Confronting the colonial: The (re)production of ‘African’ exceptionalism in critical security and military studies:
Summary (2 min read)
Introduction
- To say that theoretical frameworks and concepts need to be adjusted to the context of study is to state the obvious.
- Furthermore, it is warranted, as the theoretical and conceptual choices the authors make not only limit what they see and hear, but (through that) are in themselves constitutive – therefore opening up the risk of perpetuating and reproducing the problematic and ultimately colonially scripted imageries that continue to inform much scholarly work.
- The first part reviews (in brush strokes, given the limited space, and therefore at risk of overgeneralization) how the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization have been applied to ‘African’ contexts in the scholarly literature.
- The authors then explore how to make sense of the selective application and diverging connotations of these two concepts, and venture into a discussion of the signifying effects of that selectiveness.
Securitization and militarism/militarization applied to ‘African’
- The notions of both militarization/militarism and securitization, which have a distinct genesis and evolution, have been applied in various – and shifting– ways to ‘African’ contexts.
- In the following, the authors consider for each term first its general signification, and then its specific application to ‘Africa’.
Militarization/militarism and ‘Africa’
- The term militarism has been defined and conceptualized in various ways (Berghahn, 1981; Stavrianakis and Selby, 2012).
- Central to most definitions of militarism/militarization is the idea of ‘the military’ (either as an institution or a notion) ‘extending into’ supposedly ‘civilian’ spheres and subjectivities (cf. Thee, 1977).
- After a brief trend whereby ‘African’ armies were considered agents of ‘modernization’ (Pye, 1962), ‘African’ militarism/militarization was construed as a opposite to notions of ‘modern’ (read: ‘western’) armies and political orders.
- Another trend that is only weakly visible in ‘Africa’ scholarship is the increasing criticism (evident particularly within geography and gender studies) on efforts to articulate ‘universally valid’ specifications of the contents and forms of militarism/militarization (e.g. Bernazolli and Flint, 2009).
Securitization and ‘Africa’
- Securitization theory, which considers the ways in which phenomena are construed as ‘security issues’, was developed through the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s as part of critical security studies.
- Since security studies emerged in the context of IR, critical security studies so far continues to have IR– a discipline where ‘Africa’ has traditionally been marginalized (Dunn and Shaw, 2001) – implicitly or explicitly as a frame of reference (Abrahamsen, 2017).
- Apart from these institutionalized inequalities, a crucial (from the point of departure of this article) reason for the selective application of militarism/militarization and securitization is located in the idea that these concepts, and particularly securitization, are inadequate for application outside of ‘western’ contexts.
- As she argues, scholars outside western Europe (in this case from Turkey) may apply the theory to demonstrate how ‘advanced’ (as in approximating ‘liberal democracies’) their societies are.
- As a corollary, not applying securitization theory, as is the case in relation to ‘African’ actors in ‘Africa’, may feed into assumptions that ‘African’ societies are ‘not advanced enough’ – as the authors will further discuss below.
The signifying effects of selectiveness
- First, whether or not one subscribes to the idea that ‘securitization’ is something that ‘African’ actors engage in themselves (and hence does not pertain only to external interventions), the limited attention to how securitization processes are coproduced by ‘African’ actors somehow imputes to them the classic imagery of ‘African’ passivity (e.g. Mudimbe, 1988; Pieterse, 1995).
- 11) warned that the field risks reproducing Eurocentrism by marking ‘the world’s multitudinous cultures, not positively by what distinguishes them but by a subordinate, retrospective relation to linear, European time’, also known as McClintock (1995.
- As reflected in this citation, reasoning against the adequacy of employing Foucauldian approaches in the study of ‘Africa’ tends to invoke notions of a traditional/non-advanced ‘Africa’ somehow devoid of ‘liberal’ ideas and modes of governing.
- Barkawi highlights here the problematic tendency of securitization theory to uncritically reflect and reproduce the security politics of so-called advanced liberal democracies (see also Bigo, 2002), thus participating in the ‘defensive liberal politics of war by obfuscating the possibility of aggression’ (Barkawi, 2011: 715).
Concluding reflections
- Drawing upon postcolonial theory, this article has analysed how the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization have been applied (and not applied) to ‘African’ contexts, querying into the underlying assumptions about universalism and particularism and probing into the representational work that such applications do.
- Attending to these questions is crucial since the theoretical and conceptual choices the authors make not only limit what they see and hear but are constitutive of their ideas of ‘Africa’ – thereby opening up the risk of reproducing familiar and problematic images inscribed in the colonial library.
- Yet, owing to the contradictory workings of colonial discourses as described at the start of this article, the authors resist the task of arguing in favour or against the application of securitization and militarism/militarization in research on ‘Africa’.
- At the same time, the authors do not call for the development of ‘Africa-specific’ or ‘African derived’ concepts of militarism/militarization or securitization either.
- Accordingly, the authors need to acknowledge and interrogate how their desires, conceptions of the world and interests are unavoidably written into the theoretical and conceptual choices they make –and, crucially, to recognize that these choices are constitutive.
Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback
Citations
1 citations
1 citations
1 citations
References
[...]
18,201 citations
"Confronting the colonial: The (re)p..." refers background in this paper
...When addressing social phenomena in ‘the South’, but also, for ‘Northern’-based scholars, ‘at home’ in ‘the North’, theoretical and conceptual choices are often shaped by colonial imageries and power relations (cf. Bhabha, 1994; Mudimbe, 1988; 1994; Spivak, 1993)....
[...]
...…and thereby Euro-centrism (promoting and legitimizing colonization through the idea of Europe as the universal norm) and particularism, racism and Otherness (promoting and legitimizing colonialism though the imagery of the inferior Other) (cf. Bhabha, 1994; Mudimbe, 1988; Spivak, 1993)....
[...]
4,006 citations
1,465 citations
"Confronting the colonial: The (re)p..." refers background in this paper
...…problematic tendency of securitization theory to uncritically reflect and reproduce the security politics of so-called advanced liberal democracies (see also Bigo, 2002), thus participating in the ‘defensive liberal politics of war by obfuscating the possibility of aggression’ (Barkawi, 2011: 715)....
[...]
1,093 citations
999 citations
Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (14)
Q2. What was the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s?
Securitization theory, which considers the ways in which phenomena are construed as ‘security issues’, was developed through the work of the Copenhagen School in the 1990s as part of critical security studies.
Q3. What was the privileged outlet for security-centered discourses on ‘Africa’?
A privileged outlet for security-centered discourses on ‘Africa’ was the emerging policy-prescriptive genre of security sector reform – a set of policy interventions that critical scholars associate with the ‘liberal peace’ project (Andersen, 2011).
Q4. What is the main argument against the application of securitization theory to ‘Africa’?
Through the judgment of particular theoretical tools as ‘inappropriate’ for certain contexts, supposedly modern, liberal (and universal) values such as freedom, humanrights and democracy are portrayed as exclusive property of ‘the West’– as is more explicitly the case with approaches to militarism/militarization in ‘Africa’ that take ‘western’ militaries and political orders as their yardstick.
Q5. What is the main argument for securitization theory?
He highlights, however, that securitization is based on an ‘illocutionary speech act’ relating to the universal capacity for language, concluding that a more careful elaboration of securitization theory allows it to ‘travel’ to non-democratic contexts, without losing its explanatory value (Vuori, 2008).
Q6. What is the need to further engage in efforts to ‘think otherwise’?
there is a need to further engage in efforts to ‘think otherwise’ (Spivak, 1993), recognizing that the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are deeply political conceptual tools, and (like most theory) are shaped by a long history of colonialism and racism.
Q7. What is the role of the postcolonialist in obscuring the security politics of ‘?
As argued by Appiah (1993: 32) (as well as by many other postcolonial thinkers) this idea must be seen as ‘an outgrowth of European racialism’ – reflecting a politics which simply ‘make[s] real the imaginary identities to which Europe has subjected us’ – thus merely reproducing colonial ideas of ‘African’ homogeneity and Otherness.
Q8. What was the corollary of the study of militarism?
IR’s focus on military power and violence was largely ‘superseded by the problem of internal lawlessness and anarchy – with the corollary … that the study of militarism [here mostly seen in relation to the international system and states] is also somewhat outdated’.
Q9. What is the task of the author?
As Spivak (1993: 284) frames it, rather than rejecting the values that are claimed, the task is to ‘engage in a persistent critique of what one cannot not want’.
Q10. What is the importance of critically reviewing such claims of proprietorship?
Critically reviewing such claims of proprietorship, as well as the very selective application of the claimed values in the manner in which ‘the West’ engages with ‘Africa’ (similar to other postcolonial sites), is paramount to postcolonial scholarship.
Q11. What is the purpose of probing into these questions?
Probing into these questions is pertinent in the light of the strong Euro/US-centrism that continues to mark scholarly debates on securitization and militarism/militarization (cf. Barkawi, 2011; Barkawi and Laffey, 2006; Bilgin, 2011; Vuori, 2008; Wilkinson, 2007).
Q12. What is the main theme of Barkawi’s essay?
Barkawi highlights here the problematic tendency of securitization theory to uncritically reflect and reproduce the security politics of so-called advanced liberal democracies (see also Bigo, 2002), thus participating in the ‘defensive liberal politics of war by obfuscating the possibility of aggression’ (Barkawi, 2011: 715).
Q13. What are the key portrayals of colonial projects?
These portrayals were crucial in legitimizing the colonial project as a civilizing project, and continue to be mirrored in justifications for numerous postcolonial interventions, such as security sector reform (Eriksson Baaz and Stern, 2017).
Q14. What was the main reason for the supposed deviance?
One domain in which this supposed deviance came to the fore was the pronounced political role of many ‘African’ military establishments, especially their ‘praetorianism’ or penchant for coup d’états (Welch, 1970).