| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
080880
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Existing analyses of non-state armed-group combat motivations are inadequate because they essentialize combat motivation, fail to recognize the polymorphous character of non-state warfare, and confound agency and structure by equating individual combatant motivation with the context of the conflict. In order to account for the more dynamic nature of combat motivation in armed groups versus conventional militaries, this article offers a two-dimensional framework for understanding combatant motivation. The first dimension is based on context-specifically, terrorist, insurgent and warlord forms of warfare-and the second on individual motivation-including communitarian, economic, and existential motivations. The article then illustrates the interplay between these two dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
188698
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article investigates the portrayal by French policy-makers of the so-called Islamic State ‘foreign fighters’. I provide an in-depth analysis of the discursive construction of these ‘foreign fighters’ as different and detached from the (French) Self. I do so through a questioning of the notion of multiplicity, revealing how it exists precariously and the consequences this precariousness has on the notion itself. First, multiplicity emerges in ‘strange’ places as identities are being remodelled through new combinations. Second, the coexistence implied by multiplicity needs to be complexified to account for the way it helps preserve but also sometimes erase difference (and thus multiplicity itself). Finally, because of the precariousness of multiplicity, unexpected outcomes can be produced by the encounter with difference (such as the policy of non-repatriation of the ‘foreign fighters’). Overall, multiplicity can be usefully questioned by looking at these instances of instability and doubt. As such, this article shares the concerns expressed by critical scholars that multiplicity recreates problematic distinctions between inside and outside. As a response, my analysis contributes to an understanding of multiplicity as always in the making, revealing how various discursive strategies are used to temporarily and imperfectly stabilise boundaries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|