The dynamics of ‘civilised’ sovereignty: colonial frontiers and performative discourses of civilisation and savagery
| Author | Xavier Mathieu |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818782612 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818782612
International Relations
2018, Vol. 32(4) 468 –487
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117818782612
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
The dynamics of ‘civilised’
sovereignty: colonial
frontiers and performative
discourses of civilisation
and savagery
Xavier Mathieu*
University of Duisburg–Essen
Abstract
Critical and post-colonial scholars have argued that a more complete account of sovereignty
necessitates an exploration of the colonial experiences through which Western civilised identity
was forged. But the way these ‘distant’ encounters were used in (and interacted with) the
process of claiming sovereignty domestically has received less attention. This is surprising as
critical scholars have revealed the existence of strong similarities between the domestic and
international constructions of sovereignty (and in particular the necessary performance of
a savage Other) and have emphasised how sovereignty transcends the domestic/international
frontier and provides a crucial link between the two. As a response, this article develops an
analysis of the construction of sovereignty that combines both the domestic and international
colonial frontiers on which ‘civilised’ sovereignty relies. I use a large set of primary archives
about France in the sixteenth century in order to explore how sovereignty depends on unstable
colonial frontiers, that is, differentiations between the civilised and the savage, that are constantly
contested and re-established. Combining the domestic and international colonial frontiers reveals
how they interact and are used in order to reinforce the civilised identity of the Western ruler.
Keywords
civilisation, colonial frontier, encounter, performativity, sovereignty
Introduction
Once seen as the cornerstone of mainstream International Relations (IR), the concept of
sovereignty has recently been re-appropriated by critical and post-colonial scholars.
Instead of embracing the idea of sovereignty as unquestionable and universal, these
*Present affiliation: Aston University.
Corresponding author:
Xavier Mathieu, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, B4 7ET, Birmingham, England.
Email: x.mathieu@aston.ac.uk
782612IRE0010.1177/0047117818782612International RelationsMathieu
research-article2018
Article
Mathieu 469
scholars have enquired into the origin(s) and cultural specificity of the concept as cur-
rently used by most of the discipline. Indeed, if sovereignty is to be accepted as the ‘final
and absolute authority in the political community’,1 post-colonial scholars have shown
how this final and absolute authority – that is, an authority that is worth respecting and
that will ensure the independence of the entity concerned – has been associated with a
cultural or civilisational framework defined by the West. The concept of sovereignty
used in international relations thus celebrates an idealised Western model of statehood
and society (and in turn serves to erase alternative sovereignties).2 As Anghie argues,
‘sovereignty became identified with a specific set of cultural practices to the exclusion of
others’ and as such has been ‘aligned with European ideas of social order, political organ-
ization, progress and development’.3 Such a cultural definition of sovereignty based on
idealised Western values evolves through time, yet one particular moment has attracted
a vast amount of attention: the European encounter with the Amerindian populations of
the ‘New World’ in the sixteenth century. These populations were described as living in
a ‘state of nature’ and in need of the ‘civilised’ teaching of more ‘advanced’ (and thus
sovereign) nations. This specific rationale has evolved, yet it continues to inform the
contemporary practice of sovereignty.4
One aspect strongly emphasised by critical and post-colonial scholars is the impossi-
bility of understanding sovereignty without looking at the colonial ideologies and prac-
tices developed by Western states. Yet despite the recognition that the processes of
‘domestically’ and ‘internationally’ claiming sovereignty are interlinked,5 a detailed
analysis of how this interconnection functions when sovereignty is constructed or con-
tested is still lacking. The colonial claims to sovereignty made by Western states are now
regularly included or mentioned in critical studies of sovereignty as an intrinsic part of
the history of the concept,6 but the domestic and colonial spheres remain analysed sepa-
rately with a primary focus on the external colonial encounter. This is intriguing as criti-
cal scholars have revealed two crucial aspects about the construction of sovereignty:
first, that there are strong similarities between the domestic and international claims to
sovereignty (such as the ‘presence’ of savage Others in both spheres).7 ‘Colonial’ encoun-
ters indeed happened both domestically and internationally and were essential in the
process of building sovereignty. Potential synergies are therefore to be expected and
could shed light on the conditions required for successfully claiming sovereignty.
Second, critical scholars have argued that sovereignty transcends the domestic/interna-
tional binary and ‘forms the crucial link between anarchy and hierarchy’.8 Studying the
interaction, connection and interplay between the domestic and international colonial
encounters is thus essential if we are to reveal a fuller picture of ‘civilised’ sovereignty.
In this article, I explore what we learn when we consider together the two processes
of constructing sovereignty ‘internally’ and ‘externally’. I analyse the two spheres con-
jointly in order to be able to answer new questions. How are the ‘internal’ and ‘external’
processes connected and how do they interact? How are these two processes used by
political actors and do they play a role in managing the inherent ambiguities that accom-
pany the performance of sovereignty? This article offers an exploration of these ques-
tions through the example of France in the sixteenth century. It shows, first, that
sovereignty depends on unstable colonial frontiers, that is, differentiations between the
civilised and the savage, that are constantly contested and re-established. One of these
To continue reading
Request your trial