Use consequentalism. Policy precedes epistemology, and their K alt empirically doesn't spillover---we allow better education over their K, which maximizes radical potential--straight turns their offense.

c) The Consequentialist Response In ‘Towards a consequentialist evaluation of security’ Floyd discusses a manner in which the security analyst can become more critically engaged with the securitization process by combining the CS normatively objective approach to security studies with that of the Welsh School, which is a Critical approach with clear emancipatory goals (Floyd 2007). These two schools propose very different perspectives on security; the former portrays a very negative image of security, where in fact securitization should be avoided and “desecuritization should be the optimal long-range option” (Buzan et al 1998: 29). The latter, conversely, depicts a very positive view of security, where security (understood as security of the individual) should be the objective, security then becomes equated with emancipation (Booth 2005). Floyd, on the other hand, argues that “security is neither always positive nor negative, but rather is issue dependent”, and the role of the security analyst is to measure the consequences of, and benefits from each approach (Floyd 2007: 338). Floyd endows the security analyst with a more engaging and critical position within the securitization process, whereby “it is the task of the analyst to fight ignorance (or, put differently, false consciousness) on part of the existing and/ or potential securitizing actor, and inform (or better enlighten) them of the best possible action” (Floyd 2007: 338). Floyd speaks directly to the implications of writing security with her approach, which she argues overcomes the normative dilemma by allowing the security analyst to “critically evaluate” his or her own speaking/ writing of security (Floyd 2007: 339). This is a very honest and reflective attempt to overcome the normative dilemma of how to discuss the social reality of securitization by remaining conscious about how one is contributing to the co-constitution of the ‘security reality’. Floyd rightly claims that it is essential that the security analyst remains critical of his/her own writing of security and how it may inadvertently lead to the further securitization of an issue or result in negative security measures. However, it is contended here that her proposition to critically engage with the CS approach to securitization by comparing it to alternative or human security approaches remains incapable of offering the security analyst with the adequate means to overcome the normative dilemma. This article assents with Bigo and Huysmans, that “speaking truth” or offering alternatives to securitization cannot prevent negative securitization processes if it does not first deconstruct the structural power relations inherent within the dominant discourses of security. It was noted above, and it will be further addressed in the second portion of this paper, that security, as an academic and professional field, remains a largely closed and elitist domain, directed by powerful interests and controlled by disciplinary mechanisms, such as control over information and the media, as wells as through the ability to coerce or co-opt dissenting voices and subjectivities (Bigo 2002). As a consequence of this regulated sphere alternative voices are often marginalized; Bigo contends that “the discourses of securitization continue to be so powerful [that] even when alternative discourses are well known […they] have little effect in either the political 23 arena or in daily life” (Bigo 2002: 65). Hoogensen and Rottem also note the challenge that the marginalized face in attempting to challenge mainstream views with the observation that “positive connotations of security have not really penetrated the dominant discourses” (Hoogensen and Rottem 2005: 158). Therefore, Floyd’s attempt to overcome the normative dilemma by suggesting that the security analyst should actively engage with these dissenting or marginalized perspectives, by bringing the notion of positive or human security into their critical analysis, remains at the mercy of dominant discourses. For example, feminist security author Lee-Koo argues that the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan disproportionately affect the lives of women, however she correctly asserts that this challenge, presented from a human security perspective, has had little success in directing the course of military action (Lee-Koo 2008). Without a critical understanding of the power relations which inform security policy the consequentalist approach does not grant the security analyzer the means to discuss and engage with securitization without encouraging the negative securitization processes. The security analyst may be able to address how the current economic failures are affecting factory workers around the world, but the discussion of security in the economic sector remains subjugated by dominant liberal actors and subjectivities. It will be argued that a critical procedural method is better suited to overcome the normative dilemma of speaking and writing security without replicating dominant modes of addressing security issues resulting in negative securitization instances. This response intends to offer the security analyst with the tools to critically apply ST by, firstly, opening up the structural power relations within the securitizing process and critically evaluating the social and political power of the securitizing actor. This critical evaluation intends to create space for alternative or marginalized approaches to securitization. Secondly, it suggests that applying securitization with a reconceptualized understanding of security, which aims to tackle the symbolic power inherent within the securitization process allows for alternative approaches to security to be observed and analyzed. Endowing the security analyst with these critical tools allows for the normative dilemma of writing security to be challenged.