Since your article ‘Is securitization theory racist?’ was published five months ago, we have had numerous conversations. Imaginary ones so far. I have responded to your claim that my 2000 article ‘The Little Mermaid’ provides a reaffirmation of racist thought, and to the moves you make to get there. I have tried to envision how you might reply, how I would then respond, and so on. I am happy that we now have the possibility of moving our conversations out of my head and into the pages of Security Dialogue. Derrida mentioned the need to quote extensively when replying to readings of one’s work, and I am going to quote extensively, too. I have reproduced the two paragraphs that are of direct relevance to the analysis you make of my work in Figure 1. Here, I have underlined the words that are of particular significance to the arguments I make. Figure 1 shows the paragraphs as they were printed in the original online published version of your article. At the time of this writing, they are what is available online. I know, though, that corrections will be made to a couple of passages, and I will take those corrections into account in my reply. Figure 2 shows how the corrected passages will read, indicating where changes will be made to the original online version. Before I enter into the discussion of your reading, perhaps a few words on why I felt the need to respond in the first place. After all, your engagement with my article is just one paragraph set within your much longer critique of securitization theory as developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. The first reason is that the negative connotations of ‘racist thought’ are so profound that just one use of such a charge might stick. I appreciate your opening clarification that ‘the argument presented here is not a personal indictment of any particular author’, and that you set your understanding apart from ‘commonsense notions that reduce racism to interpersonal prejudices of openly bigoted individuals’ (Howell and Richter-Montpetit, 2019: 2). But your article does identify

中文翻译：

---

对证券化理论的“核心”女权主义批评是种族主义吗？对艾莉森豪威尔和梅兰妮里希特-蒙佩蒂的回复

自从你的文章“证券化理论是种族主义者吗？” 五个月前出版，我们进行了多次对话。想象中的到目前为止。我已经回应了你的说法，即我 2000 年的文章“小美人鱼”重申了种族主义思想，以及你为达到目标而采取的行动。我试图设想你会如何回复，我会如何回复，等等。我很高兴我们现在有可能将我们的谈话从我的脑海中转移到安全对话的页面中。德里达提到在回复一个人的作品时需要大量引用，我也将大量引用。我在图 1 中复制了与您对我的工作所做的分析直接相关的两段。在这里，我在对我提出的论点特别重要的词进行了下划线。图 1 显示了在您文章的原始在线发布版本中印刷的段落。在撰写本文时，它们是在线可用的。不过，我知道将对几段内容进行更正，我将在回复中考虑这些更正。图 2 显示了更正后的段落将如何阅读，指示将对原始在线版本进行更改的位置。在我开始讨论你的阅读之前，也许先谈谈为什么我觉得有必要做出回应。毕竟，您对我的文章的参与只是您对由 Barry Buzan 和 Ole Wæver 提出的证券化理论的更长批评中的一个段落。第一个原因是“种族主义思想”的负面含义是如此深刻，以至于只用一次这样的指控就可能会坚持下去。我很欣赏你的开场澄清，即“这里提出的论点不是对任何特定作者的个人控诉”，并且你将自己的理解与“将种族主义减少为公开偏执的个人的人际偏见的常识性观念”（豪厄尔和里希特-蒙佩蒂）区分开来, 2019: 2)。但你的文章确实识别