ASA Globalog

Following the debacle of the first avatar of the ‘radicalization programme’ the ESRC, in a cross-Council initiative, is re-framing its approach in terms of ‘global uncertainties’. This move does not simply try to deflect criticisms by subsuming ‘war on terror’-oriented research within a broader framework, but effectively reduces issues such as poverty, political dissent and even environmental degradation to simple matters of security. Many Universities – including mine – are enthusiastically preparing themselves to participate in these programmes. I attached below extracts of a mail I sent to my colleagues in order to generate debate on (and opposition to) this.

“The theme of ‘International Security’ has been proposed as one of new themes for the expansion of teaching and the theme ‘Security’ as one of the new interdisciplinary research themes for the university as a whole….I believe that there should be a broad discussion – before further moves are made – to see whether the academic body of the University feels comfortable with such a possible turn of events. A discussion is even more urgent in light of the proliferation of security-oriented research programmes funded under various guises by bodies such as the ESRC to bolster the so-called ‘war on terror’.

To kick start a discussion, I will argue that the introduction of an ‘International Security’ theme in our University might be ill advised on the grounds that: ·

The proposal for a teaching and research programme on International Security has a degree of affinity with current research agenda of UK funding bodies such as the ESRC. The political nature of the latter – which has been the object of substantial critique, leading, for example, to the withdrawal of the first ESRC/FCO radicalization programme – is revealed by the way it frames research priorities. Research taking place within the second avatar of the ESRC ‘Radicalisation Programme’ – interesting and open ended as it might be – still focuses only on Muslims/Islam, assuming that existing forms of radicalism are simply endogenous to Islam as a religion and implying that all Muslims are potential terrorists. Radicalisation is thus seen as a Muslim social problem, precluding analysis of radical state policies (including radical ‘Western’ state policies). At the same time, radicalisation is wrongly equated with violence, and radicalism is generally thought of as bad (where would we be today if there’d been no radical suffragette movement???). Although questions might be asked on how Muslims perceive Western foreign policies, the latter are taken for granted and, apart from rare exceptions, removed from critical scrutiny. What one notices of these programmes is that they generally entail a refusal to acknowledge the role of Western governments’ aggressive foreign policy in producing the very thing these governments most fear. This is part of a wider reluctance to address an issue which is animating debates among Muslims across the world: the role of western ‘neo-colonialism’ or ‘neo-imperialism’ (in the terms commonly used by Muslims worldwide) in what appears to be a deliberate – and overtly Islamophobic – attempt to undermine Muslim religion, society and culture. From the perspective of African, Latin American or Asian populations, it is countries such as the USA, UK, Russia or France which represent a more direct and tangible threat to security. ·

The extension of the International Security Agenda to include issues of poverty, environmental degradation, political mobilization, migration, development etc – as in the forthcoming Cross-Council programme on security – trivializes and politicizes complex processes by reducing them to a narrow problem of security. In other words, discussing these issues in relation to security either (if a state-centric or Western interests definition of security is used) implies that they are important primarily in as much as they impact on state or Western interests; or (if a human security definition is used) adds little of analytical or explanatory value. Calling ‘malnutrition’ ‘food insecurity’ doesn’t in itself help us understand this problem any better (see eg Beall, Goodfellow & Putzel 2006 for a critique of the incipient ‘securitization’ of development). ·

Ongoing research on conflict, violence, human rights, religious movements/religiosity, inequality, governance, critical theory – to mention but a few of the areas where Sussex academics are leading the field – cannot be reduced to issues of ’security’. Utilitarian or instrumental forms of research might have their own place, but academics offering more nuanced (and critical) perspectives on the practices and predicaments of everyday life should be encouraged to develop separate agendas and to maintain & forward their research interests with the support of the University…. · If the University wants to strengthen its international reputation, it needs to set – rather then follow – research agendas and to differentiate itself from existing players. ….. A programme focusing on issues concerning rights, justice, reconciliation and conflict resolution might provide an alternative agenda which challenges the premises of mainstream IS studies and which can make Sussex a leading player in the field. ·

In the rush to generate much needed income for somewhat empty University coffers, we appear to have moved – rather cynically and uncritically – to privilege policy oriented research (as on International Security) over independent/’blue sky’ enquiry. ESRC international benchmarking of disciplines such as Anthropology or International Relations – conducted recently by international panels of academics – has commented negatively on such a turn, stressing the importance of fostering open-ended, non-applied research to maintaining cutting edge international standards. It is open ended research which brings innovation and shifts research to new grounds. ·

Finally, setting ‘International Security’ as a privileged area for research and teaching in the University would align Sussex to a specific understanding of political and social relations, thus foreclosing possibility of research in Muslim societies. Anyone who has conducted field research in Islamic contexts would know that Muslims see themselves as subject – for very good reasons – of an indiscriminate and virulent ‘Western’ Islamophobia. Open to the accusation of working on behalf of governments or security agencies [our ‘informants’ do surf the web], future researchers would find their safety in the field greatly undermined. At the same time, host governments would think twice before granting research visas to academics who might be thought of as spying on behalf of their countries’ security agencies [the govt. of India, for example, is reviewing its policies concerning the issue of research visas to social scientists]. The international reputation of the ESRC has been greatly tarnished by the infamous ‘radicalisation programme’: surely we don’t want to be tarred by the same brush”.

I sent this mail today: I’ll keep you posted on the responses I receive!

Cheers

Filippo Osella