Evaluate epistemology first---fiat enables spectatorship where we abstract 8 minutes of the 1AC into an 8-second plan text.

Epistemology The function of an ideal type in epistemology comes in direct relation to its ontological aspects. Conceiving securitization as an ideal type reinforces the sociological attempt to explain the construction of threats by revealing the social actions and structures that underline them. Here, however, explanation cannot be put only in terms of a ‘deductive– nomological’ procedure. Rather, it requires an abstraction of characteristic features of a social phenomenon in order to ascertain whether these elements are instances of typical traits of the ideal type. In his sophisticated study of Weber’s theoretical proposals, Dieter Henrich notes, ‘ideal types are explanations – accomplished in the form of concept – of … events by reference to the circumstances which made their existence possible’.38 A theory of securitization of this sort brings out relevant factors or conditions, which tell scholars what brought about a phenomenon or why is that a securitizing move succeeded. In ‘The Meaning of “Theory”’, Gabriel Abend calls this ‘theory2’.39

Indeed, as the events or phenomena are social, it is worth emphasizing that their existence depends, to a great extent (but not exclusively), on the meaningful cause through which they are designed. The task of a sociological theory of securitization is not just to grasp what it means to say that a phenomenon is a threat, however; it wants to decipher the sequences of cause-and-effect in securitization (in the sense that the definition of a threat leads to similar consequences: the creation of deontic powers). So far as it goes, this enterprise would establish the investigation of social mechanisms at the center of its explanatory architecture.40 I assume that Wæver’s endorsement of social mechanisms makes our positions a bit closer. But Wæver argues that he does ‘not apply causal mechanisms to what brought securitization into being. Only to the effects of securitization’.41 But then, what is left of the idea of causal mechanisms, if we only examine effects, not the causal processes that produce a given outcome?42 Not that causal processes are the only forces that matter in securitization; instead, the problem lies with some lack of consistency. To agree that causal mechanisms are important conveys its own set of epistemological commitments. It is not à la carte type of preferences

Conclusion Drawing upon Weber’s ideal type, this essay has attempted to map – if in broad strokes – the features and content of a theory of securitization with a sociological complexion. Its main characteristics where discussed using three cases: the role of audience, the relationship between politics and security, and the status of responsibility in securitization processes. This was then steeped into a distinctive ontology and epistemology. Furthermore, I have argued that the evolution of securitization studies, and the provocative results generated by the available alternatives, demonstrate that the concept of securitization has given rise to a rich cluster of theories, each of which sets the center of gravity – that is, the component parts of the concept – into an original track. Put differently, theories of securitization intersect through the ideal typical construct, but diverge on the extent to which they conform to, accentuate, or downplay some elements of the ideal type. Moreover, they can (and often do) reveal distinctive features that are case-specific.

In this light, I suggest, each theory should be judged in its own terms.43 For ‘whether or not (assumptions of a theory) are acceptable depend on the merit of the scientific structure of which they are part’.44 To be sure, there is always an evaluative component to securitization studies, not only in a fashion of ‘just/unjust’ or ‘good/bad’ securitization theory (which is different from claiming that anything goes) but also in the sense that each analysis establishes whether or not the theory under consideration is beneficial, useful, or fruitful in understanding the action of the agents involved in particular processes of securitization