In this interesting study, Jenny Edkins explores how we remember traumatic events such as wars, famines, genocides and terrorism, and questions the assumed role of commemorations as simply reinforcing state and nationhood. Taking examples from the World Wars, Vietnam, the Holocaust, Kosovo and September 11th, Edkins offers a thorough discussion of practices of memory such as memorials, museums, remembrance ceremonies, the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress and the act of bearing witness. She examines the implications of these commemorations in terms of language, political power, sovereignty and nationalism. She argues that some forms of remembering do not ignore the horror of what happened but rather use memory to promote change and to challenge the political systems that produced the violence of wars and genocides in the first place. This wide-ranging study embraces literature, history, politics and international relations, and makes a significant contribution to the study of memory.

Edkins, J. and Pin-Fat, V. (2005). Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence. Millennium - Journal of International Studies. 34(1), pp.1-24 RAE2008This article seeks to explore the question, most starkly posed by Giorgio Agamben, of whether sovereign power can be challenged. By deploying readings of Agamben and Foucault that complement and illuminate each other, we propose that although sovereign power remains globally predominant, it is best considered not as a form of power relation but as a relation of violence. By exploring sovereign power in this way, we argue, alongside Agamben, that challenges to it are available in two modes: first, a refusal to draw lines between forms of life; and, secondly, an assumption of bare life. The availability of these forms of challenge is illustrated by examining practices of lip sewing amongst refugees. In the end, the refusal to draw lines and the assumption of bare life seek to reinstate properly political power relations with their accompanying freedoms and potentialities.Peer reviewe

Peer reviewe

Traumatic events demand a response that recognizes their impact rather than one that moves rapidly to forgetting the trauma or incorporating it into existing narratives. This article explores four reactions to the events of September 11: securitization, criminalization, aestheticization and politicization. Securitization represents the rapid reinstatement of state power and sovereign control in the face of a traumatic challenge to the state's monopolization of the instrumentalization of human life. While criminalization is less dangerous, it nevertheless involves the depoliticization of opposition and risks outlawing citizen dissent. Aestheticization can be a party to the rebuilding of narratives of nation and heroism in support of state action, but it can also provide a site for critical engagement with the reality of trauma and an acknowledgement of the impossibility of its domestication. Politicization demands a refusal of the easy categories and accepted agendas of what we call `politics' and calls for an engagement with the complexity of the events themselves in all their specificity.Peer reviewe

Prompted by Elizabeth Dauphinee’s The Politics of Exile, the article explores the political potential of novel ways of writing in international relations. It begins by examining attempts to distinguish between narrative writing and academic writing, fiction and non-fiction, and to give an account of what narrative might be and how it might work. It argues that although distinctions between narrative writing and academic writing cannot hold, there are nevertheless ways of judging the practical political effects that writing can produce. It briefly examines feminist, postcolonial and other international relations scholars who collect other people’s stories or tell their own, and points to an instructive body of work in fiction and literary non-fiction beyond the discipline. It argues that writing that disrupts linear forms of temporality and instead inhabits ‘trauma time’ can open the possibility of an aesthetic political practice, and suggests that we foster such a creative practice in international relations.