Beyond Securitization: Non-Addressing as a Performative Practice in Security Orders

Securitization theory has primarily explained the production of security through acts of articulation. From the original conception of securitization as a speech act to subsequent practice- and context-oriented approaches, the analytical focus has largely remained on how security is publicly produced through acts of addressing. This paper develops a new and complementary perspective by conceptualizing non-addressing as a specific form of communicative selection within security orders. The argument does not rest on the assumption that silence is inherently meaningful or that every absence of speech constitutes a political act. Existing scholarship has demonstrated that silence, thematic non-mention, and absence can have political and performative significance. The contribution developed here is more specific. Non-addressing refers to the selective non-thematization of potentially security-relevant events by authoritative actors within an established security-political communication space, where public addressing is rendered plausible by the actor's institutional position, established communicative repertoire, and structures of expectation. The paper argues that non-addressing can become performative when such selectivity is structured. Its effects do not derive from the mere absence of speech, but from the way patterns of addressing and non-addressing shape expectations concerning what can plausibly be publicly addressed within a given security order. Non-addressing may therefore contribute to the reproduction or modulation of the boundaries of security-relevant articulation. The paper develops this argument conceptually and proposes a qualitative comparative research design for identifying non-addressing empirically. The papacy is introduced as a particularly suitable empirical setting because of the combination of institutional authority, global visibility, continuous public communication, and broad expectations of public engagement with crises and humanitarian issues. The paper concludes by positioning non-addressing not as an alternative to securitization theory, but as a complementary mechanism for analyzing how security orders are constituted through both articulation and structured absence.