COMPANION

WEBSITE

9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 1 22/03/23 7:29 PM

9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 2 22/03/23 7:29 PM
 DECONSTRUCTING…THE ‘COLD WAR’
z The notion of a ‘cold war’ suggests a condition
of ‘neither war nor peace’. However, to describe
US–Soviet relations during this period as a ‘war’
(albeit a ‘cold’ one) is to suggest that levels of
antagonism between the two powers were so deep
and impassioned that they would have led to direct
military confrontation had circumstances allowed. In
practice, this only applied to the first, most hostile,
phase of the so-called Cold War, as tensions began
to ease after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The
idea of an enduring ‘cold war’ may therefore have
been shaped by ideological assumptions about the
irreconcilability of capitalism and communism.
DECONSTRUCTING… ‘THE NATION’
z To describe a collection of people as a nation is to
imply that they share a common cultural heritage.
In that sense, all nations are myths or illusions, as
no nation is culturally homogeneous (the Japanese
being perhaps the closest thing to an exception in
this respect). Nations, in that sense, are ‘invented’
or ‘imagined’.
z The assumption that people are members of
a nation suggests that national identity is the
principal form of collective identity. Other
sources of collective identity – based, for
instance, on social class, gender, ethnicity or
religion – are thus of secondary importance,
9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 3
z The Cold War was supposedly ‘cold’ in the sense that
superpower antagonism did not lead to a ‘fighting
war’. This, nevertheless, remained true only in terms
of the absence of direct military confrontation
between the USA and the Soviet Union. In respect
of covert operations, so-called ‘proxy wars’ and
conflicts that were clearly linked to East–West
conflict (Korean, Vietnam, the Arab–Israeli wars
and so on) the Cold War was ‘hot’.
especially as each of these has transnational or
sub-national implications.
z Nations appear to be cohesive entities, which act
as organically unified wholes. This gives rise to what
is called ‘methodological nationalism’, an approach
to understanding in which discrete nations are taken
to be the primary global actors. In practice, this
apparent cohesiveness is achieved only by the fact
that the leading actors on the world stage are states
or governments, which legitimize their actions by
claiming to act on behalf of ‘the nation’. To refer to,
say, ‘the Chinese’, ‘the Russian’ or ‘the Americans’ as
global actors is therefore deeply misleading.
22/03/23 7:29 PM
 DECONSTRUCTING… ‘TERRORISM’
z The use of the term ‘terrorism’ assumes that
certain forms of political violence can be reliably
distinguished from other forms by the fact that they
aim to provoke ‘terror’ rather than simply lead to
destruction. However, all forms of political violence
or warfare aim, at some level, to strike fear into
z In conventional usage, the term is associated only
the wider population. This introduces an arbitrary
element into the use of the term, and implies that
no conception of terrorism can ever be objective
or impartial. Terrorism can thus be thought of as a
political or social construct.
z ‘Terrorism’ carries deeply pejorative implications,
meaning that the term tends to be used as a political
weapon, implying that the group or action to which
it is attached is immoral and illegitimate. To describe
a person or group as a ‘terrorist’ implies that they are
DECONSTRUCTING… ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’
z The idea of human rights advances the notion that
the similarities between and amongst human beings
are greater than the differences. This implies that
there is such a thing as a common humanity, of
which each individual is an expression. Such a view
treats national, cultural, social and other differences
z The idea of human rights suggests that people are
amongst human beings as, at best, secondary
considerations.
z Human rights are merely philosophical and moral
constructs. No surgical operation is capable of
exposing our human rights and of proving those
to which we are entitled. As there is no objective
model of human nature, any conception of human
9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 4
the enemy of civilized society, that they are intent
on causing death, destruction and fear for their
own sake, not for a larger purpose (unlike ‘freedom
fighters’ or ‘revolutionaries’), and that they are
clandestine, shadowy and sinister.
with non-state actors. This can have politically
conservative implications. Not only does the fact
that states cannot be accused of terrorism imply
that state violence is legitimate violence, but it also
suggests that attempts to challenge government
or overthrow the status quo that involve violence
are politically and morally suspect. This may also
apply to attempts to challenge the hegemonic or
dominant state within the modern international
system, specifically the USA.
rights is bound to be based on particular ideological
and moral assumptions. Conceptions of human
rights thus constantly evolve as they are deployed
strategically in a global context, examples including
‘women’s human rights’.
essentially ‘rights bearers’, defined by the claims that
they may make on others, rather than by their duties
or obligations towards them. The notion of human
rights is therefore not merely atomistic, implying
that each individual is largely self-reliant, but it also
legitimizes egoism and self-interest by implying that
these are ‘human’ traits.
22/03/23 7:29 PM
 DECONSTRUCTING… ‘HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION’
z Describing such interventions as ‘humanitarian’ ‘Humanitarian intervention’ could, in this light, be
cloaks them in moral rightfulness and legitimacy. viewed as a contradiction in terms.
The term ‘humanitarian intervention’ thus contains
z The notion of ‘humanitarian intervention’ may
its own justification: the interventions in question
reproduce important power asymmetries.
serve the interests of humanity, presumably by
Intervening powers (invariably developed western
reducing suffering and death. At the very least the
states) possess both power and moral benevolence
term is specious, in that it fails to acknowledge
while the people needing to be ‘saved’ (invariably
the invariable mixed and complex motives for
in the developing world) are portrayed as victims
intervention.
living in conditions of chaos and barbarity
z ‘Intervention’ refers to various forms of (Orford 2003). The term thus reinforces the
interference in the affairs of others. It therefore notion of modernization as westernization, even
conceals the fact that the interventions in question Americanization.
are, by their nature, military actions that involve
z Interventionism, military, ‘humanitarian’ or
the use of force and some level of violence.
otherwise, often relies on and reproduces global
‘Humanitarian military intervention’ or just
social relations of coloniality (Sabaratnam, 2017).
‘military intervention’ are thus preferred by some.

DECONSTRUCTING… ‘DEVELOPMENT’
z The term ‘development’ can be thought of as
demeaning because it is based on a contrast
between ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘developing’ countries
or regions and ‘developed’ ones. The former
therefore appear to be immature, basic or in some
z The primary difference between ‘underdeveloped/
way deficient, while the latter seem to be fully-
formed, sophisticated and advanced.
z As development also refers to the biological process
of growth, in an individual or a species, it implies
a single, linear process of change. Development
therefore suggests that ‘underdeveloped/
developing’ countries are destined to go through
the same stages and phases that developed
countries already have. Development thus tends
to be linked to a distinctively western form of
modernization.
developing’ countries and ‘developed’ ones is their
level of wealth or affluence. This can be seen to
prioritize material goods and values over non-
material ones. Little attention, for example, is given
to the possibility that poor countries may be more
morally, spiritually or culturally developed than rich
countries.

9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 5 22/03/23 7:29 PM

 DECONSTRUCTING… ‘POVERTY’
z The poor are often viewed as the victims of some
form of social injustice. Poverty, in this sense, is
something that happens to people, tending to
demoralize and disempower even those thought of
as the ‘deserving’ poor.
z The widely accepted belief that wealth is linked
z As poverty is portrayed in terms of deprivation
and suffering, it suggests that poverty equals ‘bad’
while wealth equals ‘good’. As such, the concept
of poverty endorses a dominant materialist and
consumerist ethic. This ignores the idea that
voluntary poverty may have moral and spiritual
DECONSTRUCTING CLIMATE CHANGE ‘SKEPTICISM’
z For almost as long as anthropogenic climate change
has been on the global political agenda, there have
been politicians, businesses, media outlets, and
campaign groups that have sought to question its
z Moreover, questions have been raised over the
existence or downplay its significance. Many of
these perspectives suggest that climate change is
a natural feature of earth’s history and that human
beings have little impact.
z But climate change ‘skepticism’ – or ‘denial’,
as critics would have it – lacks any clear basis
in scientific evidence. One widely-cited 2013
research paper found that an overwhelming
9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 6
benefits, as advocated by some religious traditions,
and it disregards the notion of ‘sufficiency’, as
endorsed by some within the environmental and
development movements.
to hard work and ability implies that poverty is
associated, at least in part, with laziness and personal
failing. This suggests that the poor are ‘undeserving’
and that attempts to reduce poverty are both
misguided and morally wrong.
proportion – 97% – of published climate scientists
agree that significant anthropogenic climate change
is a real threat.
true motives of some influential skeptics. Possible
alternative motives include strong ideological
commitments to ‘free market’ capitalism and
unfettered industrial development, viewed as
intrinsic goods among conservative and neoliberal
thinkers and activists, and vested financial
interests among those with links to the oil, energy,
automotive and aerospace industries.
22/03/23 7:29 PM
 DECONSTRUCTING… THE ‘UNITED NATIONS’
z The United Nations is a misnamed organization.
As all representation at the UN is through national
governments, its members are clearly not ‘nations’
but ‘states’. Apart from the obvious problem with
the alternative title – The ‘United States’ – the
stress on ‘nations’ implies the participation, or at
least consent, of peoples or national populations,
and not just of their leaders. It suggests, indeed, that
the national governments that comprise the UN
are popularly-based, when, in fact, the existence of
sustainable democracy has never been a criterion
for membership of the UN, and would, if ever
applied, substantially reduce the size of the UN
(as well as cause deep conflict over the meaning of
‘democracy’).
DECONSTRUCTING . . . ‘GLOBAL GOVERNANCE’
z Is global governance truly ‘global’? Academic and
policy literatures on global governance tend to
refer to the same narrow set of specific institutions
– generally including the United Nations and its
agencies, and the Bretton Woods institutions (the
IMF, WTO, and World Bank). On thing these
organisations have in common is that they were all
founded in the west. More specifically, they were
founded in the USA, the most powerful state on
earth at the end of WWII, as the first nuclear-armed
superpower.
9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 7
z The notion that the members of the UN are
‘united’ also raises questions. United nations would
act with a single voice and on the basis of common
interests. The term implies that at the heart of
the UN is a cosmopolitan project, reflected in
the desire to construct an organization that would
in some way stand above national interests and
concerns. Not only is this unrealistic (as the UN is
very much a creature of its members, and the UN
Charter firmly enshrines a commitment to national
sovereignty), but it may also be thought to be
undesirable (as it suggests that the UN is a proto-
world government).
z Is global governance truly ‘governance’? Whereas
government and politics are all about power,
‘governance’ implies a kind of spontaneous order
without a clear central source or location of power.
The concept of global governance may therefore
obscure the role of specific states – including major
powers like the USA – in constructing, funding,
and steering the institutions that claim the right to
govern the world. In other words, global governance
may be western, or American, hegemony by a
different name.
22/03/23 7:29 PM
9781350328419_txt_Com_Web_print.indd 8 22/03/23 7:29 PM