Knowledge production in/about conflict and intervention: finding ‘facts’, telling ‘truth’

Abstract

This article has a twofold aim. First, it discusses the contributions to the scholarly field of conflict knowledge and expertise in this special issue on Knowledge Production in/about Conflict and Intervention. Second, it suggests an alternative reading of the issue's contributions. Starting from the assumption that prevalent ways of knowing are always influenced by wider material and ideological structures at specific times, we trace the influence of contemporary neoliberalism on general knowledge production structures in Western societies, and more specifically in Western academia, before re-reading the special issue's contributions through this prism. Our main argument is that neoliberalism leaves limited space for independent critical knowledge, thereby negatively affecting what can be known about conflict and intervention. We conclude with some tasks for reflexive scholarship in neoliberal times.

Is the Future of SSR non-linear?

“…(Heathershaw, 2016, 28). The international community involvement also represents a discourse circulating in a knowledge economy where signs of success become more important than success itself, and where knowledge is socially constructed (Heathershaw, 2016;Bliesemann de Guevara & Kostić, 2017). In SSR, the international community is an extraordinarily broad church.…”

“…These debates are also linked to the development of 'hybrid' approaches within the peacebuilding literature (MacGinty and Richmond, 2013). This has led to more discussion and advocacy of a move beyond linear approaches to the state and towards recognition of the links between external and domestic actors (Schroeder and Chappuis, 2014;Lemay-Hebert and Freedman, 2017) and works that try to uncover the hidden discourses behind or in parallel with the dominant public transcripts of international peacebuilding interventions (Bliesemann de Guevara & Kostić, 2017). With concepts such as 'everyday', 'hybrid' and 'post-liberal' forms of peace (and statebuilding), critical peacebuilding scholars presented alternatives in light of the fundamental criticisms mounted against the adherents of liberal interventionism in both policy and academia.…”

Comparing how peace operations enable or restrict the influence of national staff: Contestation from within?

“…The second argument emphasizes the importance of understanding how local norms and knowledge are generated. In order to be effective, peace operations depend on understanding the local environment they operate in, including its customs, culture, and politics (Bliesemann de Guevara and Kostić, 2017; Da Costa and Karlsrud, 2012, 2013). Mac Ginty (2014: 561), for instance, argues that peace initiatives rooted in ‘everyday peace,’ understood as routinized social practices used by individuals in conflict societies, ‘may have a chance of legitimacy and authenticity that may be lacking from imported initiatives.’ It is therefore crucial to understand how local knowledge emerges and by which mechanisms it is generated.…”

“…A growing literature addresses the role of local agents in the context of local ownership (e.g., Donais, 2012; Von Billerbeck, 2015, 2017; Wilén and Chapaux, 2011), local knowledge generation (e.g., Bliesemann de Guevara and Kostić, 2017; Bueger, 2015; Da Costa and Karlsrud, 2012, 2013; Verkoren, 2006), and contestations between international and local norms (e.g., Björkdahl and Gusic, 2015; Björkdahl and Höglund, 2013; Hellmüller, 2013; Millar et al, 2013; Tholens and Groß, 2015). This literature hints to, but has not fully explored, the possibility that the interaction and possible friction between international and local ideas and norms might not be taking place at the boundary between a peace operation and its environment, but right within the organization.…”

“…Key to the argument is the observation of a discernible local turn in the practice of multidimensional peace operations, including such key principles as local ownership and bottom-up peacebuilding (for an overview, see Leonardsson and Rudd, 2015). The local turn dovetails with the acknowledgment of the paramount importance of local information—knowledge of the history, politics, customs, and societal environment of the host state and its inhabitants—to peacebuilding operations (e.g., Bliesemann de Guevara and Kostić, 2017; Bueger, 2015; Da Costa and Karlsrud, 2012, 2013; Verkoren, 2006). The assumption is that if peacebuilders were better able to integrate the ‘“banality” of the everyday challenges’ (Mac Ginty, 2014: 548), this would lead to better peacebuilding (Hirblinger and Simons, 2015).…”