Abstract
The end of the Cold War meant for international relations the collapse of the ‘central organising issue for international security’ (Buzan and Hansen, 2009: 226). What followed this loss was a protracted crisis of foreign policy identity, both in the East and the West (Casula, 2010). Only with the advent of the ‘Global War on Terror’ after 9/11 did global terrorism and the fight against it emerge as a new organising principle. In her book, Eva Herschinger explains that such ‘organising principles’ do not appear out of thin air, but are discursively produced hegemonic orders. She traces how, in regard to drugs and terrorism, a ‘dominant and unquestioned understanding’ has been established that makes ‘violent counter-measures … normal, appropriate and legitimate’ (p. 1). Using a discourse-theoretical approach inspired mainly by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe for reconstructing how different understandings of terrorist activity and drug abuse have struggled for dominance, finally becoming existential threats, this book is clearly situated within the poststructuralist school of International Relations (IR) theory, whose first proponents were, among others, Rick Ashley and R.B.J. Walker (1990). It will hence be of interest both for IR scholars, not least for followers of poststructuralism or of the Copenhagen School (Buzan et al., 1998), and more generally for those concerned with the empirical deployment of discourse theory.
In Chapter 1, Herschinger introduces the two key terms of her book: identity and hegemony. For her, language plays a crucial role in splitting the political space and creating a clear-cut, homogenous interpretation of the Other. In the sense that language is a site of inclusion and exclusion, it is deeply political (p. 13). Here, the author draws on Laclau and Mouffe’s understanding of language and discourse. In Chapter 2, the methodology of the study is presented. Again drawing on Laclau and Mouffe, other key concepts (such as the logic of equivalence/difference) are introduced (pp. 34–40). It is at this point that the author addresses in detail the structure–agency dilemma. With the concept of hegemonic strategies, she tries to merge Foucault’s power strategies and the relations between decision, structure and subject in poststructuralist discourse theory (p. 44).
Chapter 3 discusses how drugs have been constructed as an existential threat to international peace and security. This threat is opposed by the construction of a drug-free world. Herschinger traces the hegemonic order in the international discourse on drugs, referring to a wide range of official publications (mostly, but not exclusively, published by the UN), and identifies the elements of which the Self/Other equivalence chains consist. Interestingly, individualisation (pp. 67–78) of the Other appears as a central strategy in the hegemonic order, while the Self is represented in abstract and/or collective terms (the drug-free international community).
Chapter 4 follows the same structure as the preceding chapter, and focuses on international terrorism. For Herschinger, reaching a stable hegemonic order concerning terrorism seems to be much more difficult than in the case of drugs. While the international community works well as an empty signifier regarding drugs, this seems much less so in the case of terrorism (p. 118). In Chapter 5, the author directly compares the wars on drugs and on terror, and convincingly argues that a hegemonic order has been established in international drug discourse, while international discourse on terrorism is devoid of such a regime (p.136). In her conclusion, the author summarises her methodological choices and concepts, and highlights the importance of the language of war for the Self/Other construction.
Eva Herschinger has written a remarkable and interesting book on extremely important topics that play a pivotal role in international politics. She succeeds in demonstrating the value of poststructuralist assumptions and concepts for the analysis of international relations. Her analysis allows her to show how apparently clear concepts or clear enemies come into being within hegemonic orders. At times, however, the author risks presenting a simplified picture of what poststructuralism could look like. This possible distortion is connected to the ambitious aim she has set herself, that is of adding a strong methodological dimension to poststructuralist theory. It is precisely this point which is one of the major virtues, but also one possible major flaw of her work. While there certainly is among some scholars a discontent about the ‘methodology’ of discourse analysis (Howarth and Torfing, 2005) – or, in the author’s words, a ‘clear need for methodological rigour in poststructuralism’ (p. 150) – we must face the question of to what extent such a rigour jeopardises some tenets of poststructuralism itself. To substantiate this argument, there are just two points. First, Herschinger’s concept of discursive hegemonic strategies (pp. 41–45) confers a dimension of agency which contradicts the idea that objectives, intentions and aims do not exist before but only through discourse. Second, for some poststructuralists it might seem peculiar to count hits and occurrences of specific terms and words (in Herschinger’s case, using MAXQDA); doing so might imply that there is a quantifiable reality out there, which can be domesticated and grasped objectively. Looking for generalizability, reliability and validity (p. 150) could be at odds with the core assumption of the theories deployed here, because it confers the sense of a truth to be discovered and measured. Towards the end of her book (p. 151), the author, however, reflects on these difficulties and discusses the implications of her approach. Still, there are interesting alternatives to such an approach, as Edkins (2007) elaborates. Poststructuralism can be put into practice through meticulous readings of sources (Campbell, 1992), through ethnography (Müller, 2009), through interviews (Der Derian, 2001) or by combining various techniques. Comparing Constructing Global Enemies to these works, one wonders about the silence on the extremely vast empirical material of Herschinger’s book (486 documents): there are very few close readings of these potentially rich sources; instead, they are largely reduced to results produced by the software. Among the conclusions of the study, the author underscores the idea that there is no agreement on the means to counter terrorism (p. 157). Still, one could argue that despite such lack, there is actually an internationally dominant mode of combating it, because major powers do agree on the means, if not in words at least in practice. The fact that the USA (due to its power) plays a key role in determining what terrorism is and how to handle it, is largely not discussed by the author. Since Laclau’s concept of discourse has a material dimension and explicitly includes practices, it would have been worthwhile to also include major policies in the study and to explain how they are framed within international discourse on drugs and terrorism. Further, the dimension of power appears neglected. Despite these minor flaws, however, this very fresh book is both scientifically and politically important. It is a highly recommended read that underscores the potential relevance of poststructuralist discourse analysis for IR theory and unveils the political mechanisms and contingency of the fights against drugs and terrorism.