Crisis and Ontological Insecurity:

Serbia’s Anxiety over Kosovo's

Secession Filip Ejdus
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/crisis-and-ontological-insecurity-serbias-anxiety-over-
kosovos-secession-filip-ejdus/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Kentucky s Rebel Press Pro Confederate Media and the

Secession Crisis Berry Craig

https://textbookfull.com/product/kentucky-s-rebel-press-pro-
confederate-media-and-the-secession-crisis-berry-craig/

Discourses of Anxiety over Childhood and Youth across

Cultures Liza Tsaliki

https://textbookfull.com/product/discourses-of-anxiety-over-
childhood-and-youth-across-cultures-liza-tsaliki/

Intermittent Fasting for Women Over 50 80 Recipes

Included 1st Edition Sharon Milson

https://textbookfull.com/product/intermittent-fasting-for-women-
over-50-80-recipes-included-1st-edition-sharon-milson/

Status Anxiety: Hong Kong's Crisis of Identity Bruce

Voncannon

https://textbookfull.com/product/status-anxiety-hong-kongs-
crisis-of-identity-bruce-voncannon/
Qlik Sense Cookbook: Over 80 recipes on data analytics
to solve business intelligence challenges, 2nd Edition
Labbe

https://textbookfull.com/product/qlik-sense-cookbook-
over-80-recipes-on-data-analytics-to-solve-business-intelligence-
challenges-2nd-edition-labbe/

MongoDB Cookbook Over 80 comprehensive recipes that

will help you master the art of using and administering
MongoDB 3 2nd Edition Dasadia

https://textbookfull.com/product/mongodb-cookbook-
over-80-comprehensive-recipes-that-will-help-you-master-the-art-
of-using-and-administering-mongodb-3-2nd-edition-dasadia/

Ontological Terror Blackness Nihilism And Emancipation

Calvin L. Warren

https://textbookfull.com/product/ontological-terror-blackness-
nihilism-and-emancipation-calvin-l-warren/

Calculus of Variations 1st Edition Filip Rindler

https://textbookfull.com/product/calculus-of-variations-1st-
edition-filip-rindler/

The Canadian Contribution to a Comparative Law of

Secession: Legacies of the Quebec Secession Reference
Giacomo Delledonne

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-canadian-contribution-to-a-
comparative-law-of-secession-legacies-of-the-quebec-secession-
reference-giacomo-delledonne/
CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES
ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Crisis and
Ontological Insecurity
Serbia’s Anxiety over Kosovo’s Secession
Filip Ejdus
Central and Eastern European Perspectives
on International Relations

Series Editors
Petr Kratochvíl
Institute of International Relations
Prague, Czech Republic

Xymena Kurowska
International Relations Department
Central European University
Budapest, Hungary
CEEPIR, the CEEISA book series, the foundational series of the Central and
East European International Studies Association (CEEISA), is an interdiscipli-
nary forum for scholarship that straddles classical and non-classical approaches,
advancing cutting-edge developments in global International Relations. The
series invites proposals in the spirit of epistemological pluralism and in a range of
traditional and innovative formats: research monographs, edited collections, text-
books and pivots which aim at succinct and timely scholarly interventions. The
editorial focus is twofold: (1) The CEEISA book series retains its long-standing
objective to sustain and showcase excellent research in and on Central and
Eastern Europe. We are interested in innovative scholarly perspectives on con-
temporary social and political transformations in the region, in how knowledge
is produced about such transformations, and in how Central and Eastern Europe
interacts with the wider European and global contexts. In cooperation with
CEEISA, we maintain a subseries of works which received distinction of excel-
lence by the Association (e.g. the best doctoral dissertation, the best paper at
the CEEISA convention, the best thematic panel). (2) We seek in particular out-
standing empirical work which advances conceptual and methodological inno-
vation in International Relations theory, European Studies and International
Political Sociology. We will curate novel research techniques and approaches that
explore diverse sites and engage diverse challenges of contemporary world poli-
tics. As a devoted team dedicated to excellence and timeliness in the editorial and
peer-review process, we rely on the support of Palgrave and liaise with Journal of
International Relations and Development to develop a platform for scholars who
can reinvigorate existing research networks in global International Relations.
Xymena Kurowska is Associate Professor of International Relations at
Central European University and Marie Skłodowska-Curie senior research fellow
at Aberystwyth University. She works within International Political Sociology at
the intersection of psychoanalysis and politics, with particular focus on security
theory and practice, border politics, subjectivity, and interpretive methodologies.
Her recent interests include online trolling and digital propaganda.
Petr Kratochvíl is a full Professor of International Studies and a sen-
ior researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, currently
on a long-term research stay at La Sapienza University and the Instituto Affari
Internazionali in Rome. His recent works are located at the intersection of reli-
gious studies, European integration and critical geopolitics. He is the author of
dozens of acclaimed scholarly articles and monographs. His most recent book
entitled The Catholic Church and the European Union: Political Theology of
European Integration won the Book of the Year Award by the REL Section of
the International Studies Association (2016).

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14885
 Filip Ejdus

Crisis and Ontological

Insecurity
Serbia’s Anxiety over Kosovo’s Secession
Filip Ejdus
Faculty of Political Science
University of Belgrade
Belgrade, Serbia

Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations

ISBN 978-3-030-20666-6 ISBN 978-3-030-20667-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20667-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: ‘The Scream’ by the artist Edvard Munch

Cover image: © World History Archive/Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

This book has its origins in my Ph.D. thesis which I defended at the
Faculty of Political Science, University of Belgrade, in 2012. It is, how-
ever, only a distant relative to my dissertation, as over the years since my
viva I have not only updated the analysis but also revised and hopefully
refined my arguments. An important catalyst in the process has been the
feedback which I received from various reviewers, discussants and col-
leagues. Parts of Chapters 2 and 5 and the Conclusion have previously
appeared in my articles ‘Critical Situations, Fundamental Questions
and Ontological Insecurity in World Politics’ published in Journal of
International Relations and Development (Ejdus 2018) and ‘Not a
Heap of Stones: Material Environments and Ontological Security in
International Relations’ published in Cambridge Review of International
Relations (Ejdus 2017). They were reproduced in this book with the
permission of Palgrave and Taylor and Francis respectively.
My first gratitude goes to my supervisor Miroslav Hadžić who intro-
duced me to field of Security Studies and gave me the initial encourage-
ment to embark on a Ph.D. project. My wife Katarina provided endless
patience and support along the way. I am particularly thankful to Jelena
Subotić and Slobodan Marković for reading and commenting early
drafts of the book. I will certainly not be able to produce a complete
list of all the other people who have also helped me, either by talking
to me about the subject, reading earlier versions of the book chapters,

v
vi    Acknowledgements

or simply being wonderful and supportive colleagues. Some of them

are (in alphabetic order): Gilberto Algar Faria, Lea David, Nataša
Dragojlović, Nemanja Džuverović, Timothy Edmunds, Adam Fagan,
Karsten Friis, Orli Fridman, Cornelius Friesendorf, Luka Glušac, Dejan
Guzina, Stefano Guzzini, Eric Herring, Dejan Jović, Ana E. Juncos,
Predrag Jureković, Danijel Kostić, Catarina Kinnvall, Sandro Knezović,
Marina Komad, Marko Kovačević, Amir Lupovici, Leon Malazogu,
Sabine Mannitz, Laura McLeod, Bogoljub Milosavljević, Jennifer
Mitzen, Iver B. Neumann, Branislav Nešović, Milan Nič, Dušan
Pavlović, Gazela Pudar, Florian Qehaja, Tijana Rečević, Marko Savković,
Dragan Simić, Brent Steele, Sonja Stojanović Gajić, Alaa Tartir, Nikola
Tomić, Milada Anna Vachudova, Nebojša Vladisavljević, Srđan Vučetić,
Nikola Vujinović, Ariel Zellman, Rok Zupančić and Dragan Živojinović.
I am also grateful to my students at the Faculty of Political Science
who were often the first interlocutors with whom I discussed ideas
advanced in this book. Among them I should especially single out Pavle
Nedić and Branislav Cvetković, who also served as my research assistants
for this book. I am also indebted to all my colleagues at the Department
of International Studies for their intellectual companionship over the
years. A big shout out also goes to everyone at the Belgrade Centre for
Security Policy, a think tank I joined in 2006 and never really left. Parts
of this book were also written during my research stays at the Norwegian
Institute for International Affairs (NUPI), Peace Research Institute in
Frankfurt (PRIF) and School for Sociology Politics and International
Studies (SPAIS)/University of Bristol, so my gratitude also goes to all
the colleagues there with whom I had a chance to exchange ideas and
hence intellectually grow. My special thanks also go to Alisa Koljenšić
Radić, who proofread the initial draft of the book, and Mary Fata at
Palgrave, who tolerated my numerous requests to postpone the submis-
sion deadline. In addition to these individuals, the book has certainly
benefited from my interactions with many other people with whom have
I discussed my ideas at numerous conferences, workshops, roundtables
and informal discussions. Should you find any errors or problems in the
book, please do not blame the above mentioned people and institutions
as the responsibility is solely mine.
 Acknowledgements    vii

References
Ejdus, Filip. 2017. ‘Not a Heap of Stones: Material Environments and Ontological
Security in International Relations.’ Cambridge Review of International Affairs
30 (1): 23–43.
Ejdus, Filip. 2018. ‘Critical Situations, Fundamental Questions and Ontological
Insecurity in World Politics.’ Journal of International Relations and Development
21 (4): 883–908.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Crisis, Anxiety and Ontological Insecurity 7

3 The Construction of Kosovo as Serbia’s Ontic Space 39

4 Disintegration of Yugoslavia and Serbia’s Anxiety

Over Kosovo 65

5 Critical Situation: Kosovo’s Declaration of Independence 97

6 Dissonance and Avoidance: Serbia’s Quest for a New

Normal 127

7 Conclusion 161

Bibliography 169

Index 199

ix
 About the Author

Filip Ejdus is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Political Science,

University of Belgrade. In his research he investigates management of
(in)security during crises and beyond borders with a geographic focus on
the Western Balkans, European Union, Middle East and Horn of Africa.
Since 2012, he has served as the (co)Editor of Journal of Regional
Security. He has been closely involved with policy community as a board
member of the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, academic coordina-
tor at the Belgrade Security Forum and co-chair of the Regional Stability
in South East Europe Study Group at the PfP Consortium of Defence
Academies and Security Studies Institutes.

xi
 Abbreviations

DEPOS Democratic Movement of Serbia (Ser. Demokratski pokret Srbije)

DS Democratic Party (Ser. Demokratska stranka)
DSS Democratic Party of Serbia (Ser. Demokratska stranka Srbije)
EU European Union
EULEX European Union Rule of Law in Kosovo
ICJ International Court of Justice
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
IR International Relations
KFOR Kosovo Force
KLA Kosovo Liberation Army
LAPMB Liberation Army of Preševo, Medveđa and Bujanovac
LDP Liberal Democratic Party (Ser. Liberalno demokratska partija)
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NIS National Industry of Serbia (Ser. Nacionalna industrija Srbije)
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
OST Ontological Security Theory
PfP Partnership for Peace
RTS Radio Television of Serbia (Ser. Radio televizija Srbije)
SAA Stabilisation and Association Agreement
SANU Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (Ser. Srpska akademija nauka i
umetnosti)
SNS Serbian Progressive Party (Ser. Srpska napredna stranka)
SPO Serbian Renewal Movement (Ser. Srpski pokret obnove)
SPS Socialist Party of Serbia (Ser. Socijalistička partija Srbije)
SRS Serbian Radical Party (Ser. Srpska radikalna stranka)
UDI Unilateral Declaration of Independence

xiii
xiv    Abbreviations

UN United Nations
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNMIK United Nations Mission in Kosovo
UNSC United Nations Security Council
US United States
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Why states sometimes risk their material interests and even physical security
to keep a certain identity narrative going? Think of Israel’s continued occu-
pation of the West Bank, which generates not only constant low-intensity
threats to Israeli citizens but also existential threats to the state of Israel
through a constant recurrence of wars and delegitimising campaigns. Think
of the refusal of neutral Belgium to grant German troops passage through
its territory, resulting in a quick and devastating defeat as well as one of
the greatest massacres of the First World War, also known as the ‘rape of
Belgium’. Think of any other state which acted in a seemingly irrational
way to defend its honour, dignity and a sense of healthy and continuous
self despite the material costs involved. When individuals put themselves
into danger to defend who they think they are, we are equipped with myr-
iad psychological and sociological theories to understand such behaviour.
When states behave in a similar way, we either tend to ignore such cases as
aberrations, ascribe them to human error and irrationality, or find dubious
rationalist explanations.
Despite often made prescriptive calls for clear-headedness in world pol-
itics, international political discourse abounds with reference to emotions.
Decision makers routinely refer to their states as being proud, happy, angry,
sad or surprised. This book is particularly interested in situations when
states are overwhelmed with anxiety due to their inability to maintain their
self-identity narratives. Anxiety as a feeling of inner turmoil in the face of

© The Author(s) 2020 1

F. Ejdus, Crisis and Ontological Insecurity,
Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20667-3_1
2 F. EJDUS

uncertainty brilliantly captured by Edvard Munch’s famous painting which

is embellishing the cover of this book. By drawing on social-constructivist
approach to IR in general and Ontological Security Theory (OST) in partic-
ular, the point of departure in this book is that states, just like individuals,
are often ready to sacrifice their physical security in order to maintain a
healthy sense of self and hence fend off anxiety. States need stable self-
identity scripts to keep cognitive control over their environment, define
their interests and maintain a sense of purposeful agency.
Building on these important insights, this book makes two contributions
to the scholarship on ontological security in IR. First, in order to conceptu-
ally strengthen the distinction between ontological security and ontological
insecurity, the book develops the concept of critical situations. Drawing on
the work of Anthony Giddens (1984, 1991) this book defines critical situa-
tions as radical disjunctions that challenge the ability of states to ‘go on’ by
bringing into the realm of discursive consciousness four fundamental ques-
tions related to existence, finitude, relations and autobiography. In some
cases, a critical situation might be mild and involve only one fundamental
question, while in others ontological crises will be full-blown and involve
all four of them. Either way, the result is the flooding through of collective
anxieties which debilitates collective agency and leads to seemingly regres-
sive, hysterical or even schizophrenic behaviour. In those situations, states
will try, more or less successfully, to satisfy their ontological security needs
by re-establishing self-identity scripts and a sense of calm that stems from
daily routines.
Second, the book demonstrates that trust in the constancy of mate-
rial environments is also a source of ontological security in world politics
that is just as important as states’ relationship with their significant others.
Regardless of how important for grounding of the self routinised interna-
tional interactions might be, they are never fully controllable or predictable.
States therefore need stable material environments as an additional anchor
for their self-identity scripts. To assume this role, material environments
such as core territorial areas for example, but also landmark natural or urban
landscapes, need to be discursively linked to the project of the state self.
Once this process is accomplished, material environments become ‘ontic
spaces’, or spatial extensions of the collective self that cause state identities
to appear more firm and continuous.
These two theoretical innovations, one related to critical situations
and the other to the role of ontic spaces, will be illustrated in an in-
depth case study focusing on Serbia’s ontological insecurity over Kosovo.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

The empirical puzzle at the heart of the case study is Serbia’s seemingly
irrational but nevertheless relatively consistent behaviour vis-à-vis Kosovo
since the breakup of Yugoslavia. Serbia’s aggressive policies towards Kosovo
set into motion a process of Yugoslav disintegration with devastating ram-
ifications for both Serbia and the entire post-Yugoslav region. In 1999,
Serbia went to war with NATO over Kosovo, only to proclaim EU and
NATO membership as its goal a year later. From 2000 onwards, all gov-
ernments, from across the political spectrum, have balanced the policy of
counter-secession and non-recognition with their attempts to push Ser-
bia to the inner circle of the European society of states. They have done
so despite the inherent incompatibility between the two priorities, as the
vast majority of EU member states have recognised the independence of
Kosovo and do not intend to either revoke their decisions or let another
country with territorial disputes such as Cyprus join the EU. All this has
only reaffirmed a belief that Kosovo is ‘the most expensive Serbian word’.
How can we account for the extraordinary consistency in the pursuit of
policy that has achieved very little success and incurred great economic,
political and reputational cost for Serbia and held back the region for over
two decades? To answer this question, the case study methodologically
relies on discourse analysis with the aim of uncovering the politics of rep-
resentation and analyse both linguistic and material preconditions for what
is being said or done (Neumann 2008). In the case study, I triangulate
secondary sources such as books, articles and media reports with primary
sources such as statements and speeches of government officials, legislation
and government documents (i.e. strategies, parliamentary resolutions, etc.)
as well as semi-structured interviews with key decision makers involved in
the Kosovo policy.
The key argument put forward in the case study is that although Serbia’s
Kosovo policy may seem irrational or even schizophrenic at times, it can be
understood as an attempt to maintain biographical continuity in the face
of secession of what is widely construed as the national ontic space. Thanks
to the intensive discursive labour of a vast number of ontic-space builders
operating since the nineteenth century, Kosovo has been constructed into
a core geographical area that connects Serbia’s past, present and future
of the national imaginary. As a sedimented structure which has been in
the making for over a century, Kosovo’s ontic status in Serbia cannot be
undone either quickly or easily. As a symbol, Kosovo constitutes Serbia
as a political community by fusing glorious moments in its history and
its darkest hours with contemporary trials and tribulations into a single
4 F. EJDUS

collective destiny. In Serbia, Kosovo is a lens through which the polity sees
the world and tells friends from foes. Metaphors of Kosovo as the ‘heart of
Serbia’, ‘Serbian Jerusalem’, ‘foundation stone’, ‘holy land’, ‘iris in the eye’
and ‘cradle of nationhood’ overwhelm the contemporary Serbian political
discourse. Due to its strong symbolic and emotional resonance, invocation
of all things Kosovo is therefore the ultimate political argument in today’s
Serbia which defines who or what is reasonable, patriotic and just, and who
or what is not. For Serbia, Kosovo is therefore not just another piece of
land but an ontic space, to which its master-narrative was anchored and
then transmitted down the generations.
On the flip side, the prospect of losing Kosovo generates a deep state of
anxiety in Serbia. Faced with such a debilitating state of mind of an inter-
rupted and deeply undermined self, the priority for any political leader with
an ambition to capture the national imagination becomes restoring onto-
logical security and biographical continuity even if it comes at a price of
physical insecurity and other material losses. In 1989, Serbia stepped up
repression in Kosovo, destabilised the former federation and set off a series
of claims for independence from other Yugoslav republics. This ultimately
led to the destruction of Yugoslavia with disastrous consequences for most
of its citizens, including the Serbs themselves. In 1999, Serbia’s brutal
police and military operations in Kosovo led to NATO intervention and
loss of control over the province, which was placed under international pro-
tection. In 2000, Serbia replaced the isolationist regime ruled by Slobodan
Milošević with a pro-European democratic government, but its opposition
to Kosovo’s claims to independence continued unabated. Tensions reached
an apex in 2008, when Kosovo authorities unilaterally declared indepen-
dence. Despite democratisation and Europeanisation, processes expected
to bring Serbia to terms with the outcome of the Yugoslav disintegration,
Serbia has been fiercely opposed to Kosovo’s claims to independence at a
high economic, political and reputational cost. To protect its sense of self in
the face of secession and thus fend off the looming state of anxiety, Serbia
continues to walk the tight rope of becoming a European state without let-
ting go its symbolic attachment to Kosovo. While these actions might seem
irrational and self-defeating, they can be understood as desperate attempts
to keep away a deep unease stemming from the loss of Kosovo.
The rest of the book is organised as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the
existing literature on ontological security scholarship in IR and outlines
the approach taken in this book. This chapter is divided into three sections.
The first one discusses the present literature and identifies gaps. The second
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

section develops a novel conceptualisation of critical situations. Drawing

on the work of Anthony Giddens critical situations are conceptualised as
radical disjunctions that bring into the public discourse four fundamental
questions related to existence, finitude, relations with others and autobi-
ography. The third section theorises the role of material environments in
ontological security processes in world politics. The key argument is that
material environments are turned into ontic spaces either through projec-
tion of state identity narratives onto material environments or introjection
of material environments into state identity narratives.
Chapter 3 goes back into history to investigate when, how, why, by
whom and to what effect was Kosovo constructed as Serbia’s ontic space
in the first place. The construction of Kosovo as Serbia’s ontic space, as
this chapter details, began in the early nineteenth century with a revival
of the Kosovo myth among the Serbian nation-builders and particularly
accelerated in the 1870s due to a specific set of changing geopolitical cir-
cumstances in Central Europe. The process waxed and waned during the
twentieth century, eventually contributing to the dissolution of Yugoslavia
that continues until this day.
Chapter 4 discusses the collective anxiety triggered by gradual Albanisa-
tion of Kosovo from the late 1960s onward, followed by the weakening and
disintegration of Yugoslavia and eventually war in Kosovo and the NATO
intervention against Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999. The chapter also demon-
strates that existential anxieties unleashed by the potential loss of Kosovo
seemed more concerning in Serbia than a certain defeat in war. Serbia’s defi-
ance against, a much greater NATO force led by US as the only remaining
superpower at the peak of its post-cold war hubris, is then explained as
ontological self-help meant to satisfy Serbia’s ontological security needs.
In Chapter 5, the book focuses on the period after the regime change in
2000. This chapter demonstrates how physical desecuritisation which was
part and parcel of Serbia’s return into international society after Milošević,
coupled with a protracted secession of Kosovo, exacerbated ontological
insecurity in Serbia. This reached its apex in a critical situation triggered by
the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) of Kosovo on 17 Febru-
ary 2008. In order to restore a sense of calm, Serbia’s leaders carved up a
new narrative of eternal non-recognition of Kosovo. Tautological repeti-
tion of this self-referential and auto-communicative mantra has served ever
since to reassure the nation that Kosovo might be temporarily out of reach
physically, but that the self-identity script continues without interruption.
6 F. EJDUS

As Chapter 6 shows, this has put Serbia on a collision course with most
of the Western states, which recognised Kosovo and clearly required Ser-
bia to come to terms with this reality if it wanted full reintegration in
international society. As these two policy interests have been underpinned
by two fundamental identities, of an old Christian nation and a European
state in the making, this increasingly put Serbia in the situation of onto-
logical dissonance. This became particularly ostensible after 2012, when
Serbia embarked on a EU-facilitated process of normalisation with Kosovo
in order to stay on track to become an EU member. Despite the process of
normalisation which led to Belgrade’s gradually relinquishing its physical
control over Kosovo, Serbia’s officials have kept a very uncompromising
counter-secessionist and non-recognition policy discourse. Serbia was ready
to give up effective control over Kosovo in order to become part of the EU
but not to recognise Kosovo and hence interrupt its narrative of the self.
To reduce the dissonance generated by this situation, Serbia’s officials have
engaged in avoidance to acknowledge the fundamental incompatibility of
these policy goals.

References
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Struc-
turation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late
Modern Age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Neumann, Iver B. 2008. ‘Discourse Analysis.’ In Qualitative Methods in Interna-
tional Relations, edited by Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, 61–77. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 CHAPTER 2

Crisis, Anxiety and Ontological Insecurity

The central assumption within the realist canon of International Relations

(IR) is that the primary goal of states is to achieve physical security, defined
in terms of physical survival and power. This has been challenged by the
Ontological Security Theory (OST), which is based on a premise that actors
in world politics are often ready to compromise physical security and other
important material gains in order to protect their sense of continuity in the
world. When states are unable to maintain a coherent sense of self, they are
overwhelmed by anxiety and other debilitating emotions which then lead
to all sorts of regressive and seemingly irrational behaviour. This insight
has been used to shed new light on a variety of other concepts in IR such
as security dilemma, securitisation, security communities or conflict resolu-
tion, and has informed numerous empirical investigations. The ontological
security argument has also been the subject of all pervasive debates in IR
about the unit of analysis and the agency/structure problem.
This chapter has three goals. The first is to discuss the key concepts of
the book—identity and ontological security as they evolved in philosophy,
psychology, social theory. Against such a backdrop, the chapter then zooms
into how these concepts have been theorised in IR with a particular empha-
sis on gaps in the literature which I find relevant for this book. Finally, the
chapter develops a novel theoretical conceptualisation of critical situation
and ontological insecurity in world politics and theorise the role of material
environments therein.

© The Author(s) 2020 7

F. Ejdus, Crisis and Ontological Insecurity,
Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20667-3_2
8 F. EJDUS

Identity and Ontological Security in Philosophy

and Social Theory
In the broadest possible sense, identity refers to that which makes some-
thing what it is. If this sounds tautological and circular, it is because the
very word etymologically derives from the Latin translation (Lat. identi-
tas ) of a Greek word used to describe sameness (gr. tautotes ). While the
word itself in antiquity did not have political implications, bonds that hold
together a polity were considered crucial by many political philosophers
of the time. For Plato, for example, the role of any statesman is to weave
the bonds of a political community which in essence is a task of collective
identity building (Plato 1997; Neumann 2010). Despite this, from Aris-
totle to Leibniz, the dominant view among philosophers was that identity
is a mathematical rather than a philosophical problem, let alone a political
one (Hartman 1976).
The interest in identity as a project of the self was kick-started with
the advent of modernity (Taylor 1989). Instead of being a reference to
material sins, as had been the case during the Middle Ages, the modern
self became something that can be observed, known, worked upon and
eventually improved (Danziger 1997: 145). Via his interest in collective
psychology, Sigmund Freud was among the first to think about collec-
tive identity. Thanks to their need to live in harmony with others, Freud
held, individuals not only identify with their groups but often develop hyp-
notic fascination with them. This occasionally leads to regressive behaviour
driven by ‘cruel, brutal and destructive instincts’ (Freud 1949: 17). The
link between an individual project of the self and society was further picked
up by sociologists such as Charles Horton Cooley and Herbert Mead, who
stressed the importance of society and others for the development of the
self (Cooley 2017; Mead 1934).
Building on these insights, social psychologists associated with Object
Relations Theory investigated how mind develops through dynamic inter-
action with others such as parents and caretakers (Hughes 1990). One of
the most prominent scholars from this group, Erik H. Erikson developed
the concept of ‘ego identity’, which is a sense of coherence and continuous
self, constantly negotiated with others throughout time (Erikson 1950,
1968). If an individual loses a sense of continuity and coherence, she/he
experiences an identity crisis. In extreme situations, according to Ronald
Laing, this can lead to ontological insecurity or fundamental doubt con-
cerning the existence and continuity of the self and its place in the world.
 2 CRISIS, ANXIETY AND ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY 9

Ontological insecurity, for Laing, comes in three forms: engulfment, implo-

sion and petrification/depersonalisation (Laing 2010: 43–47).
Anthony Giddens imported the concept of ontological security into soci-
ology (Giddens 1984, 1991). In his view, to be ontologically secure is to
possess at the level of practical knowledge answers to fundamental questions
concerning existence and being, finitude and human life, the experience of
others and the continuity of self-identity (ibid.: 55). He defines self-identity
not as a collection of traits possessed by an individual, but rather as ‘the
self as reflexively understood by the person in terms of her or his biogra-
phy’ (ibid.: 53). Challenged by critical situations and unpredictable events
of great magnitude that disrupt everyday routines, individuals bring to
their discursive consciousness fundamental questions that invoke shame,
guilt, anxiety and ultimately inability to act in a purposeful fashion (ibid.:
35–109).
The concept of anxiety is of central importance for ontological security.
In the broadest possible sense, anxiety is a feeling of inner turmoil over the
uncertainty of anticipated events. For Søren Kierkegaard, one of the first
thinkers to systematically reflect about it, anxiety is unfocused fear which
stems from our ‘dizziness of freedom’, i.e. our ability to choose even the
most terrifying of the possibilities (Kierkegaard 1980: 119). Similarly, in
Freud’s analysis, anxiety ‘disregards the object’, whereas how far it will be
felt by an individual depends on the person’s sense of power and cognitive
control over the external world (Freud 1974: 395). In contrast to fear,
which is related to concrete physical and external dangers, anxiety is, to use
the words of Anthony Giddens, ‘essentially fear which has lost its object
through unconsciously formed emotive tensions that express “internal dan-
gers” rather than externalized threats’ (Giddens 1991: 44). Judging by the
number of publications across the social sciences and humanities on the
subject matter, we live in the age of anxiety. It is amplified by uncertainty,
complexity and speed in a risk society (Beck 1992) and in some accounts
makes part and parcel of the neoliberal project (Eklundh et al. 2017).

Identity and Ontological Security in World

Politics
As the twentieth century was coming to a close, the concept of identity
rose to fame across social sciences and humanities. Obsession with identity
has spread so much that Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper wrote
in 2000 that ‘the social sciences and humanities have surrendered to the
10 F. EJDUS

word identity’. They also made a case to abandon the concept due to its
ambiguities and ‘reifying connotations’ (Brubaker and Cooper 2000: 1,
34). The concept of identity started to be translated into an IR idiom
by post-structuralists and critical constructivists already in the late 1980s
(Der Derian 1987; Campbell 1992; Neumann 1996, 1999; Ringmar 1996;
Buzan et al. 1998). This happened partly thanks to the ‘constructivist turn’
in social sciences more broadly, but also partly due to outbursts of identity-
driven conflicts that did not make much sense from the perspective of
dominant rationalist theories such as realism and liberalism (Lapid and
Kratochwil 1996).
In the 1990s, the concept of identity entered the mainstream IR thanks
to the rise of social constructivism ‘light’ which wedded its interest in the
role of ideas, culture and identity to a state-centric view of world politics
and scientific epistemology which had dominated the field (Wendt 1992,
1994, 1996, 1999, 2004; Katzenstein 1996; Adler and Barnett 1996).
Alexander Wendt, who championed such an approach, was also the first
to translate into the field of IR the concept of ontological security, which
he defines as ‘predictability in relationships to the world, which creates a
desire for stable social identities’ (Wendt 1994: 385).1 Along with physical
security, recognition and appetite, ontological security for Wendt is one of
the four universal national interests pursued by all states.
During the 1990s, translation of ontological security into an IR idiom
continued although usually in the passing rather than through a systematic
theory building. Jeff Huysmans for instance, distinguished ‘daily security’,
which is a strategy of survival and postponing death, from ‘ontological
security’ which is a strategy of stabilising social relations in a predictable
order (Huysmans 1998: 242). Physical insecurity, in his view, can become
an ontological security problem when there is a sudden loss of prioritisation
among threats that need to be countered, as it happened in the immediate
aftermath of the Cold War. Similarly, Bill McSweeney proposed the con-
cept of ontological security as a more reflexive alternative to the concept
of societal security developed within the Copenhagen School (McSweeney
1996, 1998, 1999). Ontological security, in his words, relates ‘to the sense
that the social order as practically conceived is normal, consistent with one’s
expectations and skills to go on in it’ (1999: 156). Ontological insecurity,
on the other hand, is created when the sense of collective identity is frac-
tured.
While these scholars imported the concept of ontological security into
the field of world politics, theoretical implications of this move were yet
 2 CRISIS, ANXIETY AND ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY 11

rather unclear. The development of OST as a separate research agenda and

a distinct IR theory was spurred by the work of Jennifer Mitzen (2006a,
b), Brent Steele (Steele 2007, 2008) and Catarina Kinnvall (2004, 2006).
Their work has stimulated a considerable growth of the scholarship on OST
in IR over the past few years, including three recently edited special issues
on the subject matter in Cooperation and Conflict, Journal of International
Relations and Development and European Security (Kinnvall and Mitzen
2017, 2018; Kinnvall et al. 2018). The limited scope of this chapter cannot
do justice to all the theoretical and empirical discussions informed by this
strand of theorising world politics. Instead, I will briefly overview two of
its central and closely interrelated debates, position my argument within
them and point to some of the gaps that I intend to fill with this book.
The first debate concerns the unit of analysis, i.e. the question of who is
seeking ontological security. It is essentially a debate about the appropriate
unit of analysis between state-centric and individual-centric perspectives.
Although originally developed in social psychology and later sociology
to refer to individuals, Ontological Security Theory in IR has been applied
to states from the very outset. Drawing on the state-as-actor argument
in IR more generally, most ontological security theorists have anthropo-
morphised states and have treated them as ontological security seekers
(Mitzen 2006a; Steele 2007, 2008; Zarakol 2010; Rumelili 2015a, b). As
this approach will be adopted in this book as well, an overview of arguments
in favour of such analytical choice is in order.
Drawing on the state-as-person approach in IR, most famously articu-
lated by Alexander Wendt’s statement that ‘states are also purposive actors
with a sense of self’ (Wendt 1999: 194; 2004), at least four arguments have
been put forward in favour of treating states as ontological security seekers.
First, it is argued that the attribution of human needs and emotions to
states is a practice that is widely shared by practitioners and theorists
alike (Mitzen 2006a: 351). Both laypeople and statespersons do it on a
daily basis when they express but also act upon a belief that their country
is for example proud, angry, humiliated or else. Theorists also do it all
the time. Realists routinely attribute to states human emotions such as
fear and the need to dominate others. Liberals attribute to democracies
peaceful intentions. Moreover, both practitioners and theorists attribute
human-like qualities to polities other than states. Marxists routinely do
it with the working class, Islamists with Ummah and nationalists with
nations. ‘Honour of Islam’, ‘humiliation of the working class’ and ‘black
pride’ are not empty phrases, but powerful templates for political action
12 F. EJDUS

with significant security consequences. If everybody else can easily get

away with this, the argument goes, then why wouldn’t ontological security
theorists also be allowed to anthropomorphise states and assume that they
too seek to be ontologically secure in order to avoid anxiety?
Of course, just because ‘everybody is doing something’, as parents often
parrot, doesn’t mean that it must be right. Hence another argument put
forward in favour of treating states as ontological security seekers is that
they provide an ontological security umbrella for their citizens. Research
in social psychology has confirmed that individuals control their anxiety
implied in their own mortality by emotionally investing in the continuity
of their groups (Sani et al. 2007). ‘Because losing a sense of state distinc-
tiveness would threaten the ontological security of its members’, Mitzen
posits that ‘states can be seen as motivated to preserve the national group
identity and not simply the national ‘body’ (Mitzen 2006a: 352). As Mar-
low put it, the role of government in maintaining ‘a degree of ideational
stability in the general populace - with regard to common and often ill-
defined public anxieties, insecurities and perceptions of risk’ is becoming
particularly important in advanced capitalist societies (Marlow 2002: 242).
Third, treating states as ontological security seekers can provide an
account of some macro-level patterns of state behaviour. In Mitzen’s words,
the assumption that states are not only physical but also ontological security
seekers provides ‘a sociological basis for understanding why we might see
different decision-makers acting similarly over time’ (Mitzen 2006a: 353).
Richard Ned Lebow demonstrates powerfully that the outbreak of the Pelo-
ponnesian War had to do with honour and self-esteem much more than
with the physical security of Athens or Sparta (Lebow 2008: 25). Macro-
level patterns of religious polities’ behaviour can also hardly be explained by
reference to the physical security imperative. From mass suicide of Jewish
zealot rebels in Masada in 73 CE, through medieval Christian doctrine of
Just War to Islamic fundamentalism today, one can witness the recurrent
proclivity of religious groups to sacrifice physical security for the sake of
the ontological.
The fourth argument why it is analytically legitimate to treat states as
ontological security seekers is the fact that they are represented by peo-
ple (Steele 2008: 18). State representatives may differ in their individual
ontological security needs. Some may have a high basic trust, and as such
tend to be less engulfed with ontological anxieties. Others may individually
have low basic trust resulting in lower cognitive control of their environ-
ment, mistrust and even paranoia. Regardless of the individual differences
 2 CRISIS, ANXIETY AND ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY 13

between leaders, ‘they all share the same collective commitment to state
self-identity […] Anxiety over their respective state’s place in the world will
still be evident no matter how each individual feels about his or her own
sense of integrity’ (Steele 2008: 18–19).
In addition to these arguments, research on emotions offers additional
support to the attribution of the psychological need for ontological secu-
rity, as well as emotions such as anxiety or shame when this need is not
satisfied, to corporate entities such as states. Sociologists have long been
interested in emotions as shared experiences and products of social interac-
tions (Goffman 1959; Collins 2014). Recent research in neuroscience also
confirms that human brains are capable of simulating emotions perceived
in others through ‘mirror neurons’ (Keysers and Gazzola 2010; Iacoboni
2009). Bringing these insights into IR, Andrew Ross studies emotions as
‘circulations of affect’ or ‘conscious or unconscious exchanges of emotion
within a social environment’ (Ross 2013: 1). These circulations of affect,
sustained through a process of emotional contagion, are constitutive of
collective agents including states. ‘A state’, he argues, ‘consists of courts,
parliaments, agencies, and other political substructures but also constella-
tion of emotion and belief across its various participants’ (ibid.: 35).
Treating states and polities as ontological security seekers, however, has
not been a universally accepted analytical move (Krolikowski 2008; Roe
2008; Abulof 2009, 2015; Croft 2012). Alanna Krolikowski, for example,
has argued that ‘resorting to the assumption of state personhood obscures
important aspects of how the state, as an evolving institution, affects indi-
viduals’ sense of ontological security’ (Krolikowski 2008: 111). Similarly,
Paul Roe argues that just because states are providers of individual ontolog-
ical security, it does not follow that like persons, states too can have the need
to be ontologically secure (Roe 2008: 785). In his view, ontological secu-
rity seeking is an emotional preference of an individual, whereas the state
or any other social group is no more than a larger material and discursive
framework within which individuals build their self-identities. Taking cues
from Benedict Anderson, Stuart Croft makes a similar case and replaces
state with nation as an ‘institution that provides a structure for individual
self-identity’ (Croft 2012: 37; Kinnvall 2006; Marlow 2002).
Closely related but still a distinct debate in OST has been about the
source of ontological security in world politics. In the words of Ayşe
Zarakol, this debate, derivative of a wider agency/structure problem in IR,
has been revolving around the following question: ‘Are interactions and
the international environment the main source of ontological anxiety for a
14 F. EJDUS

state, or are the insecure interactions merely a consequence of the state’s

own uncertainty about its own identity?’ (Zarakol 2010: 6). Zarakol dis-
cerns three distinct approaches to the agency/structure problem in OST.
The first approach, adopted by Jennifer Mitzen, is social for it conceptu-
alises collective identity as being exogenously constructed through rou-
tinised relationships of states with their significant others (Mitzen 2006a:
355–359). Whether cooperative or conflictual, established routines help
the states to ‘bracket out’ fundamental anxieties, and serve as the source of
their ontological security. Building on the work of Giddens, Mitzen argues
that states are also strongly attached to such relationships, even when they
seriously undermine physical security, because they also provide the source
of state identity. Unlike realists, who argue that states want to escape from
security dilemmas but cannot do it due to uncertainty, Mitzen posits that
states prefer to maintain protracted dilemmatic conflicts for they repro-
duce state’s identity and thus provide ontological security (Mitzen 2006a:
355–359).
The second approach, which Zarakol calls individualistic, is exemplified
by the work of Brent Steele and is also followed in this book. It looks at
how biographical continuity of states gets constructed internally through
what Steele terms ‘dialectics of the Self’ (Steele 2008: 32, 50). Steele agrees
with Mitzen that ‘an agent must make sense of the social world to ensure
ontological security’ but in his view she ‘seems to overstate the role of oth-
ers in the ontological security process’ (Steele 2008: 5). Although Steele’s
work is also strongly influenced by Giddens, instead of social interactions
he analytically prioritises the internal dynamics of the self rather than inter-
action with significant others. To be sure, the individualistic approach does
not write off social interactions; it only highlights states’ reflexive efforts
to sustain and defend their self-identity narratives in the face of critical
situations.
Finally, Zarakol identifies the third, so-called middle-ground approach,
which builds on the assumption that ‘neither a fully intersubjective
approach nor one that focuses solely on the reflexive construction of self-
identity captures the full picture in either case’ (Kinnvall 2004; Zarakol
2010: 8). The middle-ground approach factors in both the internal quest
for biographical continuity and the external interactions of collective
agents. Such an approach is in Zarakol’s view exemplified by the work
of Catarina Kinnvall, who studied how globalisation generates existential
anxieties and an emotional need to ground the self in totalising identity
narratives of nationalism and religion (Kinnvall 2004). Instead of looking
 2 CRISIS, ANXIETY AND ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY 15

at either agency or structure, Kinnvall is interested in understanding ‘secu-

ritized subjectivity as existing in the nexus of structural and psychological
processes’ (ibid.: 757).
While it is impossible to give in this place full justice to all the theoreti-
cal nuances and empirical richness of this rapidly growing research agenda
on ontological security in IR, several general remarks are in order. The
existing studies on ontological security in IR have significantly advanced
our understanding of why states often act in a seemingly irrational fash-
ion when faced with threats to their sense of self, dignity or continuity in
the world. In particular, the literature discussed above has exposed differ-
ent levels of agency in the ontological security processes, from individu-
als, through nation-states to international organisations. Moreover, these
works have expanded our perspective on both agentic and structural sources
of ontological insecurity in world politics. Finally, the research agenda on
ontological security in IR has opened new perspectives from which we can
revision other concepts in security studies such as securitisation, security
communities, security dilemmas or conflict resolution. However, there are
two issues relevant for this book that the existing literature on ontological
security in IR has largely left unaddressed, one related to critical situations
and the other to the role of materiality.

Critical Situations and Ontological Insecurity

The issue of critical situations which produce ontological insecurity of col-
lective actors has been a neglected topic in the literature on OST in IR.
So far, only a few authors have reflected on the role of critical situations in
ontological security processes in world politics. Drawing on Giddens, Brent
Steele for example argues that critical situations are unpredictable events
that affect a large number of individuals, catch state agents off-guard and
disrupt their self-identities (Steele 2008: 12). It is irrelevant, in his view,
whether or not a researcher decides if an event constitutes a critical situa-
tion; what matters is whether policymakers interpret them as such. Critical
situations are therefore not objective facts but social constructions pro-
duced in the very process of interpretation (ibid.). Dimitry Chernobrov
has a similar understanding of international crises as unpredictable set of
events that create great uncertainty and which states often (mis)recognise
because they rely on narcissistic self-conceptions (Chernobrov 2016).
While I fully concur that critical situations are radical and socially con-
structed disruptions that put self-identities to the test, they seem to be more
16 F. EJDUS

than that. In fact, such conceptualisation of a critical situation is so wide

and elastic that most crises in world politics, if not all, can easily fit into
this definition. For example, it could be argued that every terrorist attack
is usually unpredictable, affects a large number of individuals, catches a
state off-guard and disrupts self-identity narratives. And yet, if any crisis
can be treated by analysts as a critical situation, the concept of ontological
(in)security loses analytical sharpness and an important part of its value to
IR theory. As a result of this conceptual underdevelopment, we currently
have few conceptual tools in IR to identify and analyse critical situations
and the conceptual distinction between ontological security and ontologi-
cal insecurity remains elusive.
This book fills this gap by proposing a conceptual framework to study
ontological insecurity and critical situations. By drawing on the work of
Anthony Giddens, I define ontological security in world politics as pos-
session, on the level of the unconscious and practical consciousness, of
answers to four fundamental questions that all polities in some way need
to address. These questions are related to existence; finitude; relations and
auto-biography. Collective actors become ontologically insecure when crit-
ical situations rupture their routines, thus bringing fundamental questions
to the level of discursive consciousness. Their inability to ‘bracket out’ fun-
damental questions produces anxiety and a loss of agency.
What does it mean to be ontologically secure? According to Giddens,
‘To be ontologically secure is to possess, on the level of the unconscious
and practical consciousness, answers to fundamental existential questions
which all human life in some way addresses’. These fundamental existential
questions relate to existence and being, finitude and human life, the experi-
ence of others and the continuity of self-identity (Giddens 1991: 47). As he
noted, ‘To live our lives we normally take for granted issues which, as cen-
turies of philosophical enquiry have found, wither away under the sceptical
gaze’ (Giddens 1991: 37). In other words, in order to be ontologically
secure, agents have to be able to ‘bracket out’ these fundamental questions
through routines of daily life, thus building trust into the constancy of
their social and material environment and fending off existential anxieties.
If unable to put aside these existential trepidations related to death, tran-
sience of life and the continuity of the self and others, individuals simply
cannot ‘go on’ with their daily life.
Ontological insecurity, on the other hand, is a result of critical situa-
tions, circumstances of radical and unpredictable disjuncture ‘that threaten
or destroy the certitudes of institutionalised routines’ (Giddens 1984: 62).
 2 CRISIS, ANXIETY AND ONTOLOGICAL INSECURITY 17

Critical situations remove the protective cocoon created by routines and

move fundamental questions, previously taken for granted, into the realm
of discursive consciousness. The result is the ‘flooding through’ of shame
and guilt from the unconscious mind (ibid.: 57). The sudden inability of
agents to ‘go on’ by relying on the unspoken know-how unleashes an
upsurge of anxiety expressed in regressive modes of behaviour followed
by attempts to re-establish routines and regain cognitive control over the
changed environment (ibid.: 64). In these ‘faithful moments’ as Bahar
Rumelili calls them, ‘anxieties can no longer be controlled’ and ‘ontological
security comes under immediate strain’ (Rumelili 2015b: 11).
The distinction between discursive consciousness, practical conscious-
ness and unconsciousness is of paramount importance here (Giddens 1984:
41–45). Discursive consciousness is the ability of actors to verbally express
their actions. Practical consciousness, crucial for the maintenance of onto-
logical security, is tacit knowledge about how to ‘go on’ without a need to
express it discursively. Between practical and discursive consciousness there
is a free flow of information. When asked to give discursive expression of
something that is based on background knowledge, such as driving a car
or practising table manners for example, agents are more or less able to
do it but they do not need much knowledge to carry out a competent
performance. Finally, unconsciousness includes cognitions that are ‘either
wholly repressed from consciousness or appear in consciousness only in dis-
torted form’ (ibid.: 5). Unlike practical and discursive consciousness, the
unconscious mind is therefore separated from the previous two with a bar
of repression.
The starting point of this book is that critical situations can also affect
collective agents. However, in contrast to individual experience of anxiety
that does not have to be expressed discursively, I posit that when collective
actors are concerned, anxiety outbursts are performed through a public
discourse on fundamental questions. Several studies on ontological security
in IR have made a passing reference to this feature of ontological security as
the ability to ‘bracket out’ fundamental questions in order to ‘go on’ with
daily unfolding of international life (Kinnvall 2004: 759; Krolikowski 2008:
111; Steele 2008: 51). However, none of these studies have delved deeper
into what these questions were, their relationship with critical situations
and how all this could be translated into the field of world politics. In the
rest of this section, I intend to bridge this gap.
The first fundamental question is related to ‘existence and being’ that,
according to Giddens, is about an ‘ontological framework of external
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 INDIA AND THE BOERS.
The Boers are a sober, industrious and most hospitable
body of peasantry.—Dr. Livingstone.

You heard that song of the Jubilee!

Ten thousand cannon took up the song,
Ten million people came out to see,
A surging, eager and anxious throng.
And the great were glad as glad could be;
Glad at Windsor, glad at Saint James,
Glad of glory and of storied names,
Generals, lords and gentlemen,
Such as we never may see again,
And ten thousand banners aflying!
But up the Thames and down the Thames
Bare, hungered babes lay crying,
Poor, homeless men sat sighing;
And far away, in fair Cathay,
An Eden land but yesterday,
Lay millions, starving, dying.

Prone India! All her storied gems—

Those stolen gems that decked the Crown
And glittered in those garment-hems,
That Jubilee in London town—
Were not, and all her walls were down,
Her plowshare eaten up with rust,
Her peaceful people prone in dust,
Her wells gone dry and drying.
You ask how came these things to be?
I turn you straight to historie;
To generals, lords and gentlemen
Who cut the dykes, blew down the walls
And plowed the land with cannon-balls,
Then sacked the ruined land and then—
Great London and the Jubilee,
With lying banners aflying.

Eight millions starved to death! You hear?[B]

You heard the song of that Jubilee,
And you might have heard, had you given ear,
My generals, lords and gentlemen,
From where the Ganges seeks the sea,
Such wails between the notes, I fear,
As you never had cared to hear again.
The dead heaped down in the dried-up wells,
The dead, like corn, in the fertile fields
You had plowed and crossed with your cannon wheels,
The dead in towns that were burning hells
Because the water was under your heels!
They thirsted! You drank at the Jubilee,
My generals, lords and gentlemen,
Drank as you hardly may come to when
The final account of your deeds may be.

Eight millions starved! Yet the Jubilee—

Why, never such glory since Solomon’s throne.
The world was glad that it came to see,
And the Saxon said, “Lo, the world is mine own!”
But mark you! That glittering great Crown stone,
And the thousand stars that dimmed in this sun,
Were stolen, were stolen every one,
Were stolen from those who starved and died!

Brave Boers, grim Boers, look to your guns!

They want your diamonds, these younger ones—
Young generals, lords and gentlemen—
Robbers to-day as they were robbers then.
Look to your guns! for a child can see
(Can your children see now for crying?)
That they want your gems! Ah, that Jubilee,
With those lying banners aflying!

[B] See report of Julian Hawthorne, sent by a

New York magazine to photograph and give
details of the starving in India, about the time of
the Jubilee. He does not give these figures, but
his facts and photographs warrant a fearful
estimate. As for the subjugation of India and the
wanton destruction, not only of life, but the very
means of life, this is history. And now, again, is
despoiled India starving,—starving, dying of
hunger as before; even more fearfully, even while
England is trying to despoil the Boers. And when
her speculators and politicians have beaten them
and despoiled them of their gold and diamonds
and herds, what then? Why, leave them to starve
as in India, or struggle on in the wilderness as
best they can.
AT THE CALEND’S CLOSE.
“For faith hath still an Olivet
And Love a Galilee.”

Two things: the triple great North Star,

To poise and keep His spheres in place,
And Zeus for peace: for peace the Tzar.
Or Science, Progress, Good or Grace,
These two the centum’s fruitage are;
And of the two this olive tree
Stands first, aye, first since Galilee.

Christ’s centum bends his frosted head;

Christ’s calend calls a solemn roll.
What shall be writ, what shall be said
Of Saxon when this blood-writ scroll
By God’s white light at last is read?
What of ye Saxon nations, ye
Who prate the Christ most noisily?

The eagle’s bent beak at the throat

Of Peace where far, fair islands lie:
The greedy lion sees a mote
In his brave, weaker brother’s eye
And crouches low, to gorge and gloat.
The Prince of Peace? Ye write his name
In blood, then dare to pray! For shame!

These Saxon lies on top of lies,

Ten millstones to the neck of us,
Forbid that we should lift our eyes
Till we dare meet that manlier Russ;
In peons for peace of paradise:
Forbid that we, until the day
We wash our hands, should dare to pray.
 AS IT IS WRITTEN.
The she wolf’s ruthless whelp that tare
Old Africa is dead and all
Despised; but Egypt still is fair,
Jugartha brave; and Hannibal
Still hero of the Alps and more
To-day than all red men of Rome.
Archimedes still holds his measured home;
Grim Marius his ruins as of yore,
And heart still turns to heart, as then.
Live by the sword and by the sword
Ye surely die: thus saith the Lord—
And die despised of men.
 TO OOM PAUL KRUGER.
ON HIS SEVENTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY.

His shield a skin, his sword a prayer:

Seventy-five years old to-day!
Yet mailed young hosts are marshaling there
To hound down in his native lair—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.

Mars! Ever was such shameless shame?

Christ’s calend calls the roll to-day,
Yet Christians write the sweet Christ’s name
In blood, and seek, with sword and flame—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.

Stand firm, grim shepherd-hero, stand!

The world’s watchtowers teem to-day
With men who pray with lifted hand
For you and yours, old, simple, grand—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.

God’s pity for the foolish few

Who guide great England’s hosts to-day!
They cannot make the false the true;
They can but turn true hearts to you—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.

Or king or cowboy, steep or plain,

Or palace hall, where, what—to-day,
All, all, despite of place or gain,
Are with you, with you heart and brain—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.
Brave England’s bravest, best, her Fair,
Who love fair play, are yours to-day.
And oh, the heart, the hope, the prayer—
The world is with you over there—
Oom Paul Kruger, South Africa.
USLAND[C] TO THE BOERS.

And where lies Usland, Land of Us?

Where Freedom lives, there Usland lies!
Fling down that map and measure thus
Or argent seas or sapphire skies:
To north the North Pole, south as far
As ever eagle cleaved his way;
To east the blazing morning star,
And west? West to the Judgment Day!

No borrowed lion, rampt in gold;

No bleeding Erin, plaintive strains;
No starving millions, mute and cold;
No plundered India, prone in chains;
No peaceful farmer, forced to fly
Or draw his plowshare from the sod,
And, fighting, one to fifty, die
For freedom, fireside and God.

Fear not, brave, freeborn, voiceless Boers.

Great Usland’s heart is yours to-day.
Aye, England’s heart of hearts is yours,
Whatever scheming men may say.
Her scheming men have mines to sell,
And we? Why, meat and corn and wheat.
But, Boers, all brave hearts wish you well;
For England’s triumph means defeat.

[C] It is a waste of ink and energy to write “United

States of America” always. All our property is
marked Us. Then why not Usland? And why
should we always say American? The Canadian,
the Mexican, the Brazilian and so on are as
entirely entitled to the name American as we.
Why not say Usman, as Frenchman, German,
and so on?
 THAT USSIAN OF USLAND.
Anent the boundary line—“Lest we forget, lest we forget.”

“I am an Ussian true,” he said;

“Keep off the grass there, Mister Bull!
For if you don’t I’ll bang your head
And bang your belly-full.

“Now mark, my burly jingo-man,

So prone to muss and fuss and cuss,
I am an Ussian, spick and span,
From out the land of Us!”

The stout man smole a frosty smile—

“An Ussian! Russian, Rusk, or Russ?”
“No, no! an Ussian, every while;
My land the land of Us.”

“Aw! Usland, Uitland? or, maybe,

Some Venezuela I’d forgot.
Hand out your map and let me see
Where Usland is and what.”

The lank man leaned and spread his map

And shewed the land and shewed,
Then eyed and eyed that paunchy chap,
And pulled his chin and chewed.

“What do you want?” A face grew red,

And red chop whiskers redder grew.
“I want the earth,” the Ussian said,
“And all Alaska, too.
“My stars swim up yon seas of blue;
No Shind am I, Boer, Turk or Russ.
I am an Ussian—Ussian true;
My land the land of Us.

“My triple North Star lights me on,

My Southern Cross leads ever thus;
My sun scarce sets till burst of dawn.
Hands off the Land of Us!”
FIGHT A BOY OF YOUR SIZE.

Back, far back in that backwood’s school

Of Lincoln, Grant and the great we prize
We boys would fight, but we had one rule—
You must fight a boy of your size.

Or white boy or brown, aye, Boer no doubt,

Whatever the quarrel, whatever the prize
You must stand up fair and so fight it out
With a boy somewhat your size.

But a big boy spoiled so for fights, he did,

He lied most diplomatic-like-lies
And he fought such fights—ye gods forbid—
But never a boy of his size.

He skinned and he tanned, kept hide, kept hair,

Now I am speaking figure-wise—
But he didn’t care who and he didn’t care where
Just so he was under size.

Then the big boy cried, “A big chief am I,

I was born to bang and to civilize,
And yet sometimes I, in my pride I sigh
For something about my size.”

Then the good Schoolmaster he reached a hand

And across his knee he did flop crosswise
That bully, and raise in his good right hand
A board of considerable size.

And the good Schoolmaster he smote that chief,

 He smote both hips and he smote both thighs;
And he said as he smote, “It is my belief
This board is about your size.”

Beware the bully, of his words beware,

His triangular lips are a nest of lies,
For he never did dare and he never will dare,
To bang a boy of his size.
 MILLER, C. H. (Joaquin)
(The Poet of the Sierras)
Complete Poetical Works
In One Volume
This volume completes the life work of this “Sweet Singer by
the Sunset Sea.” In it are included all the best poems
formerly published under the following titles: “Songs of the
Sierras”—“Songs of Sunland”—“Songs of
Summerlands”—“Songs of Italy”—“Songs of the Mexican
Seas”—“Classic Shades”—“Songs of the Soul”—“Olive
Leaves”—“Joaquin,” and others. The book contains 330
pages of double column matter, printed from new type on
laid paper. Each of the longer poems is followed by
extensive foot notes written by the poet himself, also a
most interesting, reminiscent preface and appendix
narrating incidents and scenes in his eventful life, never
published before. It has several illustrations showing the
poet at different ages, also a beautiful scene from his
present home on “The Hights.”

PRICE.

Beautifully Bound in Silk Cloth, side and back stamp $2

in gilt, gilt top 50
Gift Edition, bound in three-quarter Levant 4 50
Limited Autograph Edition, bound in full Morocco 7 50
 WHAT TWO GREAT POPULAR POETS SAY:
Edwin Arnold recently said: “Joaquin Miller is one of the
two greatest American poets.”
James Whitcomb Riley said of Joaquin Miller’s singing: “It
is the truest American voice that has yet thrilled the
echoes of our wild, free land, and awakened the
admiration and acclaim of the Old World. No marvel that
our Country is proud of this proud child of hers, who in all
lands has sung her dawning glory and his own changeless
loyalty to her.”

Songs of the Soul

This volume contains this well known poet’s latest, and as
pronounced by all critics, best poetic productions. The
longest poem, entitled “Sappho and Phaon,” occupies
seventy-three pages of the book, and is destined to
become a classic. Besides this there are several of his
older and most popular poems, such as “Columbus,”
“Passing of Tennyson,” “Sunset and Dawn at San Diego,”
etc., making a 12 mo. volume of 163 pages, with author’s
latest portrait.

PRICE.

Bound in Fine Silk Cloth, design on cover, Library $1

Edition 00
Author’s Autograph Gift Edition, bound in full
3 50
padded Leather
Paper Edition, printed in Gilt 25
“If Joaquin Miller had written nothing else, this one poem
(Sappho and Phaon) would make a place for him among
immortals.”—The Wave.
The Critic, in a recent article, places him among the
world’s greatest poets.
The London Athenæum gives “Columbus” first place
among all the poems written by Americans as to power,
workmanship and feeling.
 TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
Inconsistencies in hyphenation have been
standardized.
Archaic or variant spelling has been retained.
The Table of Contents was created by the transcriber
for the convenience of the reader and is granted to the
public domain.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHANTS FOR
THE BOER ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE