Critical Security Studies in Tandem with De/Postcolonial Theories
The anticolonial writer and psychiatrist Frantz Fanon became famous in the 1960s for his radical criticism of colonial racism and its influence on colonised peoples. His descriptions of how colonialism destroys people not only physically but also mentally and emotionally continue to inspire many political movements and theoretical concepts to this day. His work highlights the enduring nature of colonial relations, and the different ways in which (in)security and its protection can be perceived differently depending on the viewer’s position in society.
As a recent heir of Fanon’s work, post/decolonial research challenges critical security research in the modern context; this article uses post/decolonial research to point to multiple ways in which both theoretical fields have enriched the articulating and practicing of (in)security.
“May the peace be like a feather… Beautiful, soft and resistant.”
The artwork was provided by (Un)Stiching gazes. The group is an interdisciplinary collective of reflection, research and praxis, which tells and collects stories of peace and encounters in Colombia, especially after the signing of the 2016 Peace Agreement. They do so through textile narrative, that is to say through threads, needles and fabrics.
Maria Ketzmerick-Calandrino (she/her), is an international relations scholar focusing on peace, conflict, and security. She is a postdoctoral researcher in the project CRAFTE at Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient (ZMO) Berlin. Her research focuses on topics within post/decolonial and post socialist security research, historical and sociological international relations in a regional, transnational, and global context, and (global) peace and conflict research.
Classic Approaches to Security
Traditionally, only states were actors of security in security research. This meant that states were seen as the ones who act and who were capable of performing security in the international arena, at least in the eyes of International Relations canon and particularly in terms of military security (Morgenthau, ; Waltz, , ). However, after the end of the Cold War and the subsequent widening of the security agenda, new research laid more emphasis on the social construction of security (Katzenstein, ), and since the development of these new approaches to security the field has made substantial progress in understanding, conceptualising and utilising empirical and conceptual insights in the dynamics of producing, ordering and maintaining security within and beyond the state’s framework. These further developments range from security communities (Adler & Barnett, , ) to the various constructions, controversies and (re-)negotiation of security and order in public-private relations (Abrahamsen & Williams, , ) and hybrid security governance (Schröder, Chappuis, & Kocak, ).
Most prominently, research has been influenced by the emphasis on the securitisation paradigm in consolidated democracies (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, ) and beyond (Wilkinson, ; Vuori, ; Ketzmerick, ). The main research focus in these works has been an investigation of the ways in which specific topics are constructed as politically-relevant security issues that are vital to securitisation (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, ; Bigo, ; Balzacq, ; Booth, ). Against this backdrop security is seen as a social process that is mutually constructed within the relation between a securitisation actor and a securitisation audience, usually via a security speech act. Accordingly, this strand of research in critical security studies emphasises security in different layers. The first is security as a mode of communication in the form of a speech act (Buzan, Wæver, & Wilde, ; Hansen, ), performed by elite actors in established democracies with functioning mass media systems. Second, security is seen as a practice (Balzacq, ; Bigo, ), in which artefacts, such as airports, create practices of security in order to influence the feeling of security. Finally, scholars emphasise the experience of security as a context in actors’ lifeworlds, perceiving security as deriving from political and structural questions (Booth, ; Browning & McDonald, ). All these approaches include a focus on individuals acting in relation to or in order to enhance security.
However, securitisation approaches have been criticised for being too narrow (Booth, ), gender-blind (Hansen, ), untenable (McSweeney, ), not context-focused (Bigo, ), colonial (Bertrand, ), racist (Howell & Richter-Montpetit, ; Eriksson Baaz & Parashar, ) and ahistorical (Bonacker, ). They have also been challenged for failing to consider postcolonial realities and agencies (Hönke & Müller, ; Barkawi & Laffey, ; Bertrand, ). In accordance with these critiques, Adamson () argues that while colonial power relations are still present in current formal structures, such as states and international organisations, they remain invisible to security studies. This is reflected in the fact that critical security studies has primarily focused on explaining phenomena in consolidated democracies of the Global North. Furthermore, research in this field remains largely focused on Western empirical contexts, or has approached non-Western cases with a focus on fragility, instability and conflict (Bilgin, ; Abboud et al., ) without considering the internationalised context in which this violence emerged.
Only a few scholars have elaborated on the transnational entanglements of different visions of security in different arenas and their mutual dependences (Bonacker, Distler, & Ketzmerick, ; Bonacker & Lottholz, ; Lottholz & Bonacker, ; Ketzmerick ). Cases from non-OECD countries (Bubandt, ; Kent, ; Vuori, ; Wilkinson, ) demonstrate that a focus on a relational interpretation of security in the historical context is essential in order to understand the consequences of security construction. By including a theoretical perspective on postcolonial concepts and decolonial thinking with empirical evidence from postcolonial historicities, strategic power and actor-related aspects can be firmly grasped and better understood.
While post- and decolonial critiques have become influential in peace, security and conflict studies (Barkawi & Laffey, ; Sabaratnam ; Bertrand, ; Ketzmerick, ; Lottholz, ), in the meantime, research stemming from early critiques of syllabi and research foci has also endeavoured to show how post- and decolonial methodologies can be used in tandem to study concrete problems in global peace and security (Barkawi, ; Bhambra & Holmwood, ). This article proposes the use of such a dual approach to the study of peace and conflict by avoiding the postcolonial dilemma (Breckenridge & Veer, )1By the postcolonial dilemma I refer to the difficulties of wanting to study marginalised voices of colonial oppression but only having the means to find colonial sources, which creates a dilemma for my postcolonial stance to research. I use this dilemma and develop it further to exemplify ways of researching without reiterating colonial power relations, as well as making these dilemmas transparent to the research community. and reemphasising colonial perspectives (Adamson, ). In this vein, this article invites the investigation of security problematisations – in other words, gaining an understanding of how empirical issues become a security problem within societies, including why they get politicised at particular moments in history – by using postcolonial and decolonial arguments. Both approaches help to demystify colonialism and amplify the voices of marginalised actors, especially in the field of security. While postcolonial approaches focus on the aftermath of colonialism, decolonial approaches aim to undo ongoing neocolonial ambitions and create new trajectories for decolonial thinking and methodological change. Both endeavours clearly connect to Fanon’s writing.2By anticolonial I refer to the entirety of the efforts directed against colonial policy. These can range from criticism of individual measures to criticism in principle, and ultimately to armed resistance against colonial powers.
Three concepts are crucial to the detection of colonial dis/continuities within security: colonialism is understood as a power and belief system situated in a complex system of management and control; decolonisation is a distinct historical process that changes the political system in a given time frame (Cooper, ); and coloniality is the continuing state of colonial power relations and authority in politics, economics and military relations, spanning epistemic and cultural dimensions (Quijano, ; Mignolo & Escobar, ; Gross, ). The enduring nature of colonial relations within current authority systems needs to be brought to light, even though it is the product more of epistemic dynamics than of legal relations of domination (Mignolo & Walsh, ).
Postcolonial and decolonial approaches convey temporality and colonial continuities, and their structures and consequences for and within knowledge production (Mbembe, ; Mignolo, ; Quijano & Ennis,). By taking critiques into account, this article focuses on bringing the colonial context to security (Said, ) and decentering the concepts by focusing on agency, hybridity and subjectivity (Bhabha, ) as well as positionality (DuBois, ; Fanon, ; Go, ), alongside the researcher’s own situatedness within power relations (Haraway, ; Smith, ; Rutazibwa, ).
Thus, following critiques of the social sciences (Go,), post/decolonial theories enable the inclusion of different perspectives on security and positionalities to further investigate the contested nature of security visions. Different standpoints in the experience of colonial or state power, and thus security, have already been highlighted by Fanon () and DuBois (), who used their own experiences at particular moments in history to draw attention to security experiences and practices. Both authors reflect on their autobiographical experience of being Black in a mostly White-dominated world, but they are also alike in that they were mobile in different social worlds. Fanon moved from his home island of Martinique to Algeria, where he found himself supporting the anticolonial war against France, while DuBois moved up the social ladder via education and obtained the first Black PhD in the US. Both thinkers invite us to see how security divides the empirical world into zones of security and zones of danger, depending on the viewer’s postcolonial standpoint in society.
Thus, postcolonial security shows us that security is never absolute but always relative: the police secure the safety of White citizens, while their actions oftentimes cause insecurity for BPoC, people without legal status, and mentally ill or homeless people; SUV cars are safe for their drivers, but very unsafe for the other road users; and territories of intervention, such as Iraq and Mali, are constantly presented as dangerous in order to prolong the interventions, while simultaneously being seen as safe enough to return refugees to those places.
Colonial Relations as an Enduring Context for Security
The post/decolonial critique addresses the idea of a “subaltern standpoint” (Go, , 166) as well as competing interpretative frameworks that lead to a specific perception of threats, security and insecurity and their respective dis/continuities. Edward Said (; ) sheds light on the specific context here; post/decolonial literature has stressed and showed that the identity of the colonised subject emerges through a process of Othering, which is different from the European idea and distinguishes them in a Lacanian sense (Zizek, ). Said () had already showed how objectification and subject production function through Othering within the framework of Western knowledge production. Furthermore, he also revealed how colonial discourse created the idea that the colonised subject is inferior to the developed (Said, ).
Through this colonial construction of knowledge, Europe was discursively identified as the starting point for and normative aim of development, and colonialism was justified by the need to exercise hegemonic European control over the countries of the Global South in order to facilitate their development and enable peace and security globally. The colonial discourse contains a constructed binary that allows for only very specific actor designs and courses of action – i.e. those of the developed, democratic Europeans, and those of the uncivilised Others. The addressees of colonial practices of domination are thus discursively fixed to certain subjectivities.
From a postcolonial perspective, then, agency can therefore not be seen as a given, but rather as a construction of practices that is formed within powerful discourse formations. Thus, postcolonial authors understand the question of power essentially as a question of subject production. The consequences for research in postcolonial security are that supposedly (in)secure actors are not pre-discursively or objectively threatening; rather, they are first and foremost semantically produced and assigned appropriate labels – such as terrorists, oppositionists, or anti-colonialists – that define the expected scope of action. In order to be acknowledged as an actor, the positionality must be constituted, determined, and continually invoked as such by an outside party – which is how it materialises as an actor in the first place.
Transferred to the empirical reality of decolonisation and its dis/continuities, the constant and repeated invocation of anticolonial actors as insecure can be understood as a powerful act by the colonial administration, which constructs a very specific social order. The reproduction of this order does not function like a closed circle; rather, shifts in meaning can take place, which can result in the constructed order becoming fragile. It is precisely these shifts and ruptures that open up the space for political action and the subversion of orders (Butler, , 79). Thus, according to Bhabha (), through the construction of the Other colonial subjects are inevitably confronted with the fact that there is always a potential enemy threatening their own function and role.
The Postcolonial Standpoint: Who speaks security, and who is heard?
In an attempt to bring post/decolonial perspectives to the social sciences, Julian Go has highlighted the importance of positionality with dis/continuities, labeling this the “subaltern standpoint”: “From different standpoints, they saw different things” (Go, , 143). According to this approach there is no global sense of security, but there is a security that is relationally constructed. In order to empirically understand situations and to decolonise concepts in general, a change of perspective is necessary to illuminate existing issues – in Go’s terms, “to make the invisible visible” (Go, , 159).
In this sense, the subaltern viewpoint can make other kinds of knowledge(s) about security and insecurity visible. Reference may be made here to the conflict sociology of Simmel () and his understanding of being made foreign in a respective society as a process of Othering: actors who belong to societies can be made foreign to political and societal orders for any reason simply by perceiving them as a holder of a distinct social position and not as neutral. Simmel exemplifies this by reference to the situation of the Jews in Europe in the early 20th century, where a single marker of identity became central in delineating an individual’s position in society. In Simmel’s words, whether professor, shoemaker, family man or author, an individual is seen simply as “the Jew” according to the perception of the majority society (Simmel, , 509–12).
Although the empirical situation and relevant examples may have changed today (for instance, the process whereby Neukölln has been discursively constructed as the most dangerous district in Germany), the process of Othering and not belonging is still relevant for the experience of security. Applied to the case of decolonisation, Othering has implications on security construction; whether doctor, diplomat or politician, in the eyes of the colonial administration the decolonised remain potentially violent anti-colonial actors who are dangerous to any White administration, which is the only actor given legitimation and room for political maneuver. In this sense, historical processes that make social assumptions about actors bring about differences in assessments of their belonging within society and thereby have material consequences, particularly in the field of security.
These attributions and evaluations determine how actors are perceived by their societal environments and how they can move safely in different social worlds. Furthermore, these societal positions decisively shape life experiences and thus self-perception. This idea connects very well with the experiences described by Fanon () and DuBois: “How does it feel to be a problem?” (DuBois, ). Both authors draw attention to their own intersectional security experiences and practices; in particular, DuBois’ Double Consciousness refers to the ambivalence and different experiences of social participation when a group of people is marked as different and threatening. A veil and a double consciousness separates two worlds of experience of security, wherein the marginalised know how to act in both worlds but only feel safe in one of them.
Following the sociological observations of Fanon and DuBois, my interest is in highlighting the situational moments of postcolonial agency regarding threats, and to refer to the consistencies and enduring nature of security that decolonial theories remind us of (Mumford & Shires ). A post/decolonial approach to security entails the inclusion of different positionalities, experiences and interactions to highlight the polarising and ordering context of security today, and raises awareness that power relations might be distributed differently in each empirical situation. The actors who are dominant in one historical situation might be the ones who are suppressed in another, and this requires a careful historicisation of security and the power relations at play.
This notion relates well to Fanon’s ambivalent justification of the use of violence; from his perspective, colonial relations will endure indefinitely unless they are broken with the use of violence. However, by empowering themselves by the use of violence, postcolonial elites themselves become the actors that prolong colonial relations. Fanon not only suggests that his perspective is essential for understanding security—since colonial (state) violence is always perceived as a legitimate monopoly, while anti-colonial violence is consistently framed as illiberal—but also expresses discomfort with violence, which, although absolutely necessary to overcome systems of oppression, can take on a dynamic of its own and become an enduring colonial3For more in-depth discussion and thorough analyses of Fanon’s concept of violence, I highly recommend the following works: von Holdt, 2013; Aghamelu & Ejike, 2017; Ndayisenga, 2022; Cherki & Löhrer, 2002; and Kebede, 2001..
Conclusion
To conclude this essay I want to come back to its title: Does Fanon speak security? With reference to Fanon, post/decolonial approaches to security highlight those voices whose influence in shaping political history was marginalised, treated as peripheral, or silenced altogether, and which are therefore rarely heard by traditional approaches to security (Hansen, ; Bertrand, ; Abboud et al., ). Since marginalised actors do not act as a unified body, tracing their diverse practices and voices allows us to understand the ambiguous and contingent nature of transitory processes and their structural exclusions. During this process historical societal cleavages become apparent, which unfold and represent enduring continuities in today’s conflicts; this can be clearly seen in recent war situations such as the Anglophone Conflict in Cameroon (Ketzmerick, ) or the war in Ukraine.
This article argues that a and security studies is a beneficial way to research colonial dis/continuities, colonial violence and contemporary structural inequalities, because it allows us to consider different security experiences and positionalities. It thus proposes and explores options for an analytical expansion of security scholarship, aimed at making transnational entanglements, colonial legacies and long-term insecurity and violence visible through a focus on marginalised voices. The reflection and recognition of racism, anti-Black rhetoric and civilisationism must be included in the research perspective in order to understand disabling narratives and point to the racialised realities of security (Salter et al., ; Eriksson Baaz & Parashar, ).
In this sense Fanon does indeed speak security, but he also relates security to security practices, and helps us to understand the part played by actors’ practices in the social fabric of security. He also encourages us to consider the extent to which mobilisations, strikes, demonstrations and acts of violence influence how and in which arenas security is negotiated, but also, crucially, which security visions and narratives are shaped and become the social reality.
References
Abboud, Samer, Omar S. Dahi, Waleed Hazbun, Nicole Sunday Grove, Coralie Pison Hindawi, Jamil Mouawad, and Sami Hermez. 2018. „Towards a Beirut School of critical security studies“. Critical Studies on Security 6 (3): 273–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2018.1522174.
Abrahamsen, Rita, and Michael C. Williams. 2009. „Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics“. International Political Sociology 3 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00060.x.
———. 2010. Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Adamson, Fiona B. 2020. „Pushing the Boundaries: Can We “Decolonize” Security Studies?“ Journal of Global Security Studies 5 (1): 129–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz057.
Adler, Emanuel, and Michael N. Barnett. 1996. „Governing Anarchy: A Research Agenda for the Study of Security Communities“. Ethics & International Affairs 10 (März):63–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1996.tb00004.x.
Adler/Barnett. 2008. Security Communities. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Aghamelu, Fidelis Chuka, and Emeka Cyril Ejike. 2017. „UNDERSTANDING FANON’S THEORY OF VIOLENCE AND ITS RELEVANCE TO CONTEMPORARY VIOLENCE IN AFRICA“. IGWEBUIKE: African Journal of Arts and Humanities 3 (4). https://www.acjol.org/index.php/iaajah/article/view/2477.
Balzacq, Thierry. 2005. „The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context“. European Journal of International Relations 11 (2): 171–2001.
———. 2010. Securitization Theory: How Security Problems Emerge and Dissolve. Routledge.
Barkawi, Tarak. 2016. „Decolonising War“. European Journal of International Security 1 (2): 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2016.7.
Barkawi, Tarak, and Mark Laffey. 2006. „The postcolonial moment in security studies“. Review of International Studies 32 (2): 329–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007054.
Bertrand, Sarah. 2018. „Can the Subaltern Securitize? Postcolonial Perspectives on Securitization Theory and Its Critics“. European Journal of International Security 3 (3): 281–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2018.3.
Bhabha, Homi K. 2012. The Location of Culture. Routledge.
Bhambra, Gurminder K., and John Holmwood. 2021. Colonialism and Modern Social Theory. 1. Aufl. Cambridge ; Medford, MA: Polity.
Bigo, Didier. 1994. „The European Internal Security Field: Stakes and Rivalries in a Newly Developing Area of Police Intervention.“ In Policing across national boundaries. London, Pinter publications.
———. 2000. „International Relations Theory and The Politics of European Integration. Power, Security and Community“. https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/when-two-become-one-internal-and-external-securitisations-in-europe(6113fe21-a4a8-456a-8c3e-62dc0621d1b1)/export.html.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2011. „The Politics of Studying Securitization? The Copenhagen School in Turkey“. Security Dialogue 42 (4–5): 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418711.
Bonacker, Thorsten. 2019. „‚Wann werden die Vereinten Nationen Truppen nach Kalifornien senden?‘ Human Security aus nicht-westlichen Perspektiven“. In Menschliche Sicherheit und gerechter Frieden. Politisch-ethische Herausforderungen, herausgegeben von Ines-Jacqueline Werkner und Bernd Oberdorfer. Bd. 4. Gerechter Frieden. Springer VS. https://www.springerprofessional.de/wann-werden-die-vereinten-nationen-truppen-nach-kalifornien-send/16582868.
Bonacker, Thorsten, Werner Distler, and Maria Ketzmerick. 2017. Securitization in Statebuilding and Intervention. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bonacker, Thorsten, and Philipp Lottholz. 2022. „The Post-Imperial Politics of Security and Depoliticisation: Comparing Discourses and Practices of Ordering Across Central Asia“. Europe-Asia Studies 74 (2): 310–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.2020217.
Booth, Ken. 1991. „Security and Emancipation“. Review of International Studies 17 (4): 313–26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097269.
Breckenridge, Carol A., and Peter van der Veer. 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South Asia.
Browning, C. S., and M. McDonald. 2013. „The future of critical security studies: Ethics and the politics of security“. European Journal of International Relations 19 (2): 235–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066111419538.
Bubandt, Nils. 2005. „Vernacular Security: The Politics of Feeling Safe in Global, National and Local Worlds“. Security Dialogue 36 (3): 275–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010605057015.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Wæver, Eds. 2003. „Security complexes: a theory of regional security“. In Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, 40–82. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491252.007.
Buzan, Barry, Ole Wæver, and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Cherki, Alice, and Andreas Löhrer. 2002. Frantz Fanon. Ein Porträt. Hamburg: Edition Nautilus GmbH.
Cooper, Frederick. 2002. „Decolonizing Situations: The Rise, Fall, and Rise of Colonial Studies, 1951-2001“. French Politics, Culture & Society 20 (2): 47–76.
DuBois, W. E. B. 1994. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Dover Publications.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria, and Swati Parashar. 2021. „Race and racism in narratives of insecurity: from the visceral to the global“. Critical Studies on Security 9 (1): 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/21624887.2021.1904186.
Fanon, Frantz. 1981. Die Verdammten dieser Erde. 15. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Go, Julian, Ed. 2013. Postcolonial Sociology. Bd. 24. Political Power and Social Theory 24. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-8719(2013)24.
———. 2016. Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory. Oxford University Press.
Gross, Matthias. 2012. „‘Objective Culture’ and the Development of Nonknowledge: Georg Simmel and the Reverse Side of Knowing“. Cultural Sociology 6 (4): 422–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975512445431.
Hansen, Lene. 2000. „The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School“. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 29 (2): 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298000290020501.
Haraway, Donna Jeanne. 1991. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.
Holdt, Karl von. 2013. „The Violence of Order, Orders of Violence: Between Fanon and Bourdieu“. Current Sociology 61 (2): 112–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392112456492.
Hönke, Jana, and Markus-Michael Müller. 2016. The Global Making of Policing: Postcolonial Perspectives. Routledge.
Howell, Alison, and Melanie Richter-Montpetit. 2019. „Is Securitization Theory Racist? Civilizationism, Methodological Whiteness, and Antiblack Thought in the Copenhagen School“. Security Dialogue, August, 0967010619862921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010619862921.
Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York [etc.]: Columbia University press.
Kebede, Messay. 2001. „The Rehabilitation of Violence and the Violence of Rehabilitation: Fanon and Colonialism“. Journal of Black Studies 31 (5): 539–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/002193470103100502.
Kent, Alexandra. 2006. „Reconfiguring Security: Buddhism and Moral Legitimacy in Cambodia“. Security Dialogue 37 (3): 343–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010606069179.
Ketzmerick, Maria. 2018. Staat, Sicherheit und Gewalt in Kamerun. Bielefeld: transcript. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-4904-8/staat-sicherheit-und-gewalt-in-kamerun/.
———. 2019. Staat, Sicherheit und Gewalt in Kamerun – Postkoloniale Perspektiven auf den Dekolonisierungsprozess unter französischer UN-Treuhandverwaltung. Bielefeld: transcript, Bielefeld. https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-4904-8/staat-sicherheit-und-gewalt-in-kamerun/.
———. 2022. „A Colonial War Under UN Supervision?: The Trusteeship System and the Silenced War in Cameroon“. In The United Nations Trusteeship System. Routledge.
———. 2023. „The Anglophone crisis in Cameroon: local conflict, global competition, and transnational rebel governance“. Small Wars & Insurgencies 34 (1): 247–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2022.2113691.
Lottholz, Philipp. 2018. „Post-Liberal Statebuilding in Central Asia: A Decolonial Perspective on Community Security Practices and Imaginaries of Social Order in Kyrgyzstan“. D_ph, University of Birmingham. https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/8358/.
Lottholz, Philipp, and Thorsten Bonacker. 2022. „Understanding the Post-Imperial Politics of Security, Stability and Ordering in Central Asia: An Introduction“. Europe-Asia Studies 74 (2): 179–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.2020492.
Mbembe, Achille. 2001. On the Postcolony. Berkeley: University Press Group Ltd.
McSweeney, Bill. 1996. „Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School“. Herausgegeben von Barry Buzan und Ole Waever. Review of International Studies 22 (1): 81–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097432.
Mignolo, Walter. 2005. The Idea of Latin America. Wiley.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Arturo Escobar. 2013. Globalization and the Decolonial Option. Routledge.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham: Combined Academic Publ.
Morgenthau, Hans Joachim. 1954. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.
Mumford, Densua, and James Shires. 2023. „Toward a Decolonial Cybersecurity: Interrogating the Racial-Epistemic Hierarchies That Constitute Cybersecurity Expertise“. Security Studies 32 (4–5): 622–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2023.2230879.
Ndayisenga, Zenon. 2022. „Fanon on the Arbitrariness of Using Violence: An Inevitable for Both Colonialism and Decolonization“. Journal of Black Studies 53 (5): 464–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/00219347221077273.
Quijano, Aníbal. 2000. „Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America“. International Sociology 15 (2): 215–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005.
Quijano, Anibal, and Michael Ennis. 2000. „Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America“. Nepantla: Views from South 1 (3): 533–80. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/23906.
Rutazibwa, Olivia Umurerwa. 2016. „From the Everyday to IR: In Defence of the Strategic Use of the R-word“. Postcolonial Studies 19 (2): 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13688790.2016.1254016.
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2017. Decolonising Intervention: International Statebuilding in Mozambique. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers / Rowman & Littlefield International. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781783482740/Decolonising-Intervention-International-Statebuilding-in-Mozambique.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.
Said, Edward W. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books. New York: Vintage.
Salter, Mark B, Emily Gilbert, Jairus Grove, Jana Hönke, Doerthe Rosenow, Anna Stavrianakis, and Maria Stern. 2021. „Race and Racism in Critical Security Studies“. Security Dialogue 52 (1_suppl): 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211038787.
Schröder, Ursula C., Fairlie Chappuis, and Deniz Kocak. 2014. „Security Sector Reform and the Emergence of Hybrid Security Governance“. International Peacekeeping 21 (2): 214–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533312.2014.910405.
Simmel, Georg. 2006. „Der Raum und die räumlichen Ordnungen der Gesellschaft“. In Grenzsoziologie: Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes, herausgegeben von Monika Eigmüller und Georg Vobruba, 15–23. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90245-6_2.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.
Vuori, Juha A. 2008. „Illocutionary Logic and Strands of Securitization: Applying the Theory of Securitization to the Study of Non-Democratic Political Orders“. European Journal of International Relations 14 (1): 65–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066107087767.
———. 2014. Critical Security and Chinese Politics: The Anti-Falungong Campaign. Routledge.
Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 2001. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press.
———. 2010. Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.
Wilkinson, Claire. 2007. „The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?“ Security Dialogue 38 (1): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010607075964.
Zizek, Slavoj. 2001. Die Tücke des Subjekts. Suhrkamp.
“Not only does whiteness represent rationality and reason, but whites are also positioned as civilised, while those deemed non-white are seen as violent and barbaric. Peace is seen as a ‘white privilege’ which is applicable to white Europeans and their descendants, but not to People of Colour.”
How to cite this entry:
Azarmandi, M. & C. Pauls 2024: “Coloniality of Peace”. Virtual Encyclopaedia – Rewriting Peace and Conflict. 25.09.2024. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/2024/09/25/colonaility-of-peace/.
![[in dialogue] with Alke Jenss](https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/wp-content/uploads/elementor/thumbs/in-dialogue-with-Alke-Jenss-qj2se2rrbozrr3g173kfc5x0st8veflg15g731cyvo.png "[in dialogue] with Alke Jenss")
Video-Interview
Dr. Alke Jenss in Dialogue
Podcast
Layla Brown and Filiberto Penados in conversation with Fabricio Rodríguez and Viviana García Pinzón
