Security Dialogue has published an article ‘Is securitization theory racist? Civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack thought in the Copenhagen School’ by Alison Howell and Melanie Richter-Montpetit (2020; first published online 7 August 2019), hereafter ‘H&RM’. This article makes strong claims about the ‘foundational role of racist thought in securitization theory’, claiming that it is ‘structured not only by Eurocentrism but also by civilizationism, methodological whiteness, and antiblack racism’ (H&RM, 2020: 3 [1]).1 We are the main architects behind securitization theory, and thus we must be responsible for placing this allegedly racist thought at the theory’s foundations. H&RM claim to treat racism as ‘systemic’ and therefore not ‘individual’. However, ‘individual racism’ they define narrowly as prejudiced and bigoted individuals. Their target is ‘classic’ securitization theory, sourced uniformly to our texts, so we obviously stand accused of a racist deed, their disclaimer notwithstanding. Replying, we face a difficult dilemma. The methodology and academic standards of the H&RM piece are so profoundly and systematically flawed as to void the authors’ argument, and we think the lack of credible supporting evidence makes their charge libellous. To properly demonstrate the depth and extent of H&RM’s errors and misrepresentations requires a full, point-by-point critique. Yet, during a lengthy correspondence with Security Dialogue, the editors insisted that if we submitted our critique as a reply it should comply with the standard length of 4,000 words2 and refused simultaneous publication with H&RM’s article. They claimed to see no difference between a

中文翻译：

---

种族主义和责任——安全研究中深度伪造方法的关键限制：对 Howell 和 Richter-Montpetit 的回复

安全对话发表了一篇文章“证券化理论是种族主义者吗？Alison Howell 和 Melanie Richter-Montpetit 的《哥本哈根学派的文明主义、方法论白人和反黑人思想》（2020 年；2019 年 8 月 7 日首次在线发布），以下简称“H&RM”。这篇文章强烈主张“种族主义思想在安全化理论中的基础作用”，声称它“不仅由欧洲中心主义构成，而且由文明主义、方法论白人主义和反黑人种族主义构成”（H&RM，2020：3 [1]） .1 我们是证券化理论背后的主要设计师，因此我们必须负责将这种所谓的种族主义思想置于该理论的基础之上。H&RM 声称将种族主义视为“系统性”而非“个人”。然而，他们将“个人种族主义”狭义地定义为有偏见和偏执的个人。他们的目标是“经典”的证券化理论，统一来源于我们的文本，所以我们显然被指控犯有种族主义行为，尽管他们有免责声明。回答说，我们面临着一个艰难的困境。H&RM 文章的方法论和学术标准存在如此深刻和系统的缺陷，以至于作者的论点无效，我们认为缺乏可靠的支持证据使他们的指控具有诽谤性。要正确展示 H&RM 错误和误传的深度和范围，需要进行全面的逐点批评。然而，在与 Security Dialogue 的冗长通信中，编辑们坚持认为，如果我们提交我们的评论作为回复，它应该符合标准长度 4，000 字 2 并拒绝与 H&RM 的文章同时发表。他们声称看不出有什么区别