Temporality and contextualisation in Peace and Conflict Studies: The forgotten value of war memoirs and personal diaries
| Published date | 01 June 2022 |
| Date | 01 June 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/00108367211027605 |
| Author | Roger Mac Ginty |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367211027605
Cooperation and Conflict
2022, Vol. 57(2) 191 –209
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00108367211027605
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
Temporality and
contextualisation in Peace
and Conflict Studies: The
forgotten value of war
memoirs and personal diaries
Roger Mac Ginty
Abstract
This article contributes to debates on appropriate levels of analysis, temporality, and the utility
of fieldwork in relation to Peace and Conflict Studies (PCS), and International Relations more
generally. It observes a recentism or privileging of the recent past in our studies and a consequent
overlooking of the longer term. As a corrective, the article investigates the extent to which
wartime memoirs and personal diaries (specifically from World War I and World War II) can
help inform the study of contemporary peace and conflict. In essence, the article is a reflection
on the epistemologies and methodologies employed by PCS and an investigation of the need for
greater contextualisation.
Keywords
Diaries, epistemology, history, memoirs, Peace and Conflict Studies, wartime
Introduction
How many articles and student essays have we read that begin with the words, ‘Since the
end of the Cold War . . .’? Among other things, this points to a decision on behalf of authors
to make a temporal distinction between what went before and after the 1989–1991 period.
This has important implications for how we contextualise peace and conflict. It is the con-
tention of this article that many conflicts are the product of the longue durée and not solely
linked to particular events or easily categorised as belonging to the Cold War or post-Cold
War eras. While proximate factors may spark or reinvigorate violent conflict, a range of
structural and historical factors (for example, linked with identity or colonialism) will also
shape conflict (O’Bannon, 2012: 451). Added to this are convincing conceptualisations of
Corresponding author:
Roger Mac Ginty, School of Government and International Affairs, Al-Qasimi Building, Elvet Hill Road,
Durham University, Durham, DH1 3TU, UK.
Email: roger.macginty@durham.ac.uk
1027605CAC0010.1177/00108367211027605Cooperation and ConflictMac Ginty
research-article2021
Article
192 Cooperation and Conflict 57(2)
conflict as complex adaptive systems and thus rejecting notions of definitive temporal
start-points and end-points (de Coning, 2018a). Yet the ‘Since the end of the Cold War . . .’
phenomenon persists and imposes an artificial time imaginary on much of Peace and
Conflict Studies (PCS) and International Relations (IR). This article seeks to engage with
the issue of the contextualisation of PCS in particular, and IR more generally. It does so by
making the case that we should give serious consideration to the use of historical memoirs
and personal accounts in the study of contemporary peace and conflict. At heart, the article
is concerned with issues of epistemology and knowledge production. The hoped-for central
contribution is to engender discussion on knowledge hierarchies and cognitive biases. The
danger is that history is foreshortened in our analyses and thus our analyses are inaccurate
and decontextualised.
The article makes an argument for, and demonstrates the utility of, the micro-socio-
logical and material from ‘past’ wars to make claims about temporality and the contem-
porary study of peace and conflict. The article intersects with at least two debates in PCS.
The first of these debates relates to the most appropriate level of analysis and a growing
realisation of the need to adopt multi-scalar lenses in order to capture the complexity and
dynamics of conflict (Stepputat, 2018). A growing number of studies have recognised the
everyday (Berents, 2015), the individual, and the small group as appropriate levels of
analysis and have recognised the value of capturing the micro-dynamics of peace and
conflict (Justino et al., 2013). Relatedly, a number of studies have recognised how con-
flicts constitute multi-level and interconnected systems (de Coning, 2016, 2018a, 2018b).
It invites us to think about how micro-sociological events, such as those captured in
wartime memoirs and personal diaries, connect with, and co-constitute, wider systems.
This ‘fit’ issue, or how micro-sociological perspectives can be seen alongside other lev-
els of analysis, is crucial. It allows us to conceive of peace and conflict in a holistic man-
ner (indeed, framed as ‘peace and conflict’), and to question categories, binaries, and
exclusions that attend our studies.
A second set of debates relate to temporality and the study of peace and conflict, and
IR more generally. As Hom notes, ‘temporal phenomenon lurk in almost every corner of
global politics’ (Hom, 2018: 330), while McIntosh calls for ‘more fully temporalizing IR
theory’ in order to emphasise the inter-subjective nature of politics (McIntosh, 2015:
469). For Hutchings, uncritical treatments of power, and its assumptions of ‘singular,
progressive temporality’ will ‘reproduce and confirm the hegemonic pattern of interna-
tional power’ (Hutchings, 2007: 72). Recent debates have sought to further unpack issues
connected with memory and reporting (Mannergren Selimovic, 2020), and the construc-
tion of time in relation to events and crises, dealing with the past or institutional agendas.
Holden notes how powerful institutions create ‘timescapes’ that can be imposed on oth-
ers (Holden, 2016: 409). Relevant to this article is how Word War I (WWI) and World
War II (WWII) have been constructed and reconstructed as segments of history that are
far-removed from contemporary conflicts. It is noticeable, for example, how rare it is for
contemporary PCS literature to refer to WWI and WWII. Perhaps the notion of ‘new
wars’ has patterned much thinking on how conflicts during and after the Cold War dif-
fered qualitatively and thus do little to inform one another (Kaldor, 2012; Münkler,
2005). There are, of course, exceptions to this (for example, Väyrynen, 2019), with
Kalyvas’ seminal Logic of Violence in Civil War making extensive use of memoirs and
To continue reading
Request your trial