The first thing to say about liberal order is that it hasn’t been that liberal. Since
the Second World War, the production of subjects obeisant to the rule of liberal institutions
has depended on illiberal and authoritarian methods – not least on the periphery of the
world system, where conversion to Western reason has been pursued with particularly millenarian
zeal, and violence. The wishful idea of an ever more open and global market economy has been
continuously undermined by its champions, with their subsidies
crises. Resistance aside for now, what’s often left out of this narrative is precisely how the organisation of violence takes considered financial and material investment to ensure its sustainability over time. Indeed, the very idea of a liberal peace that emerged through this progressive account of human cohabitation proved to be a complete misnomer, as it wilfully and violently destroyed illiberal forms of planetary life.
Violence is the Result of Difference
The idea of racial violence is part of a broader schematic that connects to competing claims to
challenged. The ground gained by so called ‘illiberal
democracy’ is prodigious, not merely in terms of the number of countries where illiberal
politics is alive and thriving, many of which are in the West (the US, much of the EU, the UK)
but in terms of the creeping legitimacy that attends right-wing solutions to ongoing social and
political problems. This is nowhere truer than in the major new power in the international
system, China, where a version of state-controlled capitalism co-exists alongside a principled
rejection of liberalism.
towards women, immigrants,
non-whites or homosexuals over the eighteenth, nineteenth and
twentieth centuries to see that the observation of the consequences of
associated human behaviour is open to the same error and illusion as
the perception of natural objects. The emergence of a public can also
not be equated with an a priori expression of correctness or justness. As
highlighted above, publics can emerge in response to other publics or
often come into conflict with one another due to incompatible interests.
This process itself can lead to the emergence of illiberal
Bordering intimacy is a study of how borders and dominant forms of intimacy, such as family, are central to the governance of postcolonial states such as Britain. The book explores the connected history between contemporary border regimes and the policing of family with the role of borders under European and British empires. Building upon postcolonial, decolonial and black feminist theory, the investigation centres on how colonial bordering is remade in contemporary Britain through appeals to protect, sustain and make family life. Not only was family central to the making of colonial racism but claims to family continue to remake, shore up but also hide the organisation of racialised violence in liberal states. Drawing on historical investigations, the book investigates the continuity of colonial rule in numerous areas of contemporary government – family visa regimes, the policing of sham marriages, counterterror strategies, deprivation of citizenship, policing tactics, integration policy. In doing this, the book re-theorises how we think of the connection between liberal government, race, family, borders and empire. In using Britain as a case, this opens up further insights into the international/global circulations of liberal empire and its relationship to violence.
Given the significant similarities and differences between the welfare states of Northern Europe and their reactions to the perceived 'refugee crisis' of 2015, the book focuses primarily on the three main cases of Denmark, Sweden and Germany. Placed in a wider Northern European context – and illustrated by those chapters that also discuss refugee experiences in Norway and the UK – the Danish, Swedish and German cases are the largest case studies of this edited volume. Thus, the book contributes to debates on the governance of non-citizens and the meaning of displacement, mobility and seeking asylum by providing interdisciplinary analyses of a largely overlooked region of the world, with two specific aims. First, we scrutinize the construction of the 2015 crisis as a response to the large influx of refugees, paying particular attention to the disciplinary discourses and bureaucratic structures that are associated with it. Second, we investigate refugees’ encounters with these bureaucratic structures and consider how these encounters shape hopes for building a new life after displacement. This allows us to show that the mobility of specific segments of the world’s population continues to be seen as a threat and a risk that has to be governed and controlled. Focusing on the Northern European context, our volume interrogates emerging policies and discourses as well as the lived experiences of bureaucratization from the perspective of individuals who find themselves the very objects of bureaucracies.
Belloni (2012), hybrid peace governance grasps the fact that peace processes feature a series of liberal, illiberal, international, local, formal, informal,
war and peace elements. Hybridity is therefore an analytical alternative to the
liberal peace. But beyond its analytical purchase, hybrid peace governance also
implies for Belloni a rejection of the universal value and applicability of the
liberal peace, a rejection of the ‘patronizing top-down approach’ and an alternative to ‘Western social engineering and paternalism’ (Belloni 2012: 34). Hybridity is therefore not
Labour, the people and the ‘new political history’
, 275) has
highlighted a recurring tendency towards ‘illiberal egalitarianism’ in Left, radical
movements from abolitionism through progressivism to the 1960s’ New Left.
Whilst reformers ‘blame oppressive institutions for the current degradation . . . of
people’, this ‘often seeps through to disdain for the people themselves, who appear
quite content to live lives that to egalitarians seem shallow and inauthentic, materialistic and selfish’. Thumbing one’s nose at the masses, however characteristic of
protest culture, rarely assisted a mass movement.
Anonymous, A Reply to Captain Marryat’s Illiberal and Incorrect Statements
Relative to the Coloured West Indies, as Published in his Work, Entitled, ‘A
Diary in America’, London, E. Justins & Sons, 1840.
See Anonymous, A Reply to Captain Marryat, p. 3. The claim is made by a
ﬁgure signed ‘A Coloured West Indian’. For details of Frederick Marryat’s life
see David Hannay, Life of Frederick Marryat, London, Walter Scott, New York
and Toronto, W.G. Gage and Co., 1889, and Florence Marryat, Life and Letters
of Captain Marryat (2 volumes), London, Richard
Petitions, politics, and the African Christian converts of the nineteenth
thought and political traditions from the colonial period to the present. 6 The importation of slaves, beginning in 1658, was the first instance of an illiberal policy that would initiate the liberal and ‘enlightened’ challenges to Dutch East India Company rule and later to slavery itself. 7 This is the foundation from which this chapter proposes to launch an argument about the history of protest literature in South Africa. Contrary to popular belief and perception, protest literature did not begin in the 1960s but is actually a long-standing tradition of South