Confronting the colonial: The (re)production of ‘African’ exceptionalism in critical security and military studies:

TLDR: The authors argue that the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in "Africa" scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between developed and underdeveloped spaces within theory and methodology, and highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness.

Abstract: Drawing on postcolonial theory, this article queries into the ways in which the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are applied to ‘African’ contexts. We highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness, focusing on its signifying work. As we argue, the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in ‘Africa’ scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between ‘developed’ versus ‘underdeveloped’ spaces within theory and methodology. In particular, they contribute to the reproduction of familiar colonially scripted imagery of a passive and traditional ‘Africa’, ruled by crude force and somehow devoid of ‘liberal’ ideas and modes of governing. Yet we do not suggest simply discarding ‘selectiveness’ or believe that there are any other easy remedies to the tensions between universalism and particularism in theory application. Recognizing the ambivalent workings of colonial discourse, we rather contend that any attempts to trace the colonial into the present use of the concepts of securitization and militarism/militarization need to acknowledge the problematic nature of both discourses of ‘African’ Otherness and those of universalism and sameness.

Full text

Confronting the colonial: the (re)production of ‘African’
exceptionalism in critical security and military studies
Article (Accepted Version)
http://sro.sussex.ac.uk
Eriksson Baaz, Maria and Verweijen, Judith (2018) Confronting the colonial: the (re)production of
‘African’ exceptionalism in critical security and military studies. Security Dialogue, 49 (1-2). pp.
57-69. ISSN 0967-0106
This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/79041/
This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the
published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to
consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published
version.
Copyright and reuse:
Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.
Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual
author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material
made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.
Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third
parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic
details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the
content is not changed in any way.

!
1!
!"#$%"#&'#()&*+),"-"#'.-/)&*+)0%+12%"34,&'"#)"$)56$%',.#7)+8,+2&'"#.-'9:)
'#),%'&',.-)9+,4%'&;).#3):'-'&.%;)9&43'+9))
)
Maria%Eriksson%Baaz%&%Judith%Verweijen%
%
Published%in%Security)Dialogue;%Vol%49,%Issue%1-2,%2018%
https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010617730975%
%
%
6<9&%.,&)
)
Drawing%on%postcolonial%theory,%this%article%queries%into%the%ways%in%which%the%
concepts%of%militarism/militarization%and%securitization%are%applied%to%‘African’%
contexts.%We%highlight%the%selective%nature%of%such%application%and%probe%into%the%
potential%reasons%for%and%effects%of%this%selectiveness,%focusing%on%its%signifying%work.%
As%we%argue,%the%current%selective%uses%of%securitization%and%militarism/militarization%
in%‘Africa’%scholarship%tend%to%recreate%troublesome%distinctions%between%
‘developed’%versus%‘underdeveloped’%spaces%within%theory%and%methodology.%In%
particular,%they%contribute%to%the%reproduction%of%familiar%colonially%scripted%imagery%
of%a%passive%and%traditional%‘Africa’,%ruled%by%crude%force%and%somehow%devoid%of%
‘liberal’%ideas%and%modes%of%governing.%Yet%we%do%not%suggest%simply%discarding%
‘selectiveness’%or%believe%that%there%are%any%other%easy%remedies%to%the%tensions%
between%universalism%and%particularism%in%theory%application.%Recognizing%the%
ambivalent%workings%of%colonial%discourse,%we%rather%contend%that%any%attempts%to%
trace%the%colonial%into%the%present%use%of%the%concepts%of%securitization%and%
militarism/militarization%need%to%acknowledge%the%problematic%nature%of%both%
discourses%of%‘African’%Otherness%and%those%of%universalism%and%sameness.%
%
Keywords:%securitization;%militarism;%militarization;%Africa;%postcolonialism%
%
%
=#&%"34,&'"#)
%
To%say%th at%theoretical%frameworks%and%concepts%need%to %be%adjusted%to%the%context%
of%study%is%to%state% the%obvious.%The%failure%to% do%so,%a%repeated%feature%in% th e%history%
of% academic% knowledge% production,% opens% the% door% to% ethnocentrism,% particularly%
Euro/US-centrism.% Yet,% as% a% range% of% postcolonial% scholarship% warns,% the% selective%
application%of%theoretical%notions%and%analytical%concepts,%including%context-specific%
adaptations%of%their%signification,%has%inherent%dangers%too.%It%may%lead%for%instance%
to%‘theoretical%and%methodological%discrimination’%(cf.%Eriksson%Baaz%and%Verweijen,%

!
2!
2016)% whereby%particular% contexts% are% implicitly% deemed% ‘too% underdeveloped’% for%
the% application% of% (supposedly)% theoretically% ‘sophisticated’% concepts% that% are%
commonly% used% in% relation% to% (purportedly)% ‘advanced% (postindustrial)% liberal%
democracies’.%Such%selective%application%of%conceptual%toolboxes%inescapably%mirrors%
our% biases% as% scholars% and% our% very% partial% constructions% of% the% world.% 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).% The% echoes% of% colonialism% are% particularly% strong% in% scholarship% on%
‘Africa’,%which%in%the%colonial%lexicon,%was%construed% as %located%at%the%very%end%of%the%
evolutionary% ladder,% hence% constituting% the% least% ‘developed’% Other% (Childs% and%
Williams,%1997;%Mudimbe,%1988;%1994).%%
%
In%this%article,%we%examine%the%dan gers% and%justifications%of%universal%and%selective%
theory%application%to%‘Africa’,%focusing%on%the%(non-)%application % of%the%con cepts% of%
militarism/militarization%(notions%that,%according%to%different%definitional%traditions,%
have% sometimes% distinct,% sometimes% overlapping% meanings)% and% securitization%
(sometimes%defined%as%partly%overlappi ng%with%militarization,%see%the%Introduction%to%
this% special% issue).% In% what% ways% are% these% concepts% used% and% what% meanings% are%
attached%to%them%in%relation%to%‘African’%contexts?%What%may%such%choices%reflect%in%
terms% of% underlying% assumptions?% In% particular,% what% (signifying)% work% do% these%
concepts% do?% 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).%Furthermore,%it%is%warranted,%as%the%theoretical%and%
conceptual%choices%we%make%not%only%limit%what%we%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.%%
%
As% we% demonstrate,% the% ways% in% which% militarism/mili tarizatio n% and% securitization%
have% u p% to% now% been% applied% to% ‘African’% contexts% risk% reproducing% familiar% and%
troublesome%imageries%of%‘African’%passivity%and%backwardness.%Yet%this%finding%does%
not%allow%for%a%clear% answer%to%the%question%whether%theoretical%and%methodological%
discrimination% is% indeed% at% work% and% whether% such% discrimin atio n% is% warranted.%
Taking% a% definite% position% on % these% issues,% we% contend,% is% dangerous% given% the%
contradictory% workings% of% the% colonial.% The% colonial% project% was% intrinsically%
characterized% by% the% politics% of% both% universalism% 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;%Mudi mbe,%

!
3!
1988;% Spivak,% 1993).% As% argued% by% Bhabha,% colonial% discourse% was% marked% by%
ambivalence,% in% that% colonizers% desired% a% reformed,% recognizable% Other% who% was%%
‘almost% the% same,% but% not% quite’% (1994:% 86).% Therefore,% any% attempt% to% trace% the%
colonial% into% the% present% use% of% the% concepts% of% securitization% and%
militarism/militarization% in% relation% to% ‘Africa’% needs% to% acknowledge% that% both%
discourses% of% ‘African’% Otherness% (uncriticall y% refuting% the% applicability% of% certain%
concepts%to%‘Africa’)%and%discourses%of%sameness%(uncritically%arguing%that%concepts%
and%approaches%originati ng%in%‘the%North’%are%ap pl icab le%everywhere)%are%inherently%
problematic.%%
%%
Why,% then,% do% we% focus% on% ‘Africa’,% ( and% even% on% the% probl ematic% noti on% of % ‘sub-
Saharan%Africa’)?% By% treating% ‘Africa’% as% a% supposedl y% monolithic% whole,% do% we% not%
‘normalize’%the%‘Africa-as-a-country’%discourses%that%much%scholarship%highlighting%its%
diversity% tries% to% deconstruct?% And% does% a% singular% focus% on% ‘Africa’% not% risk%
reproducing% the% very% representations% of% ‘African’% Otherness% and% the% ‘African’%
exceptionalism%that%we%seek%to%problematize?%The%answer%to%the%latter%question%is%
an%unambiguous%yes:%such%a%risk%certainly%exists.%We%believe,%however,%that%this%risk%
is% less% acute% given% that% the% focus% here% is% on% querying% into% (common% academic%
renderings%of)%the%idea)of%‘Africa’%(Appiah,%1993;%Mudimbe,%1988)%rather%than%‘Africa%
itself’.% Our% choice% is% also% partly% grounded% in% postcolonial% s chol arship % that%
demonstrates%that%while%there%were%curious%similarities%in%the%representations%of%all%
colonized% Others% (Loomba,% 1998),% these% representations% were% also% marked% by%
difference% –with% ‘Africa’% often% represented% as% being% at% the% highest% stage% of%
‘primitivism’.%These%differences%have%continued%to%work%in%the%postcolonial,%as%also%
reflected%in%much%‘Africa’%scholarship%(Abrahamsen,%2003;%Childs%and%Williams,%1997;%
Dunn,%2001;%Mudimbe,%1988).%%%%
%
The%rest%of%the%article%proceeds%as%follows.%The%first%part%reviews%(in%brush%strokes,%
given% the% limited% space,% and% therefore% at% risk% of% overgeneralization)% h ow% the%
concepts% of% militarism/militarization% and% securitization% have% been% applied% to%
‘African’%contexts%in%the%scholarly%literature.%We%then%explore%how%to%make%sense%of%
the% selective% application% and% diverging% connotations% of% these% two% concepts,% an d%
venture%into%a%discussion % of%the%signifying%effects%of%that% selectiveness.%We%end%by%
reflecting%on%the%implications%of%our%analysis%for%academic%praxis.%)
)
>+,4%'&'?.&'"#) .#3) :'-'&.%'9:@:'-'&.%'?.&'"#) .22-'+3) &") 56$%',.#7)
,"#&+8&9)
%
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’%

!
4!
contexts.% In% the% following,% we% consider% for% each% term% f irst% its% general% signifi cation ,%
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).% Among% other% conceptualizations,% it% has% been%
regarded% as% a% particular% ideology% (glorifying% war,% force% and% violence),% a% feature% of%
regimes%relating%to%military%buildu ps% (e.g.% increasing%spending%on%the%military)%or%a%
specific%kind%of%civil-military%relations%(Berghahn,%1981;%Stavrian akis%and%Selby,%2012;%
see%also)Eastwood%in%this%issue).%Additionally,%militarism%has%been%approached%as%a%
set%of%discourses%driving%and%resulting%from%‘militarization’,%interpreted%as%a%process%
(Luckham,%1994).%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).%Other%scholars%have%alternatively%
conceptualized% militarism/militarization% as% ‘the% blurring% or% erasure% of% distinctions%
between% ...% military% and% civilian’% (Sjoberg% and% Via,% 2010:% 7).% Whether% regarded% as%
extending%into %or%merging%with%‘the%civilian’,%in%both% cases,%‘the%military’%is%attributed%
essential%characteristics%that%separate%it%from%‘the%civilian’.%As%we%will%outline%below,%
it% is% in% part% the% attrib utio n% of% (seemingly)% universal% significations% to% either% ‘the%
military’%or%‘the%civilian’%that%renders%applications%of%militarism/militarization%across%
contexts%problematic.%%
%
Analysing% studies% on% the% military% and% mili tarism% in% ‘developing% countries’% in% the%
1960s% and% 1970s,% Luckham% observes% th eir% gro unding% in% time-bound% theories% of%
modernization%and%political%development.% Focusing%on%democratization%and% civilian%
control,%the%Euro/US-centrism%of%these%accounts%was%obvious%(Luckham,%1994:%4),%in%
particular% in% relation% to% conceptualizations% of% ‘military% professionalism’% and% ‘civil-
military% relations’% along% Hu nti ngtoni an% (1957)% lines.% % After% a% brief% trend% whereby%
‘African’% armies% were% considered% agents% of% ‘modernization’% (Pye,% 1962),% ‘African’%
militarism/militarization%was%construed%as%a%(deviant)%opposite%to%(idealized)%notions%
of%‘modern’%(read:%‘western’)%armies%and%political%orders.%One%domain%in%which%this%
supposed% d eviance% 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).%%
%
Some% scholars% located% these% ‘abnormalities’% in% the% very% nature% of% ‘African’% armies%
and% political% orders.% As% Decalo% writes% (1990[1976]:% 6),% ‘Many% African% armies% bear%
little%resemblance%to%the%Western%organizational% p rototype%and% are%instead%a%coterie%
of% distinct% armed% camps% owing% primary% clientelist% allegiances% to% a% handful% of%
mutually%competitive%officers%of%different%ranks.’%%Others,%by%contrast,%read%‘African’%

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

Drawing on postcolonial theory, this article queries into the ways in which the concepts of militarism/militarization and securitization are applied to ‘ African ’ contexts. The authors highlight the selective nature of such application and probe into the potential reasons for and effects of this selectiveness, focusing on its signifying work. As the authors argue, the current selective uses of securitization and militarism/militarization in ‘ Africa ’ scholarship tend to recreate troublesome distinctions between ‘ developed ’ versus ‘ underdeveloped ’ spaces within theory and methodology. Recognizing the ambivalent workings of colonial discourse, the authors rather contend that any attempts to trace the colonial into the present use of the concepts of securitization and militarism/militarization need to acknowledge the problematic nature of both discourses of ‘ African ’ Otherness and those of universalism and sameness. Yet the authors do not suggest simply discarding ‘ selectiveness ’ or believe that there are any other easy remedies to the tensions between universalism and particularism in theory application. 

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).