‘Tsankurnaerar Pujustin’ (to live in peace)
buen vivir, coloniality, decolonial theory, peace, pluriverse
Deconstructing the coloniality of peace through the eyes of the Indigenous Shuar community unveils the power relations often inherent in theories of peace and spaces for peace. Western-centric definitions allow states to determine who can experience peace and who cannot — narrowly defining it through the absence of violence holds up a curtain over other more invisible or ‘slow violence’ that occurs over time, through systematic oppression and degradations to all forms of life (both human and the more-than-human).

Martina is a PhD-candidate at the Department of Geography and Planning, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada and works together with the Shuar Kakaram de Buena Esperanza, which is a collective name to represent the intellectual contributions and leadership from the advisory committee in the community of Buena Esperanza.
Upcoming
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, 1954Morgenthau, Hans Joachim. 1954. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Knopf.; Waltz, 2001Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 2001. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press., 2010Waltz, Kenneth Neal. 2010. Theory of International Politics. Waveland Press.). 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, 1996Katzenstein, Peter J. 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York (etc.): Columbia University press.), 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, 1996Adler, Emanuel, und 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., 2008Adler, Emanuel, und Michael N. Barnett. 2008. Security Communities. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.) to the various constructions, controversies and (re-)negotiation of security and order in public-private relations (Abrahamsen & Williams, 2009Abrahamsen, Rita, und 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., 2010Abrahamsen, Rita, und Michael C. Williams. 2010. Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge University Press.) and hybrid security governance (Schröder, Chappuis, & Kocak, 2014Schröder, Ursula C., Fairlie Chappuis, und 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.).
How to cite this entry:
Ketzmerick-Calandrino 2024: “Security. Speaking with Fanon?”. Virtual Encyclopaedia – Rewriting Peace and Conflict. 08.10.2024. https://rewritingpeaceandconflict.net/security-speaking-with-fanon/.
Video-Interview
Dr. Cecilia Roa in Dialogue
Podcast
Layla Brown and Filiberto Penados in conversation with Fabricio Rodríguez and Viviana García Pinzón