糖心网页版

By Maria Eriksson Baaz and Judith Verweijen

At a time when colonial revisionism is seemingly and articles calling for re-colonization are published even in renown critical journals (though and comfortably not without), turning a critical eye towards ourselves as 鈥榗ritical鈥� scholars might be seen as 鈥榥avel-gazing鈥� or even as dangerously diverting precious energy. While such interjections are certainly valid, we suggest that the recent trend of and calls for even more self-reflection also among self-proclaimed critical scholars (including ourselves). Rather than simply situating the problem elsewhere, we need to be about our own (inescapable) complicity 鈥� also by probing into how we (unintentionally) might reproduce the images inscribed in the work that we oppose.

Our concern arises not only from theoretical contemplation, but also from our experiences as scholars within critical military and security studies who mainly research armed actors in the DR Congo. Our analytical point of departure tends to be Congolese armed actors themselves, rather than transnational security fields or external interventions (like counter-terrorism programs or international private security firms). This focus regularly triggers the sense of being the odd one out both in journals and at conferences. Africa clearly occupies a marginal place not only鈥� as have argued鈥搃n more mainstream International Relations and the related fields of security and military studies, but also in the scholarship we name 鈥榗ritical鈥�.

鈥� much literature on militarism in Africa construes it as ultimately imposed by 鈥榯he West鈥欌�� thus locating agency predominantly in 鈥榳estern hegemonic forces鈥�. Africa is cast in such literature mainly in the role of the (passive) 鈥榲ictim鈥�, the theatre in which imperialist plays are acted out鈥�

But our concern is not only with marginality. As scholars researching Congolese armed actors we struggle with the question whether the tools offered by 鈥榗ritical鈥� frameworks really 鈥榝it鈥�. For instance, can the toolbox of governmentality be helpful in understanding and the way this process affects those 鈥榠n-between鈥� the civilian and the military, like army wives?

In a in Security Dialogue that is part of a special issue on militarism and security, we query into the use and signifying work of the concepts of militarization and securitization in relation to Africa scholarship. We suggest that the ways in which these concepts are applied and not applied risk reproducing familiar colonial imageries that we as critical scholars tend to locate elsewhere. Paradoxically, we argue, this reproduction occurs partly through the very commitment to reveal continued imperialist/neo-colonial relations. As such, our reflections recap earlier debates in postcolonial studies, where some warned that the field risks by overstating the power of Europe/鈥榯he West鈥� as the origin of history and as the shaping social and political developments elsewhere.

As detailed in the article, much literature on militarism in Africa construes it as ultimately imposed by 鈥榯he West鈥欌�� thus locating agency predominantly in 鈥榳estern hegemonic forces鈥�. Africa is cast in such literature mainly in the role of the (passive) 鈥榲ictim鈥�, the theatre in which imperialist plays are acted out. A similar pattern can arguably be traced in some of the critical literature on securitization and Africa. This work addresses and conceptualizes securitization as something that characterizes 鈥榃estern鈥� policies and practices enacted 鈥榰pon鈥� Africa and sometimes pays limited attention to how securitization processes are co-produced and enacted by African actors themselves. Such a focus might contribute to recycling the classic imagery of passivity and the colonial idea of an Africa that only exists in relation to 鈥榯he West鈥�.

Signification is also at work through the concepts and approaches we use and do not use. As we discuss in the article, certain theoretical approaches and tool-boxes associated with supposedly 鈥榓dvanced (neo)liberal societies鈥� (like securitization) are rarely employed in relation to . This selective use of theoretical concepts and tools threatens to reinforce portrayals of particular (supposedly) 鈥榣iberal鈥� and 鈥榰niversal鈥� values, like freedom, human rights and democracy 鈥� in a familiar colonial manner 鈥� as . This, in turn, produces Africa as a place where only brute force reigns, while concealing the ways in which 鈥榳estern鈥� societies also heavily rely, in words, 鈥榦n coercive power, deployed at home and abroad.鈥�

Obviously, given the contradictory workings of colonial discourses 鈥� and thus the problematic nature of both discourses of 鈥楢frican鈥� Otherness and those of universalism and sameness (often termed 鈥楨urocentrism鈥�) 鈥� there are no easy answers to the dilemmas surrounding theory application. Neither do we propose to stop revealing continued imperialist/neo-colonial relations. We simply suggest that we, as (self-proclaimed) critical scholars intensify our scrutiny of our conceptual, topical and methodological choices 鈥� and continue to explore the possibilities to research otherwise.