TodayWorld News

Peace Past Epistemic and Ontological Violence

The sphere of worldwide peacebuilding more and more acknowledges that violence just isn’t a unitary phenomenon, however an array of constraints on human flourishing spanning bodily, structural, cultural, and symbolic registers (Galtung 1969; 1990; Jabri 1996; O. Richmond 2012; 2016). This recognition offers corollary insights that constructing peace requires, on the very least, the discount of violence in its advanced and interlocking kinds. However regardless of a normative dedication to lowering various types of violence, the sphere of worldwide peacebuilding has struggled to handle the potentials for epistemic and ontological violence following from the inherent Eurocentrism of its personal disciplinary origins and orientations (Walker 2004; Jabri 2013; Sabaratnam 2013; Goetze 2016). On account of its exclusion of how of understanding and being not approved by Western educational discourses, the idea and follow of worldwide peacebuilding incessantly presumes the universalizability of Eurocentric modes of social, political, and financial group considered as ontologically harmful by Indigenous and different communities that proceed to endure underneath situations of world coloniality (Azarmandi 2018; Maldonado-Torres 2020).

To handle the paradoxical hazard of perpetuating epistemic and ontological violence whereas looking for to advertise peace, crucial students of peacebuilding have begun to grapple in substantive and sustained methods with varied strains of decolonial thought (Sabaratnam 2013; Hudson 2016; Azarmandi 2018; Brigg 2018; Rodriguez Iglesias 2019; Shroff 2019; Omer 2020). Whereas very important for excavating the sphere’s participation in dangerous ideological, financial, and political formations, these encounters have produced lamentably few sensible instruments for unsettling peacebuilding’s problematic epistemic politics or mitigating their materials penalties (Tucker 2018). The next dialogue advances the encounter between decolonial principle and the sphere of peacebuilding by contemplating the decolonial idea of pluriversality as a useful resource for imagining peacebuilding past epistemic and ontological violence.

Pluriversality and the Peaceable Violence of Modernity

The idea of pluriversality is related primarily with the modernity/coloniality framework of decolonial thought. Originating from the work of Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano, modernity/coloniality names the inextricable bond between a Eurocentered modernity and its ‘darker facet’ of coloniality (Quijano 2000; 2007; W. D. Mignolo 2011). Modernity right here displays the historic emergence and self-narration of a Eurocentric fashionable/capitalist world-system with materials and ideological roots within the European colonial conquest of the Atlantic basin. Coloniality denotes the co-constitution of this Eurocentered modernity by patterns of enslavement, dispossession, and genocide in opposition to differentially racialized, gendered, sexualized, and territorialized peoples constructed as Europe’s constitutive ‘others’ (W. D. Mignolo 2000; Wynter 2003; Maldonado-Torres 2007; Lugones 2007; 2010). A key side of modernity as a discursive formation is the erasure or subalternization (‘epistemicide’) of the information of non-European peoples (Grosfoguel 2015). The discourse of modernity naturalizes the violences of coloniality by eradicating assets for imagining and enacting doable options to a world structured by modernity/coloniality’s intersecting, Eurocentric hierarchies.

Pluriversality, against this, denotes the existence of irreducibly plural methods of understanding and being which have survived the on-going violences of coloniality (Escobar 2018; Reiter 2018). Pluriversality carries each ontological and moral implications. In its ontological sense, pluriversality names the survival of myriad methods of understanding and being on the planet that deny the authority of any information system claiming common validity or a transcendent grasp of ‘goal’ actuality (W. D. Mignolo 2011, 70–71). Pluriversality thus affirms the existence of ‘a number of ontologies, a number of worlds to be recognized—not merely a number of views on one world’ (Conway and Singh 2011, 701). As a result of the universalizing discourse of modernity imperils the survival of different methods of understanding and being, embracing the ontological truth of pluriversality impels a corresponding rejection of epistemologies, discourses, and political tasks that view the world as knowable and governable from inside any single system of data.

This ontological or descriptive side of pluriversality instantly informs the idea’s moral or programmatic sense, which consists of dismantling programs of energy that threaten the survival of various methods of understanding and being. Pluriversal ethics minimally entails resistance to the violences of modernity/coloniality by efforts to construct ‘a world wherein a number of cosmovisions, worldviews, practices and livelihoods co-exist, a world the place nobody specific way of life shuts down others’ (Dunford 2017, 380–81), a world typically described by the Zapatistas desideratum of un mundo donde quepan muchos mundos—’a world the place many worlds match.’ On this moral or programmatic sense, pluriversality offers a touchstone for imagining the proliferation of irreducibly plural, located options to the violently universalizing tendencies of modernity/coloniality (Querejazu 2016; W. D. Mignolo 2018; W. D. Mignolo and Walsh 2018; Reiter 2018; Escobar 2018).

This two-fold understanding of pluriversality gives crucial and constructive insights into peacebuilding principle and follow. On the one hand, pluriversality offers a lens for assessing how peace discourses perpetuate fashionable/colonial logics and promote ends hostile to pluriversality in its ontological sense. These dynamics change into significantly obvious when analyzing how hegemonic peace discourses overdetermine the content material of ‘peace’ itself, delegitimizing different meanings and selling social, financial, and political transformations skilled as harmful to some communities’ methods of understanding and being (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019).

In its programmatic sense, pluriversality additionally offers insights into how the idea of peace would possibly nonetheless operate on a decolonial register when delinked from such hegemonic discourses. The cultivation of pluriversality is carefully linked to dialogical practices that take shared ideas, or ‘connectors,’ because the discursive grounds for encounters that bridge epistemic and ontological variations (Delgado, Romero, and Mignolo 2000; W. D. Mignolo 2011; Querejazu 2016; Dunford 2017; Hutchings 2019). Pluriversal dialogue that facilities peace itself as a possible connector opens prospects for constructive encounters round modes of peacebuilding attuned to the hazards of epistemic and ontological violence too incessantly perpetuated by the sphere.

Analyses of the epistemic politics of peacebuilding make clear the pressing want for praxis delinked from fashionable/colonial logics. In The Distinction of Peace, Catherine Goetze demonstrates how the sphere prioritizes ‘Western, liberal, neocapitalist types of information’ that presuppose white, Western, male supremacy in setting up experience (Goetze 2016, 221). However Goetze additionally reveals how these intra-disciplinary biases are externalized and reified at scale as the sphere’s exclusionary politics of data are translated into knowledgeable coverage in conflict-affected societies that naturalize racist, sexist, and heteropatriarchal ideological formations inside oppressive social, political, and financial programs—all within the identify of selling ‘peace.’

Partly in response to those exclusionary dynamics, crucial students of peacebuilding have advocated for a ‘native flip’ within the subject (O. Richmond 2012; Mac Ginty and Richmond 2013; Hughes, Öjendal, and Schierenbeck 2015; Paffenholz 2015; Leonardsson and Rudd 2015; O. Richmond 2016). At its most pointed, the native flip depicts worldwide peacebuilding efforts of the final a number of many years as skinny veneers for cultural imperialism that use violent battle as pretext to implement social, financial, and political transformations in postcolonial states. In contrast, native flip advocates spotlight the indispensability of native peacebuilding assets and company, and describe how contestatory interactions between native conceptions of peace and prevailing ‘liberal peacebuilding’ approaches can produce ‘hybrid’ types of peace providing ‘emancipatory’ options to each violent battle and the violent impositions of unreconstructed liberal peacebuilding interventions (Mac Ginty 2011; O. Richmond 2012; 2015).

Nevertheless, critics using decolonial approaches reveal how worldwide peacebuilding’s enduring epistemic Eurocentrism limits the constructive potential of such immanent critiques of the sphere. Meera Sabaratnam reveals how native flip advocates fall prey to a ‘paradox of liberalism’ that can’t totally de-center the liberal/fashionable peacebuilding approaches they critique (Sabaratnam 2013). In consequence, the native flip’s emphasis on hybridity constrains the emancipatory potential of peacebuilding by presuming liberal interventions whose essential hybridization predetermine limits for ‘peaceable’ modes of social, financial, and political group (Randazzo 2016; Nadarajah and Rampton 2015). By failing to completely excavate the sphere’s epistemic exclusions and broader metaethical presumptions, the sphere of worldwide peacebuilding excludes explicitly decolonial options to each hegemonic peace discourses and to crucial options developed throughout the subject. It due to this fact seems that ‘surprisingly little is at stake’ within the liberal/native peace debates, wherein ‘fine-grained distinctions’ across the native sensitivities of liberal interventions conceal ‘a big space of political consensus’ round these interventions’ indispensability (Campbell, Chandler, and Sabaratnam 2011, 4–5).

Mahdis Azarmandi equally reveals the fashionable/colonial dynamics mirrored by the ‘racial silence’ throughout the subject of peacebuilding (Azarmandi 2018). Azarmandi means that purported ‘paradigm shifts’ throughout the subject (such because the native flip) masks underlying colonial continuities by failing to account for the constitutive position of race in structuring discourses round peace and violence. In consequence, peacebuilding efforts typically reproduce fashionable/colonial discourses representing Eurocentric social, political, and financial orders as extra ‘developed,’ ‘superior,’ or ‘civilized’—that’s, as extra inherently peaceable. Conceptions of peace reflecting colonial logics thus compound the disproportionate harms from direct and structural violence suffered by racialized and colonized peoples by delegitimizing methods of understanding and being that provide options to what Frantz Fanon referred to as the ‘peaceable violence’ of modernity/coloniality (Azarmandi 2018; Stavrevska and Smith 2020).

Via its naturalization of violence towards racialized and colonized peoples constructed as Europe’s ‘others,’ modernity reveals itself to be what Nelson Maldonado-Torres describes as a ‘paradigm of conflict’ (Maldonado-Torres 2020). Peace—as each a hegemonic discursive formation and a constellation of social, financial, and political programs named by this discourse—is equally revealed by these decolonial interventions as incessantly co-imbricated in principle and follow with the mission of modernity. Remodeling these dynamics requires a scientific accounting of the sphere of peacebuilding’s position in reproducing the coloniality of peace, and new methods for imagining and training peacebuilding delinked from fashionable/colonial violence.

Peacebuilding within the Pluriverse

The Colombian peace course of offers an instructive case examine for contestations over the (de)coloniality of peace (Acosta et al. 2018; Rodriguez Iglesias 2019; Zulver 2020; Paarlberg-Kvam 2021). The peace settlement reached in 2016 between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Colombian authorities ended over 5 many years of battle by essentially the most complete peace accord ever produced. The Colombia Barometer Initiative, the physique tasked with monitoring the implementation of the peace accords, has recognized 578 distinct implementation gadgets stipulated throughout the settlement, and proponents tout the settlement’s intersectional consideration to cross-cutting points round differential experiences of violence and aspirations for peace amongst ‘ladies and ladies, Indigenous peoples, youngsters and adolescents, communities of African descent, small-scale and household farmers (campesinxs), displaced folks, LGBTI individuals, individuals with disabilities, and so forth’ (Stavrevska and Smith 2020, 6; Bouvier 2016) .

Nevertheless, Ana Isabel Rodríguez Iglesias signifies that the Colombian peace course of nonetheless dangers reproducing colonial logics and violence. Tenets of Eurocentric liberal peacebuilding throughout the Colombian peace settlement over-determine the significations of ideas like democracy, growth, and safety in ways in which ‘(re)produce sure identities and alterities,’ reinforcing hierarchicalised fashionable/colonial binaries of ‘developed/underdeveloped, civilized/uncivilized, ethnic/white, menace/ally’ (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, 210). These hierarchies are themselves strengthened by each the discursive affiliation of peace with particular types of social and political group and political economic system throughout the formal peace settlement, and thru the disciplinary powers of the nation-state and its securitization of perceived threats to dominant articulations of ‘peace’ and ‘growth.’ Peace discourse due to this fact dangers performing epistemic and ontological violence by consigning primarily ethnic minority communities to situations of coloniality and delegitimizing options to the hegemonic significations of the liberal/fashionable peace.

Regardless of these pressures, Indigenous and Afro-descended communities in Colombia proceed to think about and enact conceptions of peace that instantly problem the hegemony of the liberal peace and the fashionable/colonial logics it displays (Acosta et al. 2018; Rodriguez Iglesias 2019; Zulver 2020; Paarlberg-Kvam 2021). Whereas some communities pursue methods of isolation or non-cooperation with the state, Rodríguez Iglesias notes the constructive, pragmatic interaction that different communities have sought with the formal peace course of. Via coalitional efforts, Indigenous and Afro-descended communities secured the late inclusion of the Peace Settlement’s ‘Ethnic Chapter,’ which affirmed ethnic and territorial rights as integral features of the peace course of. But some communities cited by Rodríguez Iglesias labored to form hegemonic peace discourses regardless of acknowledging their insufficiency for delivering broader targets of a ‘political-epistemological…peace’ that may uproot interlocking colonial types of ‘exclusion, discrimination, oppression, and violence…suffered because the institution of a racial, classist and gendered stratification of society’ (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, 215).

Studying the Colombian peace course of by the lens of pluriversality helps to convey the idea’s ontological and programmatic insights into view. The existence—and resistance—of subalternized understandings of peace amongst Indigenous and Afro-descended communities in Colombia reveals troubles the hegemonic significations of key ideas inside ‘knowledgeable’ peacebuilding discourses and reductive approaches to ‘native’ conceptions of peace. Recognizing the complexities round these communities’ pragmatic engagements with the formal peace course of additionally helps mitigate the danger of romanticizing or reifying Indigenous and ‘native’ peacebuilding praxis as homogenous, insular, and static, as such framings reinforce fashionable/colonial dichotomies and flatten inner energy dynamics and intersectional contestations inside and amongst these communities (Omer 2020). Regardless of examples of pragmatic engagement with liberal/fashionable peace discourses by the formal peace course of, these communities’ specific identification of peace with decolonial horizons signifies the insufficiencies of dominant peace discourses for constructing a extra genuinely peaceable and pluriversal world—a world wherein many worlds can match.

So how can the sphere of peacebuilding make the most of the ontological and moral insights of pluriversality to have interaction with understandings of peace that don’t replicate its exclusions? A technique wherein decolonial theorists perceive pluriversality to be each disclosed and pursued is thru practices of pluriversal dialogue (Querejazu 2016; Hutchings 2019). Pluriversal dialogue describes encounters wherein non-reductive conceptions of distinction enable interlocutors to bridge—if by no means wholly reconcile—varied types of distinction. Walter Mignolo factors to the enabling position that particular ‘connectors’ play in facilitating cases of pluriversal dialogue, describing connectors as analogous ideas that share a simultaneous presence and distinct and irreducible specificity of which means throughout differing epistemologies and ontologies (Delgado, Romero, and Mignolo 2000; W. D. Mignolo 2011). Via the mutual exploration of particular connectors as they operate inside and throughout alternative ways of understanding and being, pluriversal dialogue displays the ontological truth of pluriversality by acknowledging the existence and validity of those ideas’ pluriversal meanings. This acknowledgment in flip offers a platform for concrete practices of collaborative resistance to the violences of modernity/coloniality that stay aware of the incommensurabilities that inevitably attend the pursuit of pluriversal, decolonial tasks (Tuck and Yang 2012).

The position of connectors is linked partially to the violences of modernity/coloniality by the enforced globalization of ideas like democracy, growth, and human rights. However the simultaneous, self-conscious appellation of those ‘common’ phrases to explicitly decolonial tasks alongside their continued usages within the dominant Western contexts demonstrates how they will operate in methods that don’t command common, hegemonic meanings (W. D. Mignolo 2011). The pluriversal utilization of those ideas offers the discursive grounds for types of dialogue that once more point out each the ontological and moral features of pluriversality. Examples of dialogues throughout Indigenous, peasant, pastoralist, fisherfolk, and World South feminist teams present how pluriversal dialogue concurrently displays and cultivates pluriversality’s ontological and moral features, as these communities ‘unpick a number of, intersecting hierarchies and assemble, of their place, a pluriversal world’ by located practices of dialogical interculturality (Dunford 2017, 382; Conway and Singh 2011; W. D. Mignolo 2011; Martínez-Torres and Rosset 2014).

The established position of signifiers like democracy and growth as pluriversal connectors opens doorways onto equally pluriversal prospects for the idea of peace itself. Preliminary engagements with decolonial literature and actions disclose prepared examples of pluriversal conceptions of peace. Certainly, even the restricted instance of Colombia mentioned above already reveals what Rodriguez Iglesias describes as a plurality of ‘native, located, and specific peaces’ that contest each the violent impositions of modernity/coloniality and hegemonic liberal types of peacebuilding (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, 212). 

Nevertheless, like democracy and growth, prospects for grounding pluriversal dialogue utilizing the idea of peace as a connector are revealed solely by the truth that peace is already in use by various communities to explain horizons of risk past the violences of modernity/coloniality. Ideas like democracy, growth, and peace command no a priori decolonial cache as potential pluriversal connectors outdoors of this truth. And because the examples from Colombia present, pluriversal dialogue across the idea of peace is additional difficult by the truth that located understandings of peace are hardly static, however mirror dynamics of fixed inner and exterior contestation.

The power of peace to behave as a pluriversal connector signifies a capability to exceed its discursive associations with interlocking violences of modernity/coloniality. However students and practitioners of peacebuilding hoping to have interaction with pluriversal re-imaginings of peace should even be attentive to the dangers of privilege that attend decolonial critique abstracted from the lived struggles of Indigenous and different racialized and colonized peoples. Overly purist educational engagements with decolonial thought can truly undermine efforts by marginalized populations to attain entry to recognition and assets wanted for survival inside present programs (Cusicanqui 2012, 104).

Returning to the Colombian instance, Rodríguez Iglesias reveals how practices of decolonial politics by Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities are reframed by colonial tropes to help centuries-old narratives depicting these communities as obstacles to progress and peace, thereby justifying their continued experiences of direct, structural, and cultural violence (Rodriguez Iglesias 2019, 215). Analyzing interreligious peacebuilding practices in Kenya and the Philippines, Atalia Omer equally reveals how marginalized communities in these contexts keep a stress between the efficiency of decolonial politics and pragmatic engagements with organizations whose approaches to peacebuilding—together with their mobilizations of the class of faith—perpetuate epistemic and materials legacies of colonization. Reflecting on the work of the College of the Residing Traditions (SLT), an Indigenous ladies’s group in Mindanao, Omer describes how individuals hyperlink the regeneration of Indigenous lived traditions to ladies’s instant issues of every day survival, partially by Indigenous reinterpretations and enactments of the UN Sustainable Improvement Objectives. Via this ‘concurrently regenerative and re-interpretive mode,’ the ladies of the SLT have interaction in located practices of interculturality, historic contextualization, and double critique of discourses round peacebuilding, well being, and training to barter questions of instant survival alongside non-reductive practices of decolonial politics (Omer 2020, 289–90).

Such examples illustrate the significance of avoiding ahistorical (and thus inherently depoliticizing) approaches to interrogating pluriversal accounts of peace that flatten inner complexities and contestations inside and throughout each fashionable/liberal peacebuilding approaches and among the many colonial ‘others’ these discourses assemble. These examples additionally underscore the indispensability of intersectional evaluation for apprehending the pluriversal character of peace. Thoroughgoing intersectional consideration to the specificities, interrelations, and variations that exist inside and between located accounts of peace would possibly but keep away from each abyssal logics of colonial alterity and depoliticizing decolonial critiques abstracted from the lived struggles of racialized and colonized peoples.

Towards Pluriversal Peacebuilding

Like pluriversality itself, a pluriversal understanding of peace displays each ontological and normative dimensions. On the one hand, the ontological pluriversality of peace acknowledges that different peaces are precise, affirming the already-existence of irreducibly plural conceptions of peace alongside the methods of understanding and being inside which they discover their which means. The ontological pluriversality of peace additionally challenges the authorization of ‘knowledgeable’ information throughout the subject of worldwide peacebuilding, underscoring how a subject oriented towards lowering violence paradoxically perpetuates epistemic violence by its devaluation of different types of information, and ontological violence by its promotion of social, financial, and political transformations that threaten the lifeworlds inside which various methods of understanding and being are entwined. Students and practitioners of peacebuilding working in settler-colonial contexts bear significantly pressing duties for grappling with the sphere’s implication in epistemically and ontologically harmful processes of Indigenous erasure and dispossession (Walker 2004).

However the programmatic side of pluriversality additionally reveals the potential position that peace as a connector performs in enabling the pursuit of decolonial tasks in manners respectful of varied types of distinction. As a pluriversal connector, ‘peace’ capabilities as a signifier that bridges methods of understanding and being, revealing various and incommensurable meanings not exhausted by the idea’s participation in hegemonic fashionable/liberal discourses. Whereas new methods for engagement are wanted, the pluriversality of peace opens prospects for dialogue and collaboration throughout epistemic and ontological variations towards the transformation of world programs of oppression rooted in colonial logics.

Regardless of pluriversality’s affiliation with lowering varied types of violence, pluriversal politics just isn’t with out conflicts of its personal. Reflecting on pluriversal encounters with and between Andean Indigenous environmental actions, Martha Chaves and her colleagues warning in opposition to ‘romanticizing’ the pluriverse as a spot free from energy or wrestle (Chaves et al. 2016, 5). Pluriversal conceptions of peace might due to this fact have essential roles to play in navigating inevitable conflicts arising even within the shared pursuit of a world wherein alternative ways of understanding and being can coexist. Intersectional and decolonial assets provide prospects for a chastened and critically reimagined subject of worldwide peacebuilding to raised navigate its personal inner contradictions and contestations, and to find new roles as one discourse amongst many collaborating within the pluriversality of peace. As Maldonado-Torres writes, to really be ‘in peace’ it would require collective motion in opposition to the racialized hierarchies and ‘institutional, symbolic, and epistemological foundations’ of modernity/coloniality (Maldonado-Torres 2020). Pluriversality gives an essential interpretive framework for understanding how completely different conceptions of peace contribute to upholding or eroding these foundations.

References

Acosta, Mónica, Angela Castañeda, Daniela García, Fallon Hernández, Dunen Muelas, and Angela Santamaria. 2018. “The Colombian Transitional Course of: Comparative Views on Violence in opposition to Indigenous Girls.” Worldwide Journal of Transitional Justice 12 (1): 108–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijx033.

Azarmandi, Mahdis. 2018. “The Racial Silence inside Peace Research.” Peace Evaluation 30 (1): 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2017.1418659.

Bouvier, Virginia Marie. 2016. Gender and the Function of Girls in Colombia’s Peace Course of. Washington, D.C. : New York: United States Institute of Peace ; UN Girls.

Brigg, Morgan. 2018. “Relational and Important: Theorizing Distinction for Peacebuilding.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 12 (3): 352–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2018.1482078.

Campbell, Susanna, David Chandler, and Meera Sabaratnam, eds. 2011. A Liberal Peace?: The Issues and Practices of Peacebuilding. London ; New York: Zed Books.

Chaves, Martha, Thomas Macintyre, Gerard Verschoor, and Arjen E. J. Wals. 2016. “In direction of Transgressive Studying by Ontological Politics: Answering the ‘Name of the Mountain’ in a Colombian Community of Sustainability.” Sustainability 9 (1): 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9010021.

Conway, Janet, and Jakeet Singh. 2011. “Radical Democracy in World Perspective: Notes from the Pluriverse.” Third World Quarterly 32 (4): 689–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.570029.

Cusicanqui, Silvia Rivera. 2012. “Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: A Reflection on the Practices and Discourses of Decolonization.” South Atlantic Quarterly 111 (1): 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-1472612.

Delgado, Luisa Elena, Rolando J. Romero, and Walter Mignolo. 2000. “Native Histories and World Designs: An Interview with Walter Mignolo.” Discourse 22 (3): 7–33.

Dunford, Robin. 2017. “Towards a Decolonial World Ethics.” Journal of World Ethics 13 (3): 380–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2017.1373140.

Escobar, Arturo. 2018. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century. Durham: Duke College Press.

Galtung, Johan. 1969. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Analysis.” Journal of Peace Analysis 6 (3): 167–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.

———. 1990. “Cultural Violence.” Journal of Peace Analysis 27 (3): 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343390027003005.

Goetze, Catherine. 2016. The Distinction of Peace: A Social Evaluation of Peacebuilding. Ann Arbor: College of Michigan Press.

Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2015. “Epistemic Racism/Sexism, Westernized Universities and the 4 Genocides/Epistemicides of the Lengthy Sixteenth Century.” In Eurocentrism, Racism and Information: Debates on Historical past and Energy in Europe and the Americas, edited by Marta Araújo and Silvia Rodríguez Maeso, 23–46. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hudson, Heidi. 2016. “Decolonising Gender and Peacebuilding: Feminist Frontiers and Border Considering in Africa.” Peacebuilding 4 (2): 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2016.1192242.

Hughes, Caroline, Joakim Öjendal, and Isabell Schierenbeck. 2015. “The Battle versus the Music – the Native Flip in Peacebuilding: An Introduction.” Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 817–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1029907.

Hutchings, Kimberly. 2019. “Decolonizing World Ethics: Considering with the Pluriverse.” Ethics and Worldwide Affairs 33 (2): 115–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679419000169.

Jabri, Vivienne. 1996. Discourses on Violence: Battle Evaluation Reconsidered. Manchester ; New York : New York: Manchester College Press.

———. 2013. “Peacebuilding, the Native and the Worldwide: A Colonial or a Postcolonial Rationality?” Peacebuilding 1 (1): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2013.756253.

Leonardsson, Hanna, and Gustav Rudd. 2015. “The ‘native Flip’ in Peacebuilding: A Literature Evaluation of Efficient and Emancipatory Native Peacebuilding.” Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 825–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1029905.

Lugones, María. 2007. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Fashionable Gender System.” Hypatia 22 (1): 186–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2007.tb01156.x.

———. 2010. “Towards a Decolonial Feminism.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 25 (4): 742–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01137.x.

Mac Ginty, Roger. 2011. Worldwide Peacebuilding and Native Resistance: Hybrid Types of Peace. Rethinking Peace and Battle Research. New York, Basingstoke, Hampshire ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver Richmond. 2013. “The Native Flip in Peace Constructing: A Important Agenda for Peace.” Third World Quarterly 34 (5): 763–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2013.800750.

Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. 2007. “On the Coloniality of Being: Contributions to the Improvement of a Idea.” Cultural Research (London, United Kingdom) 21 (2–3): 240–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162548.

———. 2020. “Notes on the Coloniality of Peace.” Fondation Frantz Fanon (weblog). June 4, 2020. https://fondation-frantzfanon.com/notes-on-the-coloniality-of-peace/.

Martínez-Torres, María Elena, and Peter M. Rosset. 2014. “Diálogo de Saberes in La Vía Campesina: Meals Sovereignty and Agroecology.” The Journal of Peasant Research 41 (6): 979–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2013.872632.

Mignolo, Walter D. 2000. Native Histories/World Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Considering. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton College Press.

———. 2011. The Darker Aspect of Western Modernity: World Futures, Decolonial Choices. Durham, N.C.: Duke College Press.

———. 2018. “On Pluriversality and Multipolar World Order: Decoloniality After Decolonization; Dewesternization after the Chilly Struggle.” In Developing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Information., edited by Bernd Reiter, 90–116. Durham: Duke College Press.

Mignolo, Walter D., and Catherine E. Walsh. 2018. On Decoloniality: Ideas, Analytics, and Praxis. On Decoloniality. Durham: Duke College Press.

Nadarajah, Suthaharan, and David Rampton. 2015. “The Limits of Hybridity and the Disaster of Liberal Peace” 41 (1): 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210514000060.

Omer, Atalia. 2020. “Decolonizing Faith and the Follow of Peace: Two Case Research from the Postcolonial World.” Important Analysis on Faith 8 (3): 273–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050303220924111.

Paarlberg-Kvam, Kate. 2021. “Open-Pit Peace: The Energy of Extractive Industries in Submit-Battle Transitions.” Peacebuilding Forward of Print: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21647259.2021.1897218.

Paffenholz, Thania. 2015. “Unpacking the Native Flip in Peacebuilding: A Important Evaluation in direction of an Agenda for Future Analysis.” Third World Quarterly 36 (5): 857–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1029908.

Querejazu, Amaya. 2016. “Encountering the Pluriverse: Searching for Alternate options in Different Worlds.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59 (2). https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600207.

Quijano, Aníbal. 2000. “Coloniality of Energy, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Translated by Michael Ennis. Nepantla: Views from South 1 (3): 533–80.

———. 2007. “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality.” Cultural Research 21 (2–3): 168–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601164353.

Randazzo, Elisa. 2016. “The Paradoxes of the ‘On a regular basis’: Scrutinising the Native Flip in Peace Constructing.” Third World Quarterly 37 (8): 1351–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1120154.

Reiter, Bernd, ed. 2018. Developing the Pluriverse: The Geopolitics of Information. Durham: Duke College Press.

Richmond, Oliver. 2012. “The Dilemmas of a Hybrid Peace.” E-Worldwide Relations, 1–8.

———. 2015. “The Dilemmas of a Hybrid Peace: Unfavourable or Constructive?” Cooperation and Battle 50 (1): 50–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836714537053.

———. 2016. “Escape From A Liberal-Colonial IR: Hints of a Twenty first Century Peace.” E-Worldwide Relations (weblog). 2016. https://www.e-ir.data/2016/11/04/escape-from-a-liberal-colonial-ir-hints-of-a-Twenty first-century-peace/.

Rodriguez Iglesias, Ana Isabel. 2019. “A Decolonial Critique of the Liberal Peace: Insights from Peace Practices of Ethnic Individuals in Colombia.” Revista de Paz y Conflictos, no. 2: 199–223.

Sabaratnam, Meera. 2013. “Avatars of Eurocentrism within the Critique of the Liberal Peace.” Safety Dialogue 44 (3): 259–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613485870.

Shroff, Sara. 2019. “The Peace Professor: Decolonial, Feminist, and Queer Futurities.” In Peace and Justice Research: Important Pedagogy, edited by Margaret Groarke and Emily Welty, 146–62. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stavrevska, Elena, and Sarah Smith. 2020. “Intersectionality and Peace.” In , edited by Gëzim Visoka and Oliver Richmond, 1–7. London: New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tuck, Eve, and Okay Wayne Yang. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Training & Society 1 (1): 40.

Tucker, Okay. 2018. “Unraveling Coloniality in Worldwide Relations: Information, Relationality, and Methods for Engagement.” Worldwide Political Sociology 12 (3): 215–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/oly005.

Walker, Polly O. 2004. “Decolonizing Battle Decision: Addressing the Ontological Violence of Westernization.” American Indian Quarterly 28 (3/4): 527–49. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2004.0108.

Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Energy/Reality/Freedom: In direction of the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument.” CR: The New Centennial Evaluation 3 (3): 257–337.

Zulver, Julia. 2020. “Afro-Colombian Girls’s Organisations in Submit-Accord Colombia: Gendering and Racialising Violent Pluralism Throughout the Battle Continuum in Bogotá, Colombia.” Alternautas. 2020. http://www.alternautas.web/weblog/2020/3/4/afro-colombian-womens-organisations-in-post-accord-colombia-gendering-and-racialising-violent-pluralism-across-the-conflict-continuum-in-bogot-colombia.

Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button