2. The academic field of peace and conflict research
2.3. Social constructivist approaches to conflict
2.3.2. Discourse Analysis and Neo-Marxist’s critique of Western conflict enterprise
Another approach that derives from constructivist thinking is Discourse Analysis which asserts that the language and discourse are constructing elements of the reality and conflict. Language and discourse, therefore, play a prominent role in providing a system of categories and meanings through which people construct the reality. This approach is generally referred to as post-structuralism which advocates that language has, for instance, a central role in reproducing the structures of domination and exclusion that produce and maintain violence.132 One post-structuralist view is offered by Sara Cobb & Janet Rifkin who studied 30 different mediation attempts through discourse analysis. They examined how mediators produce and sustain dominant ideologies through the rhetoric of neutrality. They came to a conclusion that mediation is a hegemonic process because it generates a dominant ideology by creating a web of shared meanings in which the initial story dominates not by coercion but by consent.133
Vivienne Jabri, on the other hand, following Anthony Giddens’ “theory of structuration”134 has studied how discursive and institutional processes reproduce war and violent conflict. According to Jabri, understanding the phenomenon of violent conflict necessitates the “[…] uncovering the continuities in social life which enable war and give it legitimacy, backed by discursive and institutional structures135.” Jabri identifies two specific discursive mechanisms for the construction and reproduction of war. The first mechanism is the legitimation of war through dominant modes of discourse; these are militarism and just war doctrine which constructs continuity within social systems. The second mechanism is the production of dominant identity through exclusionist discourse, thus, receiving support from the general population. The collective identity works as a medium through which the individual is related to collective violence.136 Jabri comments that the
131 Weber C. 2005, 99; For a Feminist approach on peace studies see, for instance, Ehlstain 1995; Väyrynen T. 2004.
132 Burr 2004, 62, 80, 90; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2005, 296.
133 Cobb & Rifkin 1991, 60-62.
134 Giddens 1979.
135 Jabri 1996, 3.
136 Jabri 1996, 2-3, 90, 97, 120-121, 139.
sovereign state is the dominant system in which these nationalist discourses of war are being upheld. In other words, war is a product of nationalist discourse and as Jabri points out “War is also a constructed discourse, enabled through identiational discursive and institutional continuities which give it legitimacy.”137
Jabri presents a framework based on Jürgen Habermas’s communicative ethics which purports to reconstruct a transformative discourse on peace. In other words, the purpose is to form a process of unconstrained discourse where all affected parties participate freely and in which the dissent against authority is legitimately open for argumentation.138 Although Jabri’s framework might seem appealing, she recognises that
“Discourse ethics as process is a locale of emancipation from the constraints of tradition, prejudice, and myth. However, some of the most pervasive conflicts of late modernity concern issues of religious belief which preclude a questioning of norms, where the text and image considered sacred are not allowed into an inter-subjective space of equal interpretation and contestation.”139
That is to say, some elements of the conflict may form a condition which does not allow the occurrence of unconstrained discourse, thus, precluding the possibility for any inter-subjective consent.140
Oliver Richmond offers yet another critical approach to peace and conflict studies. Richmond criticises that the notion of peace is rarely conceptualised either in academic literature or by the practitioners. Theorisations of the concept of peace are often sidelined by the questions regarding war and conflict. Peace is, thereby, frequently presented in Liberal terms and in a universalistic and idealistic form towards which any society should strive for without considerations of alternative discourses on peace.141 Richmond states that
“The whole apparatus of peacebuilding is sometimes colonial (and, perhaps, racist) in that it implies the transference of enlightened knowledge to those who lack the capacity or morality to attain such knowledge themselves.”142
Richmond asserts that Liberalism has a privileged position in relation to peace in modern Western thought which, though inferring pluralism, more often confines prosperity over democracy or human rights. Furthermore, the embraced idea of democratic peace also contains illiberal tendencies such as majority rule over minorities and individuals. The proponents of Liberalism consider its values to be universal, however, Liberal notions do not apply in all cultures. Richmond asserts that
137 Jabri 1996, 140.
138 Jabri 1996, 165, 166; Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2005, 297.
139 Jabri 1996, 166-167.
140 Jabri 1996, 167.
141 Richmond 2007, 249, 250, 257, 268, 269.
142 Richmond 2007, 268.
Liberalism substitutes “rights for virtues”; liberal peace might sometimes mean a “loss of community” or a loss of trust and social ties within a given community.143
Richmond argues that the current dominance of Liberal paradigm in peace research is due to the
“hybridisation of liberalism and realism”, in which state controlled forces support the liberal and democratic political, social and economic institutions of a liberal polity. This hybridisation explains both violence and order, and how they are related in the maintenances of domestic and international order. The liberal-realist framework for security is based on territorial sovereignty and international governance as well as on universal normative order that offers legitimate and consensual government for most people – if not for all. Marxist structural thinking adds to this axis a notion of social justice and legitimacy but these elements are mainly dealt within a liberal-realist context by democratisation rather than by the promotion of social justice.144
Richmond comments that there is an inherent paradox in the Liberal-Realist alignment. On the one hand, the ideology elevates state beyond individuals but, on the other hand, the ideology also tries to control and monitor state’s excesses, thus, incorporating views to protect human life. Through conserving the individual human rights, Liberal hegemonic thought also retains the right for the use of force, for instance, for the just war purposes. In other words, the idea of state territorial sovereignty is constantly contrasted with the right to intervene or responsibility to protect the individuals. Richmond concludes that from a Western standpoint there seems not to be viable or realistic alternatives to Liberalism.145
Despite the prevalence of Liberal peace, Richmond observes that peace is always temporally and spatially situated, supported and influenced by numerous groups including politics, military and civilian guise that evidently create multiple overlapping forms of peace.146 Richmond himself adheres to a relativist notion of peace by arguing that peace “[…] should never be assumed to be monolithic and universal in that the ontology and methodology of peace vary according to cultural, social, economic, and political conditions.”147 Richmond, furthermore, comes to a conclusion that the agenda for a peace research ought to construct “multiple conceptions of peace” with the special focus “upon the everyday life of their constituents”.148 Richmond, thus, advocates an implementation of local knowledge or bottom up perspective in peace processes. Tarja Väyrynen’s
143 Richmond 2008, 92.
144 Richmond 2008, 13-14, 95.
145 Richmond 2008, 93, 96.
146 Richmond 2007, 264.
147 Richmond 2007, 264.
148 Richmond 2008, 163.
study also supported this point of view and many feminist theorists have a similar agenda. John Briggs & Joanne Sharp also make analogous comments. They share the view of empowering local voices though acknowledging the global material forces, such as capitalism and their influence on particular indigenous communities.149