 |
 |
I'm very pleased to hear that you had intended your CfP to problematise a whole 'body-of-doctrine/discourse' that I felt could be read as the body of doctrine/discourse that the panel was meant to inhabit. I think that the grammatical ambiguity of the "it" and the use of the word "reflect" in the original CfP didn't help you get the problematic-questioning drive of your stated aim clearly in focus, at least for me. The terms "problematic" and "problematise" and "problematisation" -- encouragingly strong in your response to my email -- were not present in the CfP. Many thanks for your clarification, and best wishes for the panel discussion! Tom -----Original Message----- From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jan Bachmann Sent: 14 May 2009 15:15 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: CfP ISA 2010, Panel on "Liberal interventionism and reflections on the re-emergence of counterinsurgency" - complicity by language and preoccupation? Dear Tom, dear forum, We are not sure if it is the right policy to engage in a discussion about our panel proposal via the whole list. But since you disseminated your critique to the whole forum, allow us to reply briefly to the same audience. 1.) Regarding your comment on the premise that Western security requires a long-term occupation of non-Western spaces and the question if this is an invitation to "free world academics". Rather than being a prescription, this "premise" follows an analysis of dominant rationalities in Western foreign-policy thinking. Whole-of-government, inter-agency approaches and "winning hearts and minds" campaigns are justified by a "necessary" long-term engagement in what have been constructed as problematic (social) spaces. In contrast to your suggestion, our intention is to call for a critical engagement with these dominant assumptions as well as the techniques and practices that follow. 2.) Regarding your comments on agency and local struggles We study programmes, rationalities, and practices which have become hegemonic. However, by working discourse-theoretically, agency is of course not denied. Since we argue that liberalism itself is a rationality of governance this means that - rather than pointing at one agent, we highlight the "liberal" consensus amongst a diversity of actors. This consensus materialises in recent normative doctrines of "whole-of-government" or the dominant truism of "there can be no security without development and vice versa". We agree that a thorough study of struggles on the ground is absolutely important and we also invite scholars who study local reactions to these interventions in the name of liberalism. However, a panel proposal has to be succinct and the analytical focus in this panel is on the problematisation of "liberal" doctrines of intervention. Should you decide to organise a panel that that focuses stronger on agency within such interventions - this would be appreciated. 3.) Regarding your allegation of "complicity" Again, the panel's intention is to problematise these "whole-of-governance" alliances and calls for an analytical dissection of their practices. Being aware of the power/knowledge nexus, the integration of so called "experts" (such as the incorporation of anthropologists into the "human terrain team") into strategies of Western governance is at the centre of the panel's concern. It aims at stimulating a critical discussion about the role of scholars in those projects. We feel puzzled and astonished by the associations our call provoked. We strongly hope that we could clarify our position. Best Jan tom wengraf wrote: > In the message below, directed to critical (?) geographers, I find worrying > ambiguities and omissions. > What "starts from the premise that Western security requires...the long-term > interagency occupation" of the non-West? Is it the "panel" of > not-so-critical geographers and other "freeworld academics"? In which case, > are we being invited to mirror the preoccupations of the occupying imperial > forces? > > I note the worrying lack of agency and concern of the terms in such > formulations as > * "whole-of-government engagement is picking up on lessons", rather > than governments and dominant regimes; > * "the military is now assigned a new totalising role" rather than > "Dominant Western elites and NATO are determined to create a new militarised > quasi-civilian domination in the areas of new totalising (totalitarian?) > subordination * "pacification and stabilisation campaigns" rather than > "destabilisation of elites and regimes not committed to subordination into > Western domination. Not "containment" but wholesale occupation. > * "genuinely civilian affairs" rather than affairs which in liberal > doctrine were treated as part of free non-state arrangements but are now > becoming integrated into a post-liberal practice and doctrine of 'whole of > governance' external domination. > I note the lack of interest in the anti-domination struggle of subordinated > populations (and disappearance of the Soviet regime) which has led to the > struggle for a new imperial re-subordination. There is no trace of > conceptual distance from the new doctrines of imperial power; no trace of > focal difference from anything that a mix of Davos/NATOpolitan elites would > want to have discussed while above all wanting to make sure was not > discussed. > > When the proposal refers to the new practice, in the last line, by saying it > "incorporates long-term, inter-agency occupation by Western military > personal, development workers and governmental experts", it seems to me that > the proposal itself "incorporates long-term inter-agency occupation" of our > heads and our persons and of 'scholarly subjectivity' and research practice > by such forces of the reconquista.... As experts, we are being invited to > conceptual and practical complicity in the new order.... Project Camelot > rises again as a sub-branch of a military-CIA operation, no longer just at > the level of Latin America and worldwide.... > > I would love to be given evidence that I was completely wrong! > > Best wishes > > Tom > > P.S. Click on www.kiafrica.org. for our 'voluntourism + study trip project' > in rural Uganda. ... We've just revised the Kanaama Interactive web-site, > the pictures, and the things you can choose to do..... Read the very > positive reports from our first year of visitors!....Did you know that maths > teaching in Ugandan schools is more advanced than in English ones? ..... > This year, UK students and researchers are going on study trips, using our > Ugandan centre as a base for different individual and collective field > projects.... Might you be interested? Click on www.kiafrica.org. > P.P.S. For a free electronic copy of the most recent version of the BNIM > (the biographic-narrative interpretive method of research interviewing for > lived experience) Short Guide and Detailed Manual , just click on > [log in to unmask] Please indicate your institutional affiliation and the > purpose for which you might envisage using BNIM's open-narrative interviews, > and I'll send it straight away. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: A forum for critical and radical geographers > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jan Bachmann > Sent: 14 May 2009 09:39 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: CfP - ISA 2010, Panel on "Liberal interventionism and reflections > on the re-emergence of counterinsurgency" > > Apologies for Cross-Posting > > Call for Papers > International Studies Association Annual Conference > New Orleans, 17 - 20 February 2010 > > Organisers: Colleen Bell & Jan Bachmann (University of Bristol) > > Panel Proposal on: > Liberal Interventionism and Reflections on the Re-emergence of > Counterinsurgency > > The contemporary terrain of military interventionism has evolved to > incorporate and nuance the lessons of counterinsurgency, mirroring aspects > of the pacification and stabilization campaigns popularized in the era of > de-colonization struggles. Today, long-term whole-of-government engagement > is picking up on these lessons across crisis zones. Even in regions in the > global South where violent conflict is not necessarily present, the military > is now assigned a new totalising role in genuinely civilian affairs that go > beyond traditional counterinsurgency strategies. This panel investigates > this terrain of international security as emblematic of a renewed liberal > strategy of war by other means. It begins from the premise that Western > security requires not simply the cessation of violent hostilities, but the > social, political and economic transformation of whole populations. It > incorporates long-term, inter-agency occupation by Western military > personal, development workers and governmental experts. > > Papers may reflect on: > > * the different features of counterinsurgency such as campaigns of > "cultural > awareness", or "human terrain mappings", > * strategic alliances that have emerged such as whole-of-government, > 3D and > their manifestations in civil-military cooperation as well as on the limits > of these new totalising assemblages of governance, > * the requirements for new actors involved; from the incorporation of > anthropologists to the culturally versatile combat-development expert, > * the designs of contingent or sub-sovereignty alongside > re-articulation of > a Western sovereign frontier that works principally through techniques of > containment, > * the rise of policing as a transnational, non-combat military > expansion and > possible (dis-) similiarities to previous ideas of police science (or > Policeywissenschaft) > > > Please send your abstracts by 28 May 2009 to Colleen Bell > ([log in to unmask]) and Jan Bachmann ([log in to unmask])