In search of antagonistic other. Troubling threats and non-intervention
https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.7
Abstract
This research underscores the complexities of constructing hegemonic narratives in the face of geopolitical dynamics surrounding military crises. Departing from conventional analyses focused on securitization theory, strategic narratives, or David Campbell’s framework of identity construction in response to external perils, this study draws upon the concept of hegemonic practices as elucidated by Ernest Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. Through an exploration of how political actors employ discursive strategies to construct hegemony, the research centers on the Western political elites’ efforts to establish political hegemony to rationalize military intervention in the Middle East. Utilizing the notion of the antagonistic Other, which posits two mutually constitutive Others where one is perceived as the source of violence against the other, representing civilians, this paper examines the political discourse surrounding two concurrent events in the Middle East: the conflicts in Syria and Libya. The analysis reveals that while the Western political class constructed a political hegemony around Libya by portraying Muammar Gaddafi and the victimized civilians as opposing Others, a similar narrative failed to materialize for Syria: Western powers encountered expected challenges in articulating a clear antagonistic Other, on account of the position of Russia and other countries representing non-Western political culture. Throughout the period of 2011– 2014, Bashar al-Assad, despite his role as the Syrian president, was not consistently portrayed as the source of antagonism towards civilians.
References
1. Allan B.B., Vucetic S., Hopf T. (2018). The Distribution of Identity and the Future of International Order: China’s Hegemonic Prospects. International Organization. Vol. 72. No. 4. P. 839–869.
2. Aydın-Düzgit S. (2023). Authoritarian middle powers and the liberal order: Turkey's contestation of the EU. International Affairs. Vol. 99. No. 6. P. 2319–2337.
3. Balzacq T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 171–201.
4. Bellamy A.J. (2011). Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm. Ethics & International Affairs. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 263–269.
5. Bellamy A.J. (2014). From Tripoli to Damascus? Lesson Learning and the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. International Politics. Vol. 51. No. 1. P. 23–44.
6. Bellamy A.J., Williams P.D. (2011). The New Politics of Protection? Côte d’Ivoire, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs. Vol. 87. No. 4. P. 825–850.
7. Black D.R., Williams P.D. (2009). The International Politics of Mass Atrocities: The Case of Darfur. New York: Routledge.
8. Black M.L. (2016). The World Wide Web as Complex Data Set: Expanding the Digital Humanities into the Twentieth Century and Beyond through Internet Research. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 95–109.
9. Chari T. (2010). Representation or Misrepresentation? The New York Times’s Framing of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide. African Identities. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 333–349.
10. Dunne T., Gifkins J. (2011). Libya and the State of Intervention. Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 65. No. 5. P. 515–529.
11. Edkins J. (1999). Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
12. Hamilton R. (2011). Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide. London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
13. Herschinger E. (2012). ‘Hell Is the Other’: Conceptualising Hegemony and Identity through Discourse Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 65–90.
14. Hildebrandt T. et al. (2013). The Domestic Politics of Humanitarian Intervention: Public Opinion, Partisanship, and Ideology. Foreign Policy Analysis. Vol. 9. P. 243–266.
15. Holland J., Fermor B. (2021). The discursive hegemony of Trump’s Jacksonian populism: Race, class, and gender in constructions and contestations of US national identity. Politics. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 64–79.
16. Hopf T. (2013). Common-Sense Constructivism and Hegemony in World Politics. International Organization. Vol. 67. No. 2. P. 317–354.
17. Hopf T., Allan B.B. (2016). Making Identity Count: Building a National Identity Database. New York: Oxford Scholarship Online.
18. Krivokhizh S., Soboleva E. (2023). Strategic Narratives in China’s Bid for Discursive Hegemony. International Organisations Research Journal. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 178–192.
19. Laclau E. (1999). The Politics of Rhetoric. In Material Events: Paul De Man and the Afterlife of Theory, edited by T. Cohen, H. Miller, B. Cohen. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. P. 229–253.
20. Laclau E., Mouffe C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.
21. Leek M., Morozov V. (2018). Identity beyond Othering: Crisis and the Politics of Decision in the EU’s Involvement in Libya. International Theory. Vol. 10. No. 1. P. 122–152.
22. Luck E.C. (2011). The Responsibility to Protect: The First Decade. Global Responsibility to Protect. Vol. 3. No. 4. P. 387–399.
23. Maxey S. (2020). The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action. Political Research Quarterl. Vol. 73. No. 3. P. 680–695.
24. McHugh K.A. (2021). No More Iraqs: Analysing Use of Force Decisions during the Obama Administration. Global Change, Peace and Security. P. 1-21.
25. Methmann C.P. (2010). Climate Protection’ as Empty Signifier: A Discourse Theoretical Perspective on Climate Mainstreaming in World Politics. Millennium: Journal of International Studie. Vol. 39. No. 2. P. 345–372.
26. Morozov V. (2018). Global (Post)Structural Conditions. In Routledge Handbook of Russian Foreign Policy. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge. P. 22–42.
27. Morozov V. (2021). Uneven worlds of hegemony: Towards a discursive ontology of societal multiplicity. International Relations. Vol. 36. P. 83–103.
28. Morris J. (2013). Libya and Syria: R2P and the Spectre of the Swinging Pendulum. International Affairs. Vol. 89. No. 5. P. 1265–1283.
29. Nuruzzaman M. (2013). The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine: Revived in Libya, Buried in Syria. Insight Turkey. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 57–67.
30. Ostermann F. (2016). The discursive construction of intervention: selves, democratic legacies, and Responsibility to Protect in French discourse on Libya. European Security. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 72–91.
31. Seymour L.J.M (2014). Let’s Bullshit! Arguing, Bargaining and Dissembling over Darfur. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 571–595.
32. Snidal D. (1985). The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory. International Organization. Vol. 39. No. 4. P. 579–614.
33. Solomon T. (2009). Social Logics and Normalisation in the War on Terror. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 269–294.
34. Tambakaki P. (2014). The Tasks of Agonism and Agonism to the Task: Introducing ‘Chantal Mouffe: Agonism and the Politics of Passion’. Parallax. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 1–13.
35. Tang Abomo P. (2019). The Responsibility to Protect: The History of a Growing Norm. In R2P and the US Intervention in Libya. Cham: Springer International Publishing. P. 7–38.
36. Thakur R. (2013). R2P after Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers. The Washington Quarterly. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 61–76.
37. Thomassen L. (2019). Discourse and Heterogeneity. In Discourse, Culture and Organization. Cham: Springer International Publishing. P. 43–61.
38. Thompson A., ed. (2007). The Media and the Rwanda Genocide. London: Pluto Press.
39. Wojczewski T. (2018). Global power shifts and world order: the contestation of ‘western’ discursive hegemony. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Vol. 31 No. 1. P. 33–52.
Review
For citations:
Neklyudov N. In search of antagonistic other. Troubling threats and non-intervention. International Trends / Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. 2023;21(4):156-170. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2023.21.4.75.7
Views:
511
Email this article 