Crisis as dislocation in global politics
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716661341 |
| Author | Dirk Nabers |
| Published date | 01 November 2017 |
| Date | 01 November 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Special Section Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395716661341
Politics
2017, Vol. 37(4) 418 –431
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716661341
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
Crisis as dislocation in global
politics
Dirk Nabers
International Political Sociology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Abstract
The article asks how it is possible to conceptualize the ‘crisis of the social’, and how one can best
understand the relationship between crisis and social change in global politics. In doing so, it draws
on the notion of dislocation to conceptualize crisis as a lack, deficiency or failure in the social
fabric. The theoretical approach builds on the work of the late political theorist Ernesto Laclau and
his co-authored work with Chantal Mouffe. Two illustrative sections will develop the theoretical
model further on the basis of four interrelated and mutually constitutive elements: sedimented
practices and dislocation on the one hand, as well as antagonism and the institutionalization within
a so-called imaginary on the other. On this basis of an in-depth theoretical analysis, the article will
summarize some crucial aspects regarding the nexus between crisis and social change and their
implications for the study of global politics.
Keywords
contingency, crisis, discourse, dislocation, social change
Received: 4th January 2016; Revised version received: 25th May 2016; Accepted: 27th May 2016
Introduction
This article attempts to reformulate established International Relations (IR) notions of
‘crisis’. I will contend that the bulk of the traditional IR crisis literature is strictly materi-
alist and objectivist. Additionally, it highlights decision-making at the expense of more
structural accounts of the nature of crisis. This would not pose a problem per se, since
crisis management constitutes an important segment of social scientific research on crisis.
However, as many standard definitions are focused on the goals and capacities of actors
(e.g. Allison and Zelikow, 1999; Hermann, 1969; McCormick, 1978; Robinson, 1970),
they foreclose a perspective on the deeper properties of crises, for they usually define
crises through the ‘perceptions’ and actions of decision-makers. A number of problems
are related to these perspectives: first, crises are most often treated solely as ‘independent
variables’ triggering governmental behaviour of some kind, while their genuine structural
quality is left out of sight. An individualist perspective of how crisis and social change are
Corresponding author:
Dirk Nabers, International Political Sociology, University of Kiel, Wilhelm-Seelig-Platz 2, 24118 Kiel, Germany.
Email: nabers@ips.uni-kiel.de
661341POL0010.1177/0263395716661341PoliticsNabers
research-article2016
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial