context of this study. In May 2020, some 43,350 National Guard were deployed against BLM protests nationally in addition to regular law enforcement responding to the protest (Glaser, 2021). By the end of May 2020, the DHS had activated PACT, which is a special task force to protect American monuments, memorials, and statues (DHS Announces New Task Force to Protect American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues, 2020). Securitization processes may furthermore trigger any civil disobedience factions in BLM, which may also be a risk expressed by politicians. For example, the deployment of PACT forces in Portland in July 2020 marked an increase in demonstrations associated with BLM where use of force by the state was reported, thus re-escalating tensions (The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, 2020).
Employing riot gear including military-grade weapons against protestors engaged in peaceful assembly has furthermore been considered by the IACHR to cause escalation of violence (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2018, p. 75).
4. Research Design
In this section, a detailed methodology is presented followed by an analytical framework for interpretative analysis. The key concept of frames will be introduced and conceptualized in relation to securitization and the research questions. Finally, the last sections will deal with the sample and material selected for this study.
4.1 Choice of Methodology
This thesis is a systematic cross-sectional study that examines press statements, speeches, official documents and comments about the protests expressed by eight Mayors and Governors in six selected states. To identify and interpret existing frames, a qualitative frame analysis will be conducted as an inductive attempt to link frames with cultural concepts. The theoretical
framework presented in the previous section offers grounds that will guide the analysis; however, the inductive approach used will allow for new findings. Studies utilizing a qualitative method have an overarching aim to understand the meaning and processes behind actions, in order to gain deeper knowledge of an issue (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 211). The meaning of different phenomena is therefore assumed to be constructed in a certain social context, rather than given.
This study takes its point of departure in understanding how the treated issue is framed by asking questions of “how” rather than “how many” when analysing the material, in order to capture depth and nuance. A quantitative method would perhaps have been better suited if the aim of the study had been to identify changes in public perception or support of the protest movement due to a particular frame alignment process. Framing has been chosen as the main method of analysis as the aim of this study is to identify understandings of problems, causes and solutions of the treated issue. Furthermore, securitization theory centers around speech acts, whereupon it is relevant to study the meanings of potentially securitizing statements by employing framing methodology. Framing was originally coined by Entman in 1993:
“To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described”
(Entman, 1993, p. 52)
Frames define problems, according to which sort of problem the issue framed is as, and for whom it represents a problem. For example how the BLM protests are problematized, who they disturb and in what way. Causes are diagnosed by identifying the forces creating the problem, for example if single dissidents or the entire movement is securitized. Moral judgements are identified consisting of evaluating causal agents and their effects, for example deeming the BLM movement as righteous or not. Finally, remedies are suggested, offering and justifying
treatments for the problems and predicting their likely effects. In relation to this thesis, for example declaring a state of emergency and authorising the National Guard, or protecting the community in different ways.
The formulation of precise analytical questions can differ depending on the theoretical basis of the study, but must be systematically asked to all the texts that are objects of analysis (Esaiasson et al., 2017, pp. 218–219). This type of analysis is referred to as a classifying investigation and is often used to clarify ideas behind text by assorting complex content in more distinct
compartments. This type of analysis intends to identify what underlying fundamental ideas, representations or values are dominant in a certain context and in what ways frames adapt depending on in what context it is presented (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 213). Securitization as a form of framing has received an increased amount of focus in recent research, and there is an ongoing discussion in the field concerning the integration between framing methodology and securitization studies. Watson has put forward that securitization should be viewed as a subfield of framing, and that these two fields are based on overlapping theoretical and normative claims.
In conclusion, it is argued that security can operate as a distinct master frame in a similar way to rights and injustice (S. D. Watson, 2012, p. 279).
4.2 Analytical Framework
Securitization is in this section conceptualised according to the central tenets of framing analysis.
The operationalization is defined according to the analysis scheme below. The same questions and analysis scheme are later used to interpret the sample. Notions, signs and expressions of securitization are best understood in relation to the inductively derived frames if they are conceptualized according to the same framework, which serves as the logic of this
operationalization. Thereby, Table 2 provides clear benchmarks for interpretation of the material sample. The analysis will be conducted by systematically asking the four main questions below to the material in the sample. Firstly in order to inductively identify frames and answer towards the first research question of the study. Secondly, in relation to the operationalization in order to distinguish features of securitization to answer towards the second research question of the study.
Thirdly, the analysis will answer toward the third research question by identifying the reference objects present in any securitization framing tendencies, categorizing these according to Table 1.
Defined problem Which sort of problem is the issue framed as, and for whom does it represent a problem?
Diagnosed cause What forces are creating the problem?
Moral judgement How is the problem and cause evaluated?
Suggested remedy What treatments are suggested, and which effects are predicted?
Operational definition of securitization
Expressions such as:
protect lives,
populations in danger, save lives, disruption of order or destruction, chaos
Focusing on the threat of harm
Causing
inconveniences for area residents
Emphasizing violent subset of actions of participants
Marginalization and stereotyping of protesters
Rejection of protest as a form of political participation
Affiliations with extremist groups
Ascribing
characteristics such as criminal, violent, threat to law and order rather than peaceful and organized
Labeled illegitimate
Introducing emergency measures with a sense of urgency, indicated by formulations such as: fast, emergency assistance, state of emergency
Actions beyond normal procedure
Table 2: Operationalization of securitization, according to the central tenets of framing analysis
4.3 Validity and Reliability
Validity refers to the correspondence between the theoretical definition of a concept and its operational indicator, where high validity implies a lack of systematic errors in the analysis. In order to achieve high validity, several parallel operational indicators are used in this analysis to effectively encompass different expressions of securitization. This implies the use of criteria validity. Congruence between these different aspects of securitization lead to the conclusion that the operational tools in Table 2 generate high validity in the measurement of securitization in the sample (Esaiasson et al., 2017, p. 63).
Furthermore, Matthes and Kohring argue that qualitative content analysis may lack transparency which increases the risk for reliability concerns. For example, they argue that a researcher may only identify the frames that they expect to find which leads to a selection bias that skews results.
For example, presuming the prevalence of securitization frames in this study. If another researcher recreated the study, results may therefore vary (Matthes & Kohring, 2008, pp.
258–279). One way to handle such reliability concerns is to account for operationalizations and interpretations through examples from the material. Quotes from the material supporting the identification of frames are found in the analysis, and a clarification of defined problems, causes, judgements and remedies can be found in the appendix. Furthermore, it is possible that the identification and categorization of frames in this study could be affected by looking at more or different statements. Attempts to counter this effect have therefore been made by triangulating sources and finding grounds for the identified frames in several different material sources.
Furthermore, Yanow has argued that it is not necessarily desirable to conduct a policy analysis entirely free from values. Gaining a situated understanding of an issue can instead be seen as a resource, as it enables the interpretative policy analyst to act both as a translator and mediator of the material, making sense of the issue from different angles. The results of the interpretative framework are accounted for in a manner that aims to convince the reader of their accuracy (Yanow, 2000, p. 91). If several researchers interpret the same material in different ways, this does not automatically imply that the material lacks an interpretable meaning that the researchers can agree on. It may simply reflect that the researchers have posed different questions to the
same material (Teorell & Svensson, 2007, p. 100). For example, formulating framing questions that are more precise than the broad ones employed in this study.
4.4 Sample and Material
As this study aims to understand how state actions to counter public protests can be legitimized, the sample consists of eight state level politicians. The sample has been selected on the basis of representing the states where the protests have been the most salient. Grievances have been found to predict protests activity, meaning that protests are more likely to occur in locations where more Black people have previously been killed by police (Williamson et al., 2018).
Therefore, politicians in the selected states embody the dilemma of balancing security with other values. The number of politicians selected serves to highlight a width of arguments in the debate, whilst at the same time limiting the material to an amount that can feasibly be studied in
sufficient detail. The aim of this study is not to conduct a comparative analysis between different politicians, but instead to study political statements as a phenomenon by lifting and categorizing arguments as part of different frames. In addition to being popularly elected in the states where the protests are the most salient, the politicians selected for the sample have all established a prominent role in the debate. This is the reason for which both Mayors and Governors have been studied in a couple of the states. As securitization relies on speech acts, an active position in the debate is a prerequisite for being able to securitize. The sample presented in Table 3 therefore represents a case study of how politicians deal with handling acute and escalating protests, highlighting the most salient cases of how politicians balance addressing the demands of the protesters whilst attempting to promote public safety.
The roles of Mayors and Governors differ in mandate, where a key distinction that is relevant to the aim of this study is that Mayors are in charge of the local law enforcement whilst governors hold legislative power. In Republican majority states, Mayors of larger cities may still tend to be of Democratic party affiliation due to the demographics of the urban electorate. Therefore, the sample selection is skewed toward Democrat politicians. However, this thesis does not aim to examine differences between the two parties in the same way that it does not aim to examine differences between specific politicians. The party affiliation selection bias is hence not
problematic in relation to the research questions. With that said, BLM enjoys larger support from Democrat than Republican politicians. This could perhaps mean that state-level Democrat
politicians experience themselves to be more inclined to listen to the protesters whilst
Republican politicians face stronger demands to hard-line the protests. This could potentially have consequences for the generalization of the results.
Name Role City State Party
Melvin Carter Mayor Saint Paul Minnesota D
Bill de Blasio Mayor New York City New York D
Tony Evers Governor N/A Wisconsin D
Lori Lightfoot Mayor Chicago Illinois D
Kate Brown Governor N/A Oregon D
Ted Wheeler Mayor Portland Oregon D
Brian Kemp Governor N/A Georgia R
Keisha Lance Bottoms Mayor Atlanta Georgia D
Table 3: Sample for study
Material
The material subject to analysis consists of press statements, speeches, official documents, policy outlooks and comments about the protests that can be considered representative for the Mayors and Governors in the selected sample. The analyzed material in total consists of: 12 written interviews and news articles amounting to approximately 24,000 words, 11 press conferences and video interviews amounting to around 50 minutes, 3 radio broadcasts amounting to around 15 minutes and 2 official letters to the president. This range of material is distributed relatively evenly over the sample, with some persons being prominent in a slightly larger share of the material. Sources include but are not limited to The New Yorker, PBS NewsHour, The Guardian News, NBC New York, Wisconsin Public Radio, BBC, State of Wisconsin Office of the
Governor, The Oregonian, NPR, Bloomberg QuickTake, Time, Al-Jazeera and USA Today. A complete list of all analysed material can be found in the Appendix.
5. Findings and Discussion
5.1 Findings
A total of four frames have been identified through inductive interpretation of the material: the alienated outsider frame, the constructive rage frame, the limited guardian frame, and the desecuritizing frame. The most dominant frame seems to be the alienated outsider frame, prominent in several politicians’ rhetorics and imprinting most of their key arguments. A possible reason for this is that the fundamental logic of this frame is adaptable, as it relies on shifting the blame to a force that does not necessarily have to be specifically defined. Therefore, it is a strategy that can be used in many different contexts. In the following sections, the findings of the frame analysis will be presented in detail and discussed based on their formulated
problem, cause, moral judgment, and remedies including precise placement of textual evidence.
A comprehensive matrix accounting for the categorization of the four frames along their framing functions can be found in the Appendix.
5.1.1 The Alienated Outsider Frame
This frame is characterized by securitizing a particular faction of the protests, namely those responsible for violence or who attempt to incite it. The problem is represented to be violence such as breaking windows or starting fires, which represents a problem for the whole of society.
The problem cause is implied to be external agitators, that have contaminated a just cause which otherwise deserves compassion. Moral judgments are made by distancing persons causing violence as far as possible from the mass of protestors, who are portrayed as morally defensible.
Alienation as a form of moral judgement exhibits dual functions: firstly labeling instigators as unknown to the community, therefore unrecognized and unwelcome, which also relates to the cause of the problem. Secondly, condemning them to the outside and freezing them out of the community, which serves as a partial remedy.
“The folks who've been on the front lines of the Black Lives movement, not only do they not know the folks who are right there inciting violence, but they're seeing people jump out of those crowds to break a window and then go run back right back in and behind those crowds. It's very concerning for me.” - Melvin Carter (Face the Nation et al., n.d.)
“We have those moved out into the streets by a genuine and insatiable desire for justice. And then we have people setting out into the streets with the goal of breaking a window or starting a fire and creating trauma in our community, which only further traumatizes the same communities that have already been traumatized over and over and over and over. No matter where you sleep, if you are willing to burn down and threaten our local businesses and libraries and churches, then you are an outsider to me.” - Melvin Carter (Chotiner, 2020)
For example, Carter (MN) falsely claimed that every person arrested at protests in St. Paul had come from out of state, which he later retracted. However, making use of logical shortcuts and jumping to assumptions can imply underlying tendencies. By separating the illegitimate few from the legitimate many, Carter (MN) argues that these incidents are disruptions in an otherwise righteous pursuit of justice. The cause of the problem must simply originate from outside the known realm of the electorate, and thereby single dissidents are portrayed as responsible for the threat and problem. The suggested remedy lies in sentencing these people to exclusion from the community. Not only are they singled out, they are ascribed characteristics such as disgusting or destructive. This is an effective method for expressing support for public opinion, by
empowering the mass of protesters whilst at the same time shifting blame to an external and unknown force. In this way, domestic opinion is handled. These alienating mechanisms do however not allow for understanding of the dissidents’ motivations. Securitization occurs for example through emphasizing violent subset of actions of participants and labeling those responsible for destruction and chaos as illegitimate. The suggested remedies also display
securitizing elements, for example curfews in order to lay bare the division between peaceful and disruptive protesters:
“The focus for us has been on our curfew to make sure that we're able to separate the folks who are here specifically to start trouble from those who need to be heard.” - Melvin Carter (Face the Nation et al., n.d.)
Deploying extra National Guard is also emphasized as a solution. By disrupting the disruptors, the predicted effect is that general public safety can be achieved. Attributing the success of
keeping the peace to law enforcement suggests that without such extra measures, peace would not be guaranteed. The fact that only certain factions of the protests are securitized in this frame can be understood in relation to BLM lacking a centralized nationalized leadership, which facilitates a divisive political response. The frame contains clear securitization problem formulations such as the need for protection of lives, threat of harm and a sense of urgency to act.
“Peaceful protests were hijacked by criminals with a dangerous, destructive agenda. Now, innocent Georgians are being targeted, shot, and left for dead,” the Republican governor said.
“This lawlessness must be stopped and order restored in our capital city.” - Brian Kemp (Georgia Governor Declares Emergency after Weekend of Violence, n.d.)
“The core of what happened — that’s organized criminal activity… It was a planned attack.”
- Lori Lightfoot (Hennigan, 2020)
The referent object that is constructed to be in need of protection is for example “innocent Georgians” referring both to peaceful protesters and uninvolved residents. Human lives are expressed to be at stake here, in particular innocent ones. This adds a dimension of judgement, implying a moral conviction of the guiltiness of other lives. Furthermore, reference objects include “the lives, livelihood and property of citizens” -Brian Kemp (WJBF, 2020) which ties on to both societal and humanitarian security.
5.1.2 The Constructive Rage Frame
This frame is characterized by portraying rage as real, understandable and legitimate until it comes out in a destructive manner, whereupon it is defined as a problem. Rage is metaphorically portrayed as a fire, which implies a moral judgement where rage is constructed as an engine for change. Whilst this rage needs to be reigned in, it simultaneously needs to be kept alive and burning; both on the streets and in policy. This rage is even translated as “energy” in certain statements, which carries more positive cultural connotations than rage.
“It's a fire that could destroy us, but could bring us together in a way that we've never been together. Use it not to destroy our neighborhoods, but to- to tear down those laws, to tear down those legal precedents, to tear down those police union contracts that make it so difficult to hold officers accountable.” - Melvin Carter (Face the Nation et al., n.d.)
“But we're not asking people for patience. We're not asking people for pacifism. My hope is that everyone who is outraged will channel that energy not into destroying our neighborhoods and further traumatizing the same communities that have been traumatized so many times over and over and over again.” - Melvin Carter (PBS NewsHour, 2020)
The securitizing dimension of this frame is that the National Guard can then be called in to help officers protect protesters’ rights whilst promoting public safety. There is a detectable notion of being on the protesters’ side, that is supported by appealing directly to the electorate. This is demonstrated for example by lifting their rage up as an asset full of potential and worthy of political conversation, rather than a problem. Balancing protest rights with public safety is thereby conducted by recognizing and accepting collective rage, and applying this understanding to clamp down on those who do not individually handle their own rage constructively.
“This is a difficult moment in our history. I know Chicagoans are frustrated and impatient for change. It is my sincere hope that we can strike the right balance to ensure people can rightfully express themselves and their First Amendment rights, but to do so in a way that does not put anyone’s physical safety at risk. That would be consistent with the long history of peaceful protest in our city.” - Lori Lightfoot (NBC Chicago, 2020)
“Our National Guard has been very helpful for us, honestly. We have asked them to come in and help us secure strategic locations and government buildings and spaces like that.”- Melvin Carter (Chotiner, 2020)
“We are one of the only law-enforcement agencies that I am aware of that has asked community members to weigh in on what our use-of-force policies that govern our police officers should be.
And we have expanded our civilian oversight of the department.” - Melvin Carter (Chotiner, 2020)
A key dimension of securitization is to construct an issue as salient and raise it above normal political procedure. In this frame, the movement as a whole is lifted up above standard political deliberation in a different and more positive way than in the other frames. For example, by granting BLM visibility in the public sphere both by permitting BLM murals on 5th Avenue in New York (whilst refusing similar requests from the opposing Blue Lives Matter group) and allowing exceptional demonstrations despite the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Such actions are described by responsible politicians as liberating, which suggests an underlying assumption of moral incarceration that needs to be remedied. The movement is in its entirety met with
extraordinary treatment in the positive sense, which effectively illustrates the moral judgement of empowering protesters as a group as long as they are peaceful. Securitization exhibits dual functions in this frame: securitizing violent dissidents in the negative sense, and the movement in its entirety in the positive sense due to their legitimate pursuit and rage.
“The movement transcends any notion of politics, and I don’t believe Black Lives Matter is a political message in the traditional sense” -Bill de Blasio (Marsh et al., 2020)
“When we say Black Lives Matter, there is no more American statement, there is no more patriotic statement, because there is no America without Black America. The people causing violence do not represent the values of New York City” -Bill de Blasio (Guardian News, 2020)
“Enough is enough. If you want people to take us seriously and you don’t want us to lose this movement, we can’t lose each other. What I see happening on the streets of Atlanta is not Atlanta.
This is not a protest, this is not in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr, this is chaos. You’re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr and the civil rights movement, you’re not protesting anything running around with brown liquor in your hands breaking windows in this city. When you burn down this city, you’re burning down our community. If you want change in America, go and register to vote.” - Keisha Lance Bottoms (USA TODAY, 2020)
Typical features for societal security is the establishment of common values and a cohesive identity: “we”. The American identity at large is presented as the reference object in this frame.
What is noteworthy is that societal security is made present in a novel way. Conservative news securitization of BLM constructs BLM as threatening to the orderly, civilised and righteous construction of “White America” (Leclercq, 2019).This frame instead applies an understanding of societal security with the assumption that the American identity must necessarily include Black America. This unifying identity is threatened by divisive dissidents, who threaten both the cohesive “we” who advocate for change but also the prerequisites for achieving political change.
Cultural connotations to the Civil Rights Movement are prevalent, used to communicate a common foundation of values on which the identity at stake is built on.When legitimate rage is not curbed, extraordinary means are legitimized in order to safeguard this identity. States of emergency are declared and the National Guard is deployed in order to protect the real and righteous essence of the movement from being tarnished and tinged with guilt. Those who use this frame express sympathy for the people who cause the problem of violence, but not for the acts of violence in themselves. This serves as the main line of divide compared to the alienated
outsider frame, which typically does not seek to understand the motives of the alienated instigators causing violence.
5.1.3 The Limited Guardian Frame
Firstly, this frame is characterized by consequently justifying emergency measures from a temporary point of view. Implementation of extraordinary measures is enabled by immediately promising their upheaval, and support for such actions is thereby sought after. Whilst certain notions of securitization are evident, they are present to a slightly lower extent than in the two first frames. The finite temporal limit entails ascribing boundaries to emergency measures, thus positioning them in an arena of regular political procedure rather than declaring a whole new reality or political landscape altogether. In contrast to the vague or limitless “chaos” which is emphasized to a greater extent in the first two frames, the limited component of this frame exhibits both temporal limits and scope restrictions of emergency measures:
“In the interview with WPR, Evers said he mobilized the troops at the request of local
governments under certain provisions, and one of them was to make sure that their role is to allow First Amendment rights to be available to people like they should be." (Mentzer, 2020)
“This is a limited mobilization of the National Guard focused on supporting the needs of local first responders to protect critical infrastructure, such as utilities and fire stations, and to ensure Kenoshans are able to assemble safely.” (Office of the Governor, State of Wisconsin, 2020)
Secondly, the guardian component refers to protection of constitutional rights and free speech.
The problem is thereby partially defined to concern free speech infringements, and less focus is directed in this frame towards identifying and blaming the forces responsible for the problem.
The problem definition also concerns violence in general, from both below (violent protesters) and above (aggressive federal troops). Amendment rights are frequently mentioned in such arguments, and key infrastructure is positioned as the reference object that is in need of safekeeping. This implies that democratic ideals, processes and values are deserving of protection. As such, displaying traces of state security: the organizational stability and
democractic ideology of the state level government is portrayed to be under threat. Prerequisites for state security are notions of fixed territory (here key infrastructure) and formal membership (here citizenship). Critical infrastructure fills functions beyond merely performing societal
operations, as the State Capitol or public utilities for example can be understood as
psychologically important buildings with several value connotations. They can be seen as an expression of state security, as they hold functions for sovereign decision making and
organizational stability.
Whilst securitizing infrastructure can be a sign of state security, an alternate understanding of this case is linked to the cultural concept of Black political participation. Limiting access to political institutions such as the State Capitol is especially sensitive for Black people as they have not always been granted the formal membership of citizenship to begin with. The securitization present in this frame therefore also ties on to societal security, and the common identity of Black Americans in the state. The intrinsic goal of the suggested remedy is to safeguard constitutional rights, rather than expressly guarantee public safety. The goal of protecting critical infrastructure and cultural institutions is to improve the preconditions for exercising Amendment rights.
5.1.4 The Desecuritizing Frame
This frame is characterized by defining the escalation of violence as the main problem, rather than violence in itself. Whilst this is reminiscent of the problem definition and cause identified in the limited guardian frame, the moral judgement and suggested remedies differ. Desecuritization implies the returning of issues from emergency politics to an arena of standard political
procedure. Such mechanisms are evident as a general trend on the state level, made visible by critique against the federal government exceeding its mandate:
“This (the extraordinary use of federal force) is an attack on our democracy” - Ted Wheeler (Olmos, 2020)
“For weeks, federal agents have occupied downtown Portland. They have refused
accountability, and brought violence and strife to our community.”- Kate Brown (KGW News, 2020)
“This is not a moment to double down and unnecessarily increase police presence, especially without invitation. As we have seen in Portland, this excessive and unwelcome federal law enforcement presence only makes these situations more volatile and dangerous. Our local
National Guard, will continue to respond to these instances as necessary, respecting the right of Wisconsinites to peacefully protest while maintaining public safety” - Tony Evers (White, 2020) Certain notions of securitization can be detected, albeit in a manner that differs from the three previous frames. In addition to the escalating violence problem definition, state security is constructed to be under threat in the sense that the states’ sovereignty and democratic mandate is not respected by Washington politics. The suggested remedy to counter this is however not to securitize this infringement, but to desecuritize it by bringing decision making back to the local level where is belongs according to standard procedure:
“We know what's needed is de-escalation and dialogue. That's how we solve problems here in the state of Oregon.” - Kate Brown (NPR Oregon, 2020)
“Let me be clear: we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. We cannot have federal troops roaming city streets across the country or abducting people into unmarked vans. Starting tomorrow, when the federal troops leave downtown, the local Oregon officers of the Oregon state police will be on hand to protect free speech and keep the peace. This is a really important shift” - Kate Brown (KGW News, 2020)
The moral judgement in this frame includes criticizing the lack of accountability in the federal emergency threat-urgency narrative. This does not necessarily mean that support is not expressed for the acute nature of problems brought up by the protests, but instead that the suggested
remedy must concern legislation and policies according to normal due political process. The value of correct procedure is deemed more important than achieving swift change, even if sympathy is expressed for those who disagree and prefer the opposite trade-off. The suggested remedy consists of advocating for correct political procedure, and the effects predicted from this solution are de-escalation of violence, creating preconditions for healing.
“The departure of federal forces gives us an opportunity to reset and come together as a community” - Kate Brown (KGW News, 2020)
“I know that slow and steady progress toward justice doesn’t feel fast enough. It isn’t. These accomplishments are just a start, but it’s progress in a relatively short period of time. I, and other elected leaders, need to continue to be held accountable for reducing the health and economic disparities in our state and in our society” - Kate Brown (KGW News, 2020)
“We need to bring racial equity to the forefront of our laws and policies” - Kate Brown (KGW News, 2020)
This is compatible with the limited guardian frame in the sense that emergency measures that are justified on temporary and rights-based grounds may be expressed to be necessary in order to lay the groundwork for a type of comprehensive peacebuilding. This means that states of emergency, the National Guard and curfews can be partially motivated in order to create preconditions for bringing about normal politics. Public security is therefore framed in terms of a long-term systemic perspective, where lasting peace cannot be achieved solely by deploying emergency measures or ensuring Amendment rights. The key distinction as opposed to the limited guardian frame is that the predicted effects are legislative and policy change rather than the consolidation of preexisting constitutional rights.
5.2 Discussion
The first research question of this thesis regards how BLM protests are framed in recent US state level politics statements. Derived from the collected material, four different frames were
identified. The most prominent frame seems to be the alienated outsider frame, as its characteristic divisive blaming function permeated the language and rhetoric of several politicians in the sample. By placing emphasis on external instigators hijacking an otherwise righteous struggle, balancing sensitivity to the movement’s demands and showing willingness to take responsibility for public safety is achieved through two simultaneous functions. Firstly, securitizing public space in entire cities by enforcing curfews and therefore displaying power of action. Secondly, expressing solidarity with the movement as the primary motivation for such actions.
It seems that there are different sets of frames employed by the politicians in the sample. These variations may point to the fact that some frames are more compatible than others, and that some do not work together at all. A common combination seems to be the alienated outsider frame and the constructive rage frame. Whilst empowering the protestors by deeming their cause to be well founded, active attempts are made to freeze out anyone who diverts too obviously and physically from legitimate rage. These two frames are compatible in the sense that switching between the
two allows an inclusive tone when favorable, and an excluding one when austerity is required.
They largely share problem definition and suggested remedy, but differ in diagnosed cause and moral judgement. Furthermore, the limited guardian frame and desecuritizing frame are
frequently paired. These two frames share certain overlapping functions by placing a larger emphasis on democratic rights and procedure, albeit to different degrees. In a more rare pairing, the desecuritizing frame and alienated outsider frame were combined to construct federal troops as outsiders, by declaring that they have no place in local arenas even during crisis management.
The constructive rage frame and limited guardian frame are combined by certain politicians as an expression for lifting solidarity and support for the movement in general, whilst framing this in terms of constitutional values. In his operationalization of a frame, (Entman, 1993) states that a frame is manifested through a presence or absence of specific information. Everything even remotely related to the issue that is not included in policy could subsequently be deemed as a manifestation of a certain frame, which opens up to a lot of different interpretations. For
example, the limited guardian frame largely ignores clarifying a cause definition, and the absence of such information could thus be interpreted in several ways. Further, it should be said that the lines of division between these frames are not entirely mutually exclusive, which is made evident by the overlapping tendencies described above. However, they present four sufficiently differing understandings of the situation in the sense that they lead to different policy outlooks.
The second research question of this thesis regards to what extent securitization occurs in these frames. As illustrated in the analysis and clarified below in Table 4, securitization notions were prominent in the three first frames and partially in the fourth frame in reverse as desecuritization.
An overview of the state level politics framing shows that multiple general securitization tendencies are visible: a state of emergency was in some way declared in all cases, the states’
National Guards were deployed and the matter was repeatedly placed above politics both expressly and by implication, in both a positive and negative right. However, politicians on the local level often opposed federal securitization. By condemning federal orders to impose the federal National Guard and claiming that such top-down involvement is democratically
inappropriate, it is evident that many of the politicians in the sample direct criticism towards the federal government.
Frame Examples of securitization
The Alienated Outsider Frame Emphasizing violent subset of actions of participants Destruction and chaos, deeming this illegitimate
Emergency measures such as curfews and deploying the National Guard as an expression of urgency
Formulations such as protection of lives, threat of harm The Constructive Rage Frame Clamping down on those who do not control their rage
Raises the entire movement up above standard political procedure Emergency measures such as National Guard used as means to create and uphold public safety
The Limited Guardian Frame Key infrastructure under threat of harm
Formulations such as disruption of order, perceived to be a threat to fundamental rights
The Desecuritizing Frame Emphasizing escalating violence, which is portrayed as out of control
Existential threat to state level sovereign decision making
Table 4: Expressions of securitization found in analysis
The third research question regards whether state, societal or humanitarian security is the most prominent in the identified frames. As Table 5 illustrates below, all the three grounds for securitization were found to some extent, however to different degrees and in varying
combinations. Societal security was found to constitute the primary grounds of security for the alienated outsider and constructive rage frames, and as partial elements in the two others which makes it the most common ground seen both to frequency and intensity. Typical features for societal security is the establishment of common values and a cohesive identity, relating to large scale collective identities that transform and evolve over time. In the alienated outsider frame, violence is described as a threat to the livelihoods of persons as well as public and community safety and trust, which are all expressions of identity. In the constructive rage frame, societal security emerges as violence is described to threaten the cohesive identity of those advocating for
change. In the limited guardian frame, traces of societal security can be detected if interpreting the securitization of critical infrastructure in a cultural rather than power politics sense. Whilst societal security is not identified as the primary ground in the frame, it is an interpretation worthy of consideration. This is due to the previous research relating to the securitization of critical infrastructure that deprives indigenous groups of their cultural rights (Plotnikoff, 2020).
In the desecuritizing frame references to societal security can partly be detected in the predicted effects of the suggested remedy, namely community healing which implies a strive for collective identity.
State security was found to operate as the primary form of security in the limited guardian and desecuritizing frames. In the limited guardian frame, the reference objects that are constructed to be under threat are governing state functions and Amendment rights - as part of ideological values that lend legitimacy to such institutions. The desecuritizing frame further develops on this by asserting that the sovereign mandate of individual states must be safeguarded as a prerequisite for crisis management. Humanitarian security was only detected partially in the alienated
outsider frame (stating that the lives of citizens are under threat), which is somewhat of a surprise as the author was under the impression that the general media debate highlights casualties and human lives to a larger extent than what was found in this study.
Frame Types of security detected
The Alienated Outsider Frame Societal + humanitarian
The Constructive Rage Frame Societal
The Limited Guardian Frame State ( + partially societal) The Desecuritizing Frame State ( + partially societal)
Table 5: Types of security detected in analysis
One understanding of the prominence of societal security could be that collective identities may be especially susceptible to being perceived under threat in this context. Especially in
comparison to the organizational stability of the state or human lives and dignity, as these can be
