This article contributes a securitisation-based, interpretive approach to state weakness. The long-dominant positivist approaches to the phenomenon have been extensively criticised for a wide range of deficiencies. Responding to Lemay-Hébert's suggestion of a ‘Durkheimian’, ideational-interpretive approach as a possible alternative, I base my conceptualisation on Migdal's view of state weakness as emerging from a ‘state-in-society's’ contested ‘strategies of survival’. I argue that several recent developments in Securitisation Theory enable it to capture this contested ‘collective knowledge’ on the state: a move away from state-centrism, the development of a contextualised ‘sociological’ version, linkages made between securitisation and legitimacy, and the acknowledgment of ‘securitisations’ as a contested Bourdieusian field. I introduce the concept of ‘securitisation gaps’ – divergences in the security discourses and practices of state and society – as a concept aimed at capturing this contested role of the state, operationalised along two logics (reactive/substitutive) – depending on whether they emerge from securitisations of the state action or inaction – and three intensities (latent, manifest, and violent), depending on the extent to which they involve challenges to state authority. The approach is briefly illustrated through the changing securitisation gaps in the Republic of Lebanon during the 2019–20 ‘October Uprising’.

中文翻译：

---

证券化差距：对国家弱点的概念性理解

本文为国家弱点提供了一种基于证券化的解释性方法。长期以来占主导地位的对该现象的实证主义方法因存在广泛的缺陷而受到广泛批评。为回应 Lemay-Hébert 提出的“涂尔干式”、概念解释方法作为一种可能的替代方案的建议，我的概念化基于 Migdal 的国家弱点观点，即从“社会中的国家”有争议的“生存策略”中出现。我认为，证券化理论最近的几项发展使其能够捕捉到这种有争议的关于国家的“集体知识”：远离国家中心主义，发展一种情境化的“社会学”版本，证券化与合法性之间的联系，以及承认“证券化”是一个有争议的布迪厄斯领域。我介绍了“证券化差距”的概念——国家和社会的安全话语和实践的分歧——作为一个旨在捕捉国家这种有争议的角色的概念，按照两种逻辑（反应性/替代性）进行操作——取决于它们是否出现从国家作为或不作为的证券化——以及三种强度（潜在的、明显的和暴力的），取决于它们涉及对国家权威的挑战的程度。通过 2019-20 年“十月起义”期间黎巴嫩共和国不断变化的证券化差距简要说明了该方法。按照两种逻辑（反应性/替代性）——取决于它们是来自国家作为或不作为的证券化——和三种强度（潜在的、明显的和暴力的），取决于它们涉及对国家权威的挑战的程度。通过 2019-20 年“十月起义”期间黎巴嫩共和国不断变化的证券化差距简要说明了该方法。按照两种逻辑（反应性/替代性）——取决于它们是来自国家作为或不作为的证券化——和三种强度（潜在的、明显的和暴力的），取决于它们涉及对国家权威的挑战的程度。通过 2019-20 年“十月起义”期间黎巴嫩共和国不断变化的证券化差距简要说明了该方法。