| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
161268
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
161266
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Drawing on postcolonial and feminist writings, this article re-examines securitization theory’s so-called ‘silence-problem’. Securitization theory sets up a definably colonial relationship whereby certain voices cannot be heard, while other voices try to speak for those who are silenced. The article shows that the subaltern cannot securitize, first, because they are structurally excluded from the concept of security through one of three mechanisms: locutionary silencing, illocutionary disablement, or illocutionary frustration. Second, the subaltern cannot securitize because they are always already being securitized and spoken for – as in this case by the well-meaning intellectuals trying to highlight and remediate their predicament. Third, the subaltern cannot securitize because the popular rendering of securitization theory as critical obfuscates and rationalises their marginalisation. This article thus reveals the ‘colonial moment’ in securitization studies, showing how securitization theory is complicit with securitizations ‘for’ that marginalise and silence globally, not just locally outside ‘the West’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
159788
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Have we returned to an age of extremes? Have Brexit, Trump, and the rise of nationalist populism sounded the death knell for liberal democracy’s promise of progress? Do tensions between the West, Russia and China constitute a new Cold War? Considering the global politics of Syria, militant Islam and the rise of the formerly-colonised world, can we speak of one present with different political groups aspiring to the same future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
157589
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The discipline of International Relations long has been identified and characterized as ‘American’ or ‘Anglo-American’.1 While recent work contests this assumption, either by giving a platform to different types of ‘regional IR’,2 or by bringing to light the interconnected colonial origins of the discipline,3 the discipline of International Relations remains dominated by US-based journals, scholars, and top-ranked programmes.4 The fact that all of this work is produced and carried out in the English language underpins and supports the US dominance in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|