Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:11:56.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The limits of hybridity and the crisis of liberal peace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2014

SUTHAHARAN NADARAJAH  and
DAVID RAMPTON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hybridity has emerged recently as a key response in International Relations and peace studies to the crisis of liberal peace. Attributing the failures of liberal peacebuilding to a lack of legitimacy deriving from uncompromising efforts to impose a rigid market democratic state model on diverse populations emerging from conflict, the hybrid peace approach locates the possibility of a ‘radical’, post-liberal, and emancipatory peace in the agency of the local and the everyday and ‘hybrid’ formations of international/liberal and local/non-liberal institutions, practices, and values. However, this article argues, hybrid peace, emerging as an attempt to resolve a problem of difference and alterity specific to the context in which the crisis of liberal peacebuilding manifests, is a problem-solving tool for the encompassment and folding into globalising liberal order of cultural, political, and social orders perceived as radically different and obstructionist to its expansion. Deployed at the very point this expansion is beset by resistance and crisis, hybrid peace reproduces the liberal peace's logics of inclusion and exclusion, and through a reconfiguration of the international interface with resistant ‘local’ orders, intensifies the governmental and biopolitical reach of liberal peace for their containment, transformation, and assimilation.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 49 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Belloni, Roberto, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance: Its Emergence and Significance’, Global Governance, 18:1 (2012), pp. 21–38Google Scholar; Mac Ginty, Roger, ‘Hybrid peace: The interaction between top down and bottom up peace’, Security Dialogue, 41:4 (2010), pp. 391–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mac Ginty, Roger, International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance: Hybrid Forms of Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, Audra, ‘Quality/Control: International peace interventions and “the everyday”’, Review of International Studies, 37:4 (2011), pp. 1623–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richmond, Oliver P., A Post–Liberal Peace (Oxford: Routledge, 2011)Google Scholar; Oliver P. Richmond ‘Peace Formation and Local Infrastructures for Peace’, Alternatives (online-before-print), (2013) pp. 1–17; Richmond, Oliver P. and Mitchell, Audra (eds), Hybrid Forms of Peace: From Everyday Agency to Post-Liberalism (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011)Google Scholar; Roberts, David, ‘Beyond the metropolis? Popular peace and post-conflict peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 37:5 (2011), pp. 2535–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Boege, V., Brown, A., Clements, K., and Nolan, A., ‘Building peace and political community in hybrid political orders’, International Peacekeeping, 16:5 (2009), pp. 599–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See, for example, Bruch, Elizabeth M., ‘Hybrid Courts: Examining Hybridity Through a Post-Colonial Lens’, Boston University International Law Journal, 28:1 (2010), pp. 1–28Google Scholar; Thania Paffenholz, ‘International peacebuilding goes local: analysing Lederac's conflict transformation theory and its ambivalent encounter with 20 years of practice’, Peacebuilding (ahead-of-print), (2013), pp. 1–17; On the 1990s turn to the local, the indigenous and ‘social capital’ in international development programming, see Mohan, Giles and Stokke, Kristian, ‘Participatory development and empowerment: the dangers of localism’, Third World Quarterly, 21:2 (2000), pp. 247–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Chandler, David, ‘Peacebuilding and the politics of non-linearity: rethinking “hidden”agency and “resistance”’, Peacebuilding, 1:1 (2013), pp. 17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jabri, Vivienne, ‘Peacebuilding, the local and the international: a colonial or a postcolonial rationality?’, Peacebuilding, 1:1 (2013), pp. 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Laffey, Mark and Nadarajah, Suthaharan, ‘The hybridity of liberal peace: States, diasporas and insecurity’, Security Dialogue, 43:5 (2012), pp. 403–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabaratnam, Meera, ‘Avatars of Eurocentrism in the critique of the liberal peace’, Security Dialogue, 44:3 (2013), pp. 259–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See, for example, Ikenberry, John G., ‘Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order’, Perspectives on Politics, 7:1 (2009), pp. 71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paris, Roland, ‘Saving Liberal Peacebuilding’, Review of International Studies, 36:2 (2010), pp. 337–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Cooper, Neil, ‘On the crisis of liberal peace’, Conflict, Security & Development, 7:4 (2007), pp. 605–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooper, Neil, Turner, Mandy, and Pugh, Michael, ‘The end of history and the last liberal peacebuilder: a reply to Roland Paris’, Review of International Studies, 37:4 (2011), pp. 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, for example, Duffield, Mark, Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security (London: Zed Books, 2001)Google Scholar; Jabri, ‘Peacebuilding’; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 32–46; Peterson, Jenny H., ‘Creating Space for Emancipatory Human Security: Liberal Obstructions and the Potential of Agonism’, International Studies Quarterly, 57:2 (2012), pp. 318–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, Ikenberry, ‘Liberal internationalism 3.0’, p. 71; Hindess, Barry, ‘Liberalism – what's in a name?’, in Larner, Wendy and Walters, William (eds), Global governmentality: Governing International Spaces (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 24Google Scholar; Rose, NikolasPowers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999), pp. 107–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott, David, Refashioning Futures: Criticism after Postcoloniality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Duffield, Global Governance; pp. 11–12.

9 Bacevich, Andrew, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of US Diplomacy (Harvard University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live (London: Routledge, 2009)Google Scholar; Neumann, Iver B. and Jacob Sending, Ole, Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality Rationality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Dillon and Reid, Liberal Way of War.

11 Ikenberry, ‘Liberal internationalism 3.0’.

12 Mann, Michael, ‘The first failed empire of the 21st century’, Review of International Studies, 30:4 (2004), pp. 631–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Rosenberg, Justin, ‘Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem’, International Politics, 42:1 (2005), pp. 2–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 For overviews, see Chandler, David, ‘The uncritical critique of ‘liberal peace’, Review of International Studies, 36:S1 (2010) pp. 137–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mac Ginty, ‘Hybrid peace’, pp. 392–6.

15 See, for example, Paris, ‘Saving liberal peace’.

16 See, for example, Chandler, ‘The uncritical critique’; Cooper et al., ‘The end of history’; Dillon, Michael and Reid, Julian, ‘Global governance, liberal peace and complex emergence’, Alternatives, 25:1 (2000), pp. 117–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Duffield, Global Governance; Pugh, Michael, ‘The political economy of peacebuilding: a critical theory perspective’, International Journal of Peace Studies, 10:2 (2005), pp. 23–42Google Scholar.

17 Johan Galtung, Jon Paul Lederach, Elisse Boulding, among others. See discussions in Chandler, ‘Peacebuilding’; Mitchell, ‘Quality/Control’; Paffenholz ‘International peacebuilding’.

18 For representative examples, see fn. 1.

19 For overviews, see Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’; Peterson, Jenny H., ‘A Conceptual Unpacking Of Hybridity: Accounting For Notions Of Power, Politics And Progress In Analyses Of Aid-Driven Interfaces’, Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7:2 (2012), pp. 9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 21; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 41; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 12–13; Richmond, Oliver P., ‘A Post-Liberal Peace: Eirenism and the Everyday’, Review of International Studies, 35:3 (2009), pp. 557–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 11.

22 Belloni, ‘Hybrid peace governance’, p. 24; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 17–19.

23 See, for example, Prabhu, Anjali, Hybridity: Limits, Transformations, Prospects (Albany: SUNY Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Young, Robert J. C., Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001)Google Scholar.

24 Theo Goldberg, David, ‘Heterogeneity and hybridity: Colonial legacy, postcolonial heresy’, in Schwarz, H. and Ray, S. (eds), A Companion to Postcolonial Studies (London: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), pp. 72–86Google Scholar; Young, Robert J. C., Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race (Abingdon: Routledge, 1995)Google Scholar.

25 Prabhu, Hybridity; Hutnyk, John, ‘Hybridity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28:1 (2005), pp. 79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Pieterse, J. N., ‘Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of recognition’, Theory, Culture & Society, 18:2–3, (2001), p. 236Google Scholar; Young, Colonial Desire, p. 5.

27 Pieterse, ‘Hybridity, so what?’, pp. 220–4; Prabhu, Hybridity, p. 2.

28 See, for example, Nobil Ahmad, Ali, ‘Whose underground?’, Third Text, 15:54 (2001), pp. 71–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anthias, Floya, ‘New hybridities, old concepts: the limits of “culture”’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24:4 (2001), pp. 619–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dirlik, Arif, ‘The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism’, Critical Inquiry, 20:2 (1994), pp. 328–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldberg, ‘Heterogeneity and hybridity’; Marotta, Vince P. ‘The hybrid self and the ambivalence of boundaries’, Social Identities, 14:3 (2008) pp. 295–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, Katharyne, ‘Different diasporas and the hype of hybridity’, Environment and Planning D, 15 (1997), pp. 533–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shohat, Ella, ‘Notes on the “Post-Colonial”’, Social Text, 31/32 (1992), pp. 9–113Google Scholar; For a defence of hybridity, see Pieterse, ‘Hybridity, so what?’; Drichel, Simone, ‘The time of hybridity’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 34:6 (2008), pp. 587–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Hall, Stuart, ‘When was “the post-colonial”? Thinking at the limit’, in Chambers, Iain and Curti, Lidia (eds), The Postcolonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons (Routledge, 2002 [orig. pub. 1996]), pp. 242–59Google Scholar.

29 See, for example, Friedman, Jonathan, ‘Global Crises, the Struggle for Cultural Identity and Intellectual Porkbarrelling: Cosmopolitans versus Locals, Ethnics and Nationals in an era of De-Hegemonisation’, in Werbner, P. and Modood, T. (eds), Debating Cultural Hybridity (London: Zed, 1997), pp. 70–89Google Scholar.

30 See, for example, Krishna, Sankaran, Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka, and the Question of Nationhood (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Raffin, Anne, ‘Postcolonial Vietnam: hybrid modernity’, Postcolonial Studies, 11:3 (2008), pp. 329–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Watts, Michael, ‘Resource curse? Governmentality, oil and power in the Niger Delta, Nigeria’, Geopolitics, 9:1 (2004), pp. 50–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Georg Gadamer, Hans, Truth and Method (London Continuum, 1998 [orig. pub. 1975])Google Scholar; Kapferer, Bruce, ‘Anthropology and the Dialectic of the Enlightenment: A Discourse on the Definition and Ideals of a Threatened Discipline’, Australian Journal of Anthropology, 18:1 (2006), pp. 87–8Google Scholar.

32 Prabhu, Hybridity, pp. 14–15; Pieterse, ‘Hybridity, so what?’, p. 224.

33 For discussions, see Prabhu, Hybridity; Kraidy, M. M., Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization (Philadephia: Temple University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

34 See, for example, Bhabha, Homi, The Location of Culture (Abingdon: Routledge, 1994)Google Scholar; Chen, Kuan-Hsing and Morley, David (eds), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies (Abingdon: Routledge, 1996)Google Scholar; Stuart Hall, ‘When was “the post-colonial”’; Gilroy, Paul, The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness (Harvard University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

35 For example, for Bhabha it is the ‘interstitial passage between fixed identifications [that] opens up the possibility of a cultural hybridity that entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy’ (Bhabha, ‘Location’, p. 4). Hall and Gilroy, whose work on diaspora is more directly linked to issues of race, see cultural inbetweenness as not only undermining racialised (white) imaginaries of the nation-state and associated hierarchies, but empowering black and Asian migrants by turning positions of victimhood and marginalisation into ones of strength. For critiques of their work, see, for example, Ahmad ‘Whose underground?’; Anthias, ‘New Hybridities’, pp. 628, 632; Mitchell, ‘Different diasporas’, p. 537.

36 Prabhu, Hybridity, p. xiv.

37 See fn. 28.

38 Anthias, ‘New Hybridities’, p. 620; Shohat, ‘Notes’, p. 110.

39 Ahmad, ‘Whose underground?’.

40 Prabhu, Hybridity, p. xiv; Ahmad, ‘Whose underground?’; Hutnyk, ‘Hybridity’; Mitchell, ‘Different diasporas’; Shohat, ‘Notes’.

41 Ahmad, ‘Whose underground?’; Marotta, ‘The hybrid self’; Shohat, ‘Notes’, pp. 109–10; See discussion in Drichel, ‘The time of hybridity’, pp. 603–6.

42 Kraidy, Hybridity, pp. 51–5; Canessa, Andrew, ‘Contesting Hybridity: Evangelistas and Kataristas in Highland Bolivia’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 32:1 (2000), pp. 115–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hale, Charles R., ‘Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 34:3 (2002), pp. 485–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 Shohat, ‘Notes’, p. 110; Anthias, ‘New Hybridities’; Mitchell, ‘Different diasporas’, p. 533.

44 Hutnyk, ‘Hybridity’, p. 92; Ahmad, ‘Whose underground?’; Dirlik, ‘The Postcolonial Aura’, p. 355–6.

45 Hindess, Barry, ‘Citizenship and Empire’, in Hansen, T. B. and Stepputat, F. (eds), Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants and States in the Postcolonial World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 253Google Scholar.

46 Rose, Powers, p. 70.

47 See, for example, Robert Cooper, ‘The new liberal imperialism’, The Observer (7 April 2002).

48 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 1; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 103.

49 Hindess, ‘Liberalism – what's in a name’, p. 30.

50 Bruch, ‘Hybrid Courts’, pp. 5–7; Mitchell, ‘Different diasporas’, pp. 553–4; Canessa, ‘Contesting Hybridity’.

51 See, for example, Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 25; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 123, 128–9.

52 See, for example, Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 210; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 18–19.

53 Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’.

54 Belloni, ‘Hybrid peace governance’, p. 23; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 613, fn.12; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 72–3.

55 Ibid., p. 22; Mac Ginty, ‘Hybrid peace’; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 18–19.

56 Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’, pp. 266–8.

57 Laffey and Nadarajah, ‘Hybridity of liberal peace’, p. 406.

58 See, for example, Mac Ginty, International peacebuilding, pp. 47–67; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 152–85.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid., pp. 62–4; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 14, 51.

61 Ibid., p. 181.

62 Richmond, ‘Eirenism’, p. 566; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 185–7.

63 Hutnyk, ‘Hybridity’, p. 81; Pieterse, ‘Hybridity, so what?’, p. 222.

64 Anthias, ‘New hybridities’, p. 630; Mitchell ‘Different diasporas’, pp. 535–6.

65 Cox, Robert W., ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 10:2 (1981), pp. 126–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 See, for example, Lynn Doty, Roxanne, Imperial encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

67 Doty, Imperial Encounters, p. 24.

68 A key difference is the relative weight placed on hybridity, the local and/or the everyday. For example, Richmond (Post-Liberal Peace) focuses on the novel space produced by fusion of the local/everyday with the international, Mac Ginty (International Peacebuilding) on the ‘variable geometries’ of jostling indigenous and liberal orders, Mitchell (‘Quality control’) on the everyday, and Roberts (‘Beyond the metropolis?’) the basic needs of the populace.

69 We say broadly rationalist as, despite the emphasis on interests, for some scholars there is recognition of the structural, systemic, and ideological dimensions of liberal peace. See, for example, Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 45; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 8–9.

70 Richmond, Post-Liberal peace, p. 3; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 604; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 41–2, 56.

71 Ibid., pp. 13–19, 102; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 10; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis?’, p. 2541. However, Mitchell (‘Quality/Control’) defines the everyday as constituted by sets of ‘world building’ experiences, practices and interpretations involving both ‘international’ and ‘local’ actors.

72 Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’, p. 267, emphasis in original; See relatedly, Charbonneau, Bruno, ‘War and Peace in Côte d'Ivoire: Violence, Agency, and the Local/International Line’, International Peacekeeping, 19:4 (2012), pp. 508–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

73 Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace. pp. 11–19; Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 23; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 603.

74 Richmond Post-Liberal Peace, p. 15.

75 Ibid., p. 17; Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 24.

76 Ibid., pp. 9, 92–102; Mac Ginty, ‘Hybrid Peace’, p. 403.

77 See discussion in Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’, pp. 266–8.

78 Ibid., pp. 268–9.

79 Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 606; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 18, 36; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis?’, pp. 2542–6.

80 Ibid., pp. 611–12; Richmond, ‘Eirenism’, pp. 564, 567–8; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis?’, p. 2543.

81 Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 101.

82 Richmond, ‘Eirenism’, p. 566; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 600.

83 For Richmond, the envisaged ‘indigenous peace’ is one that ‘includes a version of human rights, rule of law, a representative political process that reflects the local groupings and their ability to create consensus, as well as broader international expectations for peace (but not alien “national” interests)’. Richmond, ‘Eirenism’, p. 579; emphasis added.

84 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 17–18; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 141, 204.

85 Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’, p. 259.

86 Chandler, ‘Peacebuilding’, p. 27; Jabri, ‘Peacebuilding’, p. 11; Peterson, ‘Conceptual Unpacking’, pp. 14–15.

87 Cooper et al., ‘The end of history’, p. 12; Mohan and Stokke, ‘Participatory development’, pp. 258–9.

88 Prabhu, Hybridity, p. 2; Hall, ‘When was the “post-colonial”?’, pp. 257–8; Mitchell, ‘Different diasporas’.

89 Hale, ‘Does Multiculturalism menace?’, p. 488; see also Mohan and Stokke, ‘Participatory development’, p. 255.

90 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 29–30; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 38; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis’, p. 2542.

91 Richmond, ‘Eirenism’, p. 578–9; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 602.

92 Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 32.

93 Richmond, Post-Liberal peace, pp. 38–9, 45; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis’, p. 2552.

94 Ibid., p. 101; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis’, pp. 2549–54.

95 Hale, ‘Does Multiculturalism menace?’, p. 496.

96 Ibid., p. 490.

97 Dillon and Reid, ‘Global Governance’, p. 118; Peterson, ‘Creating Space’, pp. 321–3.

98 Chandrasekaran, Rajiv, Little America: The War within the War for Afghanistan (Random House, 2012)Google Scholar.

99 Bruch, ‘Hybrid Courts’.

100 Krause, Keith, ‘Hybrid Violence: Locating the Use of Force in post-Conflict Settings’, Global Governance, 18:1 (2012), p. 2Google Scholar.

101 Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis’, p. 2544; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 17; Outside work on violence in the everyday (for example, Mitchell, ‘Quality/Control’), the hybridisation/co-constitution of violence and politics is neglected in the hybrid peace literature (Krause, ‘Hybrid Violence’); see relatedly, Charbonneau, ‘War and Peace’.

102 Richmond, for example, explicitly separates local processes of ‘peace formation’ from ‘local forces of violence’, locating in the former the agency that makes possible peace and resistance to the latter's ambitions. ‘Peace Formation’, p. 2.

103 Charbonneau, ‘War and Peace’.

104 Mac Ginty ‘Hybrid Peace’, p. 397; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 81.

105 Cramer, Christopher, ‘Homo Economicus Goes to War: Methodological Individualism, Rational Choice and the Political Economy of War’, World Development, 30:11 (2002), pp. 1845–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 141, 145; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, pp. 61, 104, 222; Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 605.

107 Ibid., pp. 154, 185–7.

108 The orientalising thrust here is obviated by contrasting the categorical treatment of these projects with similar ones on behalf of, for example, Scots, Quebecois, and Catalans.

109 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 18, 82; Richmond, A Post-Liberal peace, pp. 38–9; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis?’, p. 2543.

110 Chandler, ‘Peacebuilding’, p. 17.

111 For example, in the Sri Lankan context discussed below, ‘being’ Sinhala represents not only language, culture, and ‘ethnicity’, but a set of hierarchical social relations – with the ‘Tamil’, the Buddhist monk, the Westerner, the military, and the state's territoriality. Kapferer, Bruce, Legends of People, Myths of State: Violence, Intolerance and Political Culture in Sri Lanka and Australia (London: Berghahn, 2012)Google Scholar; Krishna, Postcolonial Insecurities; Rampton, David, ‘”Deeper hegemony”: the politics of Sinhala nationalist authenticity and the failures of power-sharing in Sri Lanka’, Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 49:2 (2011), pp. 256–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 187; ‘Hybrid Peace’, p. 408.

113 Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 45; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 18, 209.

114 Rose, Powers, pp. 158–60.

115 Peterson, ‘Conceptual Unpacking’, p. 17.

116 Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 27; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 141, 187; Richmond, ‘Peace Formation’.

117 Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 51; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, 187.

118 Belloni, ‘Hybrid peace governance’, p. 23; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 71–5.

119 Boege et al., ‘Building peace’, p. 601.

120 Höglund, Kristine and Orjuela, Camilla, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance and Illiberal Peacebuilding in Sri Lanka’, Global Governance, 18:1 (2012), pp. 89–104Google Scholar.

121 Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 135–57.

122 For example, while Mac Ginty argues political leaders ‘prioritised a single unifying identification (socialism) and sought to delegitimise other, “lesser” identifications such as religion or nationalism’, Jovic argues ‘the ideological narrative of Yugoslav communism in practice shielded and promoted nationalism in its constitutive nations’. Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, p. 146; Jovic, Dejan, ‘The Disintegration of Yugoslavia A Critical Review of Explanatory Approaches’, European Journal of Social Theory, 4:1 (2001), p. 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

123 For an excellent elaboration of this, see Raffin, ‘Postcolonial Vietnam’.

124 See, for example, Godina, Vesna V., ‘The outbreak of nationalism on former Yugoslav territory: a historical perspective on the problem of supranational identity’, Nations and Nationalism, 4:3 (1998), pp. 409–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 See, for example, Chatterjee, Partha, Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World: A Derivative Discourse (Zed Books, 1986)Google Scholar; Scott, Refashioning Futures.

126 See, for example, Rampton, ‘“Deeper hegemony”’; Herring, Ronald J., ‘Making Ethnic Conflict: the Civil War in Sri Lanka’, in Esman, Milton J. and Herring, Ronald J. (eds), Carrots, Sticks and Ethnic Conflict: Rethinking Development Assistance (University of Michigan Press, 2001), pp. 140–74Google Scholar; Krishna, Postcolonial Insecurities; Scott, Refashioning Futures.

127 On donor-state assemblages and demographic engineering, see Herring, ‘Making Ethnic Conflict’; on international-state security assemblages in Sri Lanka's own ‘War on Terror’, see Laffey and Nadarajah, ‘Hybridity of liberal peace’.

128 See critiques in Mitchell, ‘Quality/Control’; and Sabaratnam ‘Avatars’.

129 Belloni, ‘Hybrid Peace Governance’, p. 33; Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding, pp. 51–3, 209; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 183.

130 Mitchell, ‘Quality/Control’, pp. 1628–30.

131 In this sense and in contrast to views that governmentality is purely occidental (for example, Joseph, Jonathan, ‘The limits of governmentality: Social theory and the international’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:2 (2010), pp. 223–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sabaratnam, ‘Avatars’), colonial and, later, nationalist governmentality is part and parcel of the transnational co-constitution of the identity-related dynamics of societal conflict and the unitary, territorial, centralised state that becomes the crucible for violence and bloodletting. See also, Death, Carl, ‘Governmentality at the limits of the international: African politics and Foucauldian theory’, Review of International Studies, 39:3 (2013), pp. 763–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

132 Rampton, ‘“Deeper hegemony”’, pp. 262–7; Kapferer, Legends, p. 84; Watts, ‘Resource Curse?’

133 See, for example, Fuglerud, Oivind, ‘Local Communities and State Ambitions in Eastern Sri Lanka’, in Mayer, Markus, Rajasingham-Senanayake, Darini, and Thangarajah, Yuvi (eds), Building Local Capacities for Peace: Rethinking Conflict and Development in Sri Lanka (New Delhi: Macmillan, 2003)Google Scholar.

134 Rampton, ‘“Deeper hegemony”’; Krishna, Postcolonial Insecurities.

135 For example, in recent years international practices and frameworks of accountability for mass atrocities have become interwoven with and co-constitutive of emergent practices (both in the island and the diaspora) of Tamil resistance against Sinhala majoritarianism and state repression. See, for example, Laffey and Nadarajah, ‘Hybridity of liberal peace’, p. 415.

136 See, for example, Watt's (‘Resource Curse?’) excellent discussion of international-national-local dynamics in Nigeria's Niger Delta.

137 Krishna, Postcolonial Insecurities.

138 Kapferer, Legends, p. 93.

139 Ibid., p. 94.

140 Ibid., p. 95.

141 Boege et al., ‘Building Peace’, p. 601; Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 94; Roberts, ‘Beyond the metropolis?’, p. 2546.

142 Dirlik, ‘The Postcolonial Aura’, p. 337; Watts, ‘Resource Curse?’, pp. 72–5; see also, Calhoun, Craig, ‘The Class Consciousness of Frequent Travellers: Toward a Critique of Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism’, The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101:4 (2002), pp. 869–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Hindess, Barry, ‘Liberalism, socialism and democracy: variations on a governmental theme’, Economy and Society, 22:3 (1993), pp. 300–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 See, for example, Neumann and Sending, Governing the Global Polity; For discussion of ‘problematisations’, ‘programmes’, and ‘fields of visibility’ within an ‘analytics of government’, see Dean, Mitchell, Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (London: SAGE, 2007)Google Scholar.

145 Peterson, ‘Creating Space’, p. 318.

146 Richmond, Post-Liberal Peace, p. 12.

147 We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

148 Clark, Phil, ‘Hybridity, Holism, and Traditional Justice: The Case of the Gacaca Courts in Post-Genocide Rwanda’, George Washington International Law Review, 39:4 (2007), pp. 765–838Google Scholar; See relatedly, Bruch, ‘Hybrid Courts’.

149 See discussion in Peterson, ‘Creating space’.

150 Krishna, Sankaran, ‘The importance of being ironic: a postcolonial view on critical international relations theory’, Alternatives, 18:3 (1993), pp. 385–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

151 Peterson, ‘Creating space’, p. 326.

152 See discussion in Krishna, ‘The importance of being ironic’.

153 Hall, ‘When was “the post-colonial”?’, p. 249, emphasis in original.

154 Drichel, ‘The time of hybridity’, pp. 594–5, emphasis added.