| Summary/Abstract |
Attention to everyday forms of resistance in the liberal peace debates has provided a more sophisticated critique of peacebuilding but the concept of resistance remains limited. The paper argues that this is because leading approaches to resistance coming out the hybridity literature lack an account of class and privilege. These approaches have done a superficial application of the frameworks they were drawing on, primarily those of Michel De Certeau and James Scott. Resistance has been conceived as an international–local and liberal–non-liberal contention. The conclusion is that while the study of resistance is welcomed, this research agenda is limited and depoliticizing. Critics of hybridity have addressed similar points, taking issue with the account of the local, the lack of historicity and the reification of liberal norms. However, in seeing these problems as stemming from the everyday framework, they too have misread the importance of class and privilege therein. The article shows that Certeau and Scott have much to contribute to understanding peacebuilding processes by sustaining a sociological historicist and practice-based account of resistance as embodied in subordinate subjects. This has the potential to politicize, historicize and decolonize the liberal peace critique and to contribute to studying resistance in IR more generally.
|