Critical peacebuilding and the dilemma of difference: the stigma of the ‘local’ and the quest for equality

Abstract

Recent research has revealed the need to include and understand local actors in order to improve the effectiveness of peacebuilding. According to these analyses, peacebuilding could become more respectful of cultural differences thanks to a genuine engagement with the specificities of the local. Empirical studies of the ‘different’ local have thus flourished in the field with the ambition of countering the universalist tendency of traditional peacebuilding. Through the use of the concept of ‘dilemma of difference’, this article challenges this intuitive argument and argues that these approaches risk reproducing a stigma attached to the ‘different’ local. Indeed, emphasising difference in order to ensure its respect means separating and reifying ‘it’ as a deviation from the norm(al). As such, this analytical strategy is likely to recreate the stigma that contributed to the exclusion of local actors in previous peacebuilding practice and research. In contrast, I outline three strategies for studying difference differently in peacebuilding: focusing on the institutional arrangements that enabled specific differences to emerge and become visible; recognising that these differences are internal to peacebuilding (and thus an unlikely source of alternative and emancipation); and revealing the unstated and implicit Self for/from whom local difference is relevant.

Keywords:

• Peacebuilding
• difference
• local
• interventions
• identity
• stigma

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Pol Bargués-Pedreny, Peter Finkenbush, Lee Jones, Nicolas Lemay-Hébert, Róisín Read and three anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments and advice on earlier versions of this article. This article was written at the Käte Hamburger Kolleg/Centre for Global Cooperation Research of the University of Duisburg-Essen and I am very grateful for the support I received from the Centre’s team.

Notes

1 The term ‘peacebuilding’ is itself contentious and this article cannot offer a full exploration of its meaning(s). Instead, I explore what scholars have argued in relation to peacebuilding and its local actors, recognising that these scholars can have different understandings of the term itself. For an exploration of the different meaning of peacebuilding, see Barnett et al., “Peacebuilding.”

2 The term ‘local’ is used in the singular in this article to reflect its use in the existing literature. The pronoun ‘its’ is used when talking about the local in general (including institutions and values) and ‘her’ when talking about local actors.

3 Leonardsson and Rudd, “The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding,” 832.

4 Chandler, “The Uncritical Critique of ‘Liberal Peace,’” 155.

5 Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 282; see other examples in Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders"; Visoka and Richmond, “After Liberal Peace?”

6 Nadarajah and Rampton, “The Limits of Hybridity,” 53.

7 See the useful reviews of this abundant literature in Leonardsson and Rudd, “The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding"; Richmond and Mac Ginty, “Where Now for the Critique of the Liberal Peace?"; Randazzo, “The Paradoxes of the ‘Everyday.’”

8 Bargués-Pedreny, “Connolly and the Never-Ending Critiques of Liberal Peace,” 217.

9 See, for example, Sabaratnam, “Situated Critiques of Intervention"; Sabaratnam, “Avatars of Eurocentrism in the Critique of the Liberal Peace"; Simons and Zanker, “Questioning the Local in Peacebuilding"; Kappler, “The Dynamic Local"; Hirblinger and Simons, “The Good, the Bad, and the Powerful"; Paffenholz, “Unpacking the Local Turn in Peacebuilding"; Randazzo, “The Paradoxes of the ‘Everyday’"; Hameiri and Jones, “Beyond Hybridity to the Politics of Scale.”

10 Minow, Making All the Difference, 20.

11 Ibid., 112.

12 Ibid., 22.

13 For exceptions see Brigg, The New Politics of Conflict Resolution; Behr, Politics of Difference; Bargués-Pedreny and Mathieu, “Beyond Silence, Obstacle and Stigma.”

14 Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 270.

15 Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders,” 231; see also Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide.” As expressed by Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 272, one of the central concerns for these scholars is “the search for the local agent.”

16 Richmond and Mitchell, “Peacebuilding and Critical Forms of Agency.”

17 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?” 848.

18 Ginty and Sylva Hamieh, “Made in Lebanon,” 47. See also Paffenholz, “International Peacebuilding Goes Local"; Leonardsson and Rudd, “The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding.”

19 Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 267.

20 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?” 841; see also Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide."

21 See for instance the analyses assembled in the edited volumes of Lee and Özerdem, Local Ownership in International Peacebuilding, and Brigg and Bleiker, Mediating Across Difference, as well as (among many others) Felix da Costa and Karlsrud, “Contextualising Liberal Peacebuilding for Local Circumstances” and Eriksen, “The Liberal Peace is Neither.”

22 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?” 841–2; see also Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 269.

23 Wilén and Chapaux, “Problems of Local Participation and Collaboration,” 534.

24 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?"; Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency"; Mac Ginty and Firchow, “Top-Down and Bottom-up Narratives of Peace and Conflict"; and for a more problem-solving approach recognising the ambiguities of the local see Schaefer, “Local Practices and Normative Frameworks in Peacebuilding.”

25 Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide,” 1032.

26 See for instance Wanis-St. John, “Indigenous Peacebuilding,” 363.

27 Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency,” 282.

28 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?” 848. See also Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide,” 1024, who recognises the potential impossibility of accessing the local: ‘we need to ask ourselves how we as outsiders, interveners and policy makers can (if we can) interpret, comprehend and understand the local’.

29 Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders,” 233.

30 Mac Ginty cited in Leonardsson and Rudd, “The ‘Local Turn’ in Peacebuilding,” 834. For more references to the acknowledgement of failures by critical scholars see Bargués-Pedreny, “Connolly and the Never-Ending Critiques of Liberal Peace.”

31 Lidén et al., “Introduction: Beyond Northern Epistemologies of Peace,” 593.

32 Hughes and Pupavac, “Framing Post-Conflict Societies.”

33 It will also be unlikely to cover or include all the other forms of difference existing inside the category ‘women’.

34 Minow, Making All the Difference, 4.

35 Mac Ginty, “What Do We Mean When We Use of the Term ‘Local’?” 207.

36 Sending, “Why Peacebuilders Fail to Secure Ownership and Be Sensitive to Context,” 21. See also Wanis-St. John, “Indigenous Peacebuilding."

37 Björkdahl and Gusic, “’Global’ Norms and ‘Local’ Agency."

38 Hameiri and Jones, “Beyond Hybridity to the Politics of Scale."

39 Richmond, “Becoming Liberal, Unbecoming Liberalism,” 333–4.

40 Lidén et al., “Introduction: Beyond Northern Epistemologies of Peace,” 594, emphasis added.

41 Mac Ginty, “Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace,” 143, emphasis added.

42 Ibid., 149; Mac Ginty and Sylva Hamieh, “Made in Lebanon,” 59.

43 Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide,” 1027.

44 Schaefer, “Local Practices and Normative Frameworks in Peacebuilding,” 512.

45 Donais, “Empowerment or Imposition?” 11; see also Mac Ginty, “Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace,” 151.

46 Richmond, “A Pedagogy of Peacebuilding,” 119.

47 Mac Ginty, “Indigenous Peace-Making Versus the Liberal Peace,” 159.

48 Richmond, “Beyond Local Ownership in the Architecture of International Peacebuilding,” 364.

49 Richmond, “Becoming Liberal, Unbecoming Liberalism,” 335. This is directly opposed to the standardised approach of “universal liberalism” and its disregard for “cultural identity” (334).

50 Donais, “Empowerment or Imposition?” 20; Richmond, “A Pedagogy of Peacebuilding,” 126.

51 On the question of the import of ‘Anthropology’ into International Relations see Vrasti, “The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations."

52 Schierenbeck, “Beyond the Local Turn Divide,” 1030.

53 Felix da Costa and Karlsrud, “Contextualising Liberal Peacebuilding for Local Circumstances,” 61.

54 Wanis-St. John, “Indigenous Peacebuilding,” 365.

55 Visoka and Richmond, “After Liberal Peace?” 114 and 21. On de-politicisation see Nadarajah and Rampton’s critique of the exclusionary tendencies of hybrid peace approaches and their valorisation of ‘consensual’, ‘a-political’ solutions; Nadarajah and Rampton, “The Limits of Hybridity and the Crisis of Liberal Peace,” 65.

56 For examples of how the inclusion of the local can be limited to the ‘complying’ local or to the folkloric aspects of the local, see Enns et al., “Indigenous Voices and the Making of the Post-2015 Development Agenda"; Park, “Peacebuilding, the Rule of Law and the Problem of Culture.”

57 This does not mean that ‘difference’ does not exist; rather, it points at the fact that out of the near infinity of ways people can be classified only some of them are considered relevant depending on the situation and context: religious affiliation, gender identity, group membership, etc.

58 Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law.

59 Minow, Making All the Difference, 112.

60 Ibid., 70.

61 Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Local Turn in Peace Building,” 770; Richmond and Mac Ginty, “Where Now for the Critique of the Liberal Peace?” 172.

62 Mac Ginty, “Indigenous Peace-Making,” 145.

63 Richmond, “A Pedagogy of Peacebuilding,” 117.

64 Mac Ginty, “Indigenous Peace-Making,” 155.

65 Ibid., 21.

66 Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Fallacy of Constructing Hybrid Political Orders,” 232.

67 Nadarajah and Rampton, “The Limits of Hybridity,” 55–6.

68 Donais, “Bringing the Local Back In,” 42.

69 Ibid., 219.

70 Ibid., 23.

71 Ibid., 390.

72 Ibid., 75.

73 Mac Ginty, “Where Is the Local?” 848.

74 Minow, Making All the Difference, 390.

75 Inayatullah, “Gigging on the World Stage."

76 Krishna, “Review: The Importance of Being Ironic,” 401.