Security Dialogue

http://sdi.sagepub.com/ 'We' the Subject: The Power and Failure of (In)Security

Maria Stern Security Dialogue 2006 37: 187 DOI: 10.1177/0967010606066171 The online version of this article can be found at: http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/37/2/187

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Peace Research Institute, Oslo

Additional services and information for Security Dialogue can be found at: Email Alerts: http://sdi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://sdi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/37/2/187.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 12, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

We the Subject: The Power and Failure of (In)Security

MARIA STERN*

Department of Peace and Development Research, Gteborg University and the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm, Sweden
One way of exploring the paradox of (in)security and its implications for the reproduction of violence is to inquire into how the promise of a secure subject is inscribed in discourses of (in)security. Why is the successful securing of we impossible? How might the supplementary relationship between security and insecurity inform the inscription of we as the sovereign subject of security? Arguably, integral to the promise of an assured security is the concealment of the impossibility of fulfilling this very promise. This article aims to closely examine how a specific we, as the subject of security, is constructed. Reading from the (in)security narratives of Mayan women narratives that reflect the lived experiences of marginalized peoples struggling for security in resistance it explores how the inscription of a specific and multiple identity, Mayan women, as the subject of security enacts and resists many of the dangers of securitizing identity that seem to be attendant to modern logics or grammars of security. Looking at how the impossible promise (or the ultimate failure) of securing identity plays out in a particular site among people whose voices are not often heard in writings on security invites reflection over failure as an opening for rethinking (in)securing identity. Keywords security identity violence resistance gender

Introduction1

A
1

WELL-KNOWN PARADOX motivates this article: when people attempt to protect themselves and to create a sense of security, they also produce danger, fear and harm. Furthermore, people seek security in direct relation to who they are sometimes with devastating consequences. Attempts to secure a notion of who we are invite violence when
This article is based on Stern (2005), and some of the arguments presented here can also be found there.

2006 PRIO, www.prio.no SAGE Publications, http://sdi.sagepub.com Vol. 37(2): 187205, DOI: 10.1177/0967010606066171
Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

188

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

these notions are not shared by members of the community in question, when who we are must be forcibly instilled through disciplinary tactics, when who we are also depends on belligerently defining and even killing who we are not. As an integral part of promising safety, the logic of security seems to spin intricate webs of abiding violence and harm webs that are sticky and resilient, ensnaring both peoples bodies and their political imagination (see, for example, Campbell, 1992; Dillon, 1996; Jackson, 2004; Roe, 2004). This paradox, familiar to many, has taken on new urgency as we seek to grapple with the changing terrain of security in a world plagued by globalized terrorism, as well as competing, and conflicting, identity claims. The paradox of (in)security as it is framed here therefore continues to warrant further reflection.2 In exploring the aporias of modern logics of security, Burke (2002: 7) identifies an urgent need to interrogate the images of self and other that animate (in)secure identities and to expose the violence and repression that is so often relied on to police them. In this spirit, the present article aims to closely examine how a specific we as the subject of security is constructed through discourses of danger and safety (Campbell, 1992; Weldes, 1999: 105). In particular, reading from the (in)security narratives of Mayan women, I ask how the inscription of a specific and multiple identity, Mayanwomenpoor, as the subject of security enacts and resists many of the dangers of securitizing identity that seem to be attendant to modern logics or grammars of security (Maalouf, 2000; Roe, 2004; Williams, 2003). These narratives underscore that attention to identity even multiple identities as possible subjects of or vehicles for attaining security seems to repeat familiar and potentially violent logics. The notion of securing even multiple identities is written out of an underlying grammar that presupposes that complete representation and securing of a subject is possible (Butler, ek, Laclau & Z iz 2000). In setting up my inquiry in this way, however, I am not suggesting that there is one universal logic of security that underwrites all struggles for security. Nevertheless, as many critical security scholars argue, dominant modern discourses of politics frame prevailing notions of political community, possible subjects of security, and relations between (sovereign) self and other in times of perceived threat and danger (see, for example, Burke, 2002; Connolly, 2004; Dillon, 1996, 2004; Inayatullah & Blaney, 2004; Walker, 1993, 2004). Grammars of security are powerful insofar as they inform how people believe they need to seek safety and avoid harm, as well as the choices that they make based on those beliefs.3
2

The paradox of (in)security has been widely addressed in the field of security studies; see, for example, Benkhe (2000), Campbell (1992), Connolly (1991), Dillon (1996), Der Derian (1995), Roe (2004), Weldes et al. (1999) for a good overview. See Pin-Fat (2000), Heyes (2003: 117) and Zerilli (2003) for a discussion of the workings of grammars of politics from a Wittgensteinian point of view. I am basing my use of the term grammar on these works.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

189

Mayan womens (in)security narratives reflect the lived experiences of marginalized peoples struggling for security in resistance. They therefore place in high relief the difficulty of navigating in any way that is palatable the integral and supplementary relationship between security and insecurity and its attendant relation to the politics of identity that characterize the global security landscape (Behnke, 2000; Huysmans, 1998; Roe, 2004; Zehfuss, 2003). I do not raise this paradox in relation to peoples who have suffered under multiple and violent forms of oppression and domination lightly. The palpable violence that pervades global politics (i.e. the dirty war in Guatemala) makes the allure of the promise of security and emancipation the deliverance from violence, threat, danger and oppression if not necessary for pure survival, then imminently compelling (Butler, 1997; Butler & Connolly, 2000; Bhabha, 1994; Fanon, 1963; Inayatullah & Blaney, 2004; Maalouf, 2000). Yet, instead of following an impulse to resolve this conundrum or to do away with it altogether, perhaps through paying attention to the very unease this conundrum occasions we may glimpse apertures for resisting its potentially violent effects. Indeed, while the relations of violence embedded in Mayan womens (in)security narratives induce my concern, how they are simultaneously resisted elicit my hope. In particular, I shall attend to how the establishment of the securable subject we is promised, and how this promise remains impossible in these discourses. Looking at how the impossible promise (or the ultimate failure) of securing identity plays out in a particular site among people whose voices are not often heard in writings on security invites reflection over failure as an opening for thinking security differently (Heyes, 2003: 8; Ziarek, 1995: 90).4 To this end, I also take my point of departure in a question posed by Dillon (1996: 35): how do representations of danger make us what we are? I address this question in my analysis of Mayan womens (in)security narratives, but reframe it slightly: how do discourses of danger and safety seemingly collapse all that we are into the naming of who we are and thereby inflict violence on being with ourselves and with others? And, how might such a violent dynamic be resisted? The Mayan women (in)security narratives that this article will explore were recorded as life-history texts in Guatemala in 1995, as a peace accord (which would end over 30 years of armed violence) was being negotiated and longdesired security seemed possible (Stern, 2005). To be very clear: unlike the brutal security policies of the Guatemalan army, Mayan womens (in)security narratives did not advocate violence in any direct sense. Instead, what motivates my reading of their narratives as sources for better understanding the paradox of (in)securing identities is how in their (in)security discourses
4

I am indebted to Marysia Zalewski for helping me to develop this line of thought. For further discussion of failure as an opening for resistance, see Stern & Zalewski (2005).

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

190

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

many Mayan women also enacted their own harmful boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in efforts to secure themselves from violent exclusionary tactics (see Burke, 2002; Behnke, 2004: 284). These lines of demarcation stringently defined who was being protected. However, they also ultimately excluded, disciplined and even harmed (because of their exclusion) some Mayan women in the hopes of making the subject Mayan women safe (Stern, 2005). Yet, as we shall see, these narratives were neither uniform nor cohesive, but instead were contradictory within their own plots and in relation to each other. Some narrators erected strict boundaries discerning self from enemy. Others resisted such authoritative moves. Nevertheless, all the narrators spoke about their lived experiences of violence and insecurity. They explicitly identified themselves as Mayan women, and stated that they were struggling for the security of Mayan women in particular and the Mayan pueblo more generally. When read together, the narratives can therefore be seen as making up an overarching (in)security discourse in resistance (Jackson, 2004: 18; Stern, 2005). It is perhaps the very lacunae in these discourses that offer hope for resistance to their also totalizing and exclusionary tactics (Weldes et al., 1999: 169). This article will proceed as follows: First, I will briefly introduce Mayan women as they were represented in the (in)security narratives. Second, I shall highlight some of the key features of a modern and dominant logic of (in)security, as it has been relayed in the broadly defined field of critical security studies (Krause & Williams, 1997). Third, I will introduce the conundrum of (in)security as it is inscribed in Mayan womens narratives and explore how this grammar plays out and is resisted in these sites. Mayan Women
We are working to give our ethnias, our pueblos, their own voice. . . . We are working with redemption of the culture so that the women know their identity, their rights, their role in society, which they have had for the 500 years during which women have been triply discriminated against, that is to say, as a woman, as Mayan and as poor. . . . But the women [also] have been able to play a very important role inside the community in relation to language, to traditional dress, as healer, priestess. . . . She is the transmitter of the culture to the children because the children are raised by the mother and learn . . . our way of being indigenous, so it is important to promote this struggle. . . . The struggle of the woman is not a recent struggle . . . no, it is a struggle which has much history, which . . . for us . . . is very important. . . . This struggle has cost lots of lives. . . . [The Mayan pueblo lives under] a system of repression, in fear, in hunger, [under] bullets. In Guatemala . . . there is not democracy. What there is, is daily death. . . . Only unity gives us force. . . . As a saying goes, you can not start a fire with only one piece of wood; when there are many, yes you can. Mara, Guatemala, 1995

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

191

In 1995, at the end of over 30 years of armed conflict, the celebration of 500 years of resistance to colonialism, and in the context of a global (yet diverse) womens movement, 18 Mayan women recounted their security narratives (Stern, 2005).5 These narratives tell a story about people who had suffered at the confluence of many different violent and discriminatory relations and who were attempting to find a platform for the assurance of their survival, dignity, basic needs, well-being, etc. Their triple identity as Mayan, women and poor was informed by their experiences of being triply oppressed by intersecting relations of power. The narratives of these women speak about a struggle to resist the multiple forms of violence that constituted their lives: the violent security strategies of the Guatemalan state (which aimed at homogenizing difference either through genocide or through violent assimilationist strategies), racism within the society at large, prevailing sexism also within Mayan communities, and a system of classism as a result of which 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty (Jonas, 2000: 28). Indeed, Mayan womens struggles centred around both subverting the power relations that harmed them and their communities and finding safety and belonging in a collective common struggle, identity and way of life. Security, as it was articulated in their narratives, involved insisting on the historically rooted cultural difference of the Mayan community (and Mayan women in particular) as a resistant stance and as a reflection of their lived experiences. The (in)security narratives were therefore marked by the womens insistence that the picture of the sovereign national subject was one painted out of the violence of unsuccessful homogenization. The cultural and gendered difference of Mayan women also bore with it the promise of security (see also Roe, 2004: 290). Securing We as Subject of Security: A Dominant Logic One way of exploring the paradox of (in)security and its implications for the reproduction of violence is to inquire into how the promise of a secure subject is inscribed in discourses of (in)security. Why is the successful securing of we impossible? How might the supplementary relationship between security and insecurity inform the inscription of we as the sovereign subject of security? Arguably, integral to the promise of an assured security is the concealment of the impossibility of fulfilling this very promise. Security narratives, however, work towards concealing this impossibility. They represent a story of security and the subject that is to be secured that is cohesive, and therewith the promise of security seems possible. What do such stories look like, in broad strokes?
5

My work is based on the (in)security narratives of political leaders who define themselves as Mayan women (Stern, 2005).

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

192

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

Security narratives both those written by the security elites of modern sovereign states and those written in resistance to the violence and exclusion of sovereign national projects can be seen as key discourses through which modern politics and political subjects are inscribed (see Weldes, 1999). They are distinctly modern insofar as they are written through the idiom of modern state sovereignty and the correlated belief in the possibility of a sovereign subject. This subject is cast as ontologically prior to the discourses established to secure it (Burke, 2002; Campbell, 1999; Dillon, 1996; Edkins, Pin-Fat & Shapiro, 2004). Importantly, like other narratives, security narratives offer seemingly cohesive representations of reality with a given past, present and future, with a beginning, middle and end, and a clear, coherent, stable subject (Disch, 2003: 264; Wibben, 2002). Security narratives are ostensibly written to provide safety, to counter danger. They can also be seen as attempts to impose order and certainty, to ensure existence. As a critique of the logic of the foundational myths of modern sovereignty, security instead can be understood as a discursive practice, which cannot be separated from the processes of identity formation and even the constitution of subjectivity (see, for example, Campbell, 1992; Dillon, 199091, 1996; Weldes, 1999). Furthermore, modern political thought posits insecurity as an inevitable supplement to security (Dillon, 1996: 127). Following Edkins explanation of the logic of the supplement, security can only exist in relation to insecurity (Edkins, 1999: 70). Moreover, insecurity haunts any notion of security or act of securing, making it both necessary and impossible (Edkins, 1999: 70; Behnke, 2000, 2004; Sylvester, 1994). The logic of concealment of the impossible promise of security appears in part as follows: in order for the subject of security to be securable, it must be circumscribed, contained, nameable, with contours dividing the included from the excluded and borders marking that which is to be made secure from the dangerous Others (Campbell, 1992; Jackson, 2005; Schmitt, [1932] 1996). The politics of identity inhere in this logic: in order for the subject of security to be secured, it must be named, represented, given an identity (McSweeney, 1999; Williams, 2003: 519). Read in this way, identity offers the vector for the forming of the subject so that it can be secured (Weldes, 1999: 103105). Identity, as construction or process, can be seen as an attempt to pin down, capture, name, represent the subject, offering an image (Mendieta, 2003: 408), a name (Hall, 1990: 225) of a self in language, a horizon from which to take a stand (Taylor, 1989: 27). Importantly, identities can be seen as the temporary attachment to the subject positions called forth to represent the subject, which, as we will see below, is ultimately unrepresentable (Hall, 1996: 56; Edkins, 1999: 32; 2004: 12). Through the writing of (in)security, identity, which in the lived experiences of everyday life might be more fluid, becomes necessarily more entrenched, fixed. Through rendering it seemingly stable, the particular image or repre-

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

193

sentation of the subject can, as Mendieta explains, seemingly gain a foothold on an imaginary place: the sovereignty of ourselves and, importantly, be supposedly securable:
Subjects or selves were constructed through a matrix of vectors: nation, class, gender, race, sexuality, and ethnicity. . . . Depending on the nature of the threat, we mobilize different images about ourselves. In this way, the person, as a social agent, finds herself at the vortex of these converging vectors. We are many, and we are always being torn asunder by the many forces that impinge upon us and that make claims on us. We negotiate these forces, and thus we gain a foothold on an imaginary place: the sovereignty of ourselves. . . . Our identities, then, we may aver, are a matter of positionality or locality. An identity is not a prius, object or substratum, or essential substance. It is a social locus, and a social locus is an imagined and imaginary topos. (Mendieta, 2003: 408)

In this sense, discourses of danger and safety/security employed to secure the subject we require that we is stable. This we is inscribed as fixed in space through the geographic, cognitive and political borders of the state/nation/political community. It is also produced as cohesive and selfidentical though time (Walker, 1993). Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion and bifurcation, which seem to be attendant to defining the subject of security in order to secure it, often depend on strict lines demarcating both inside from outside, and belonging from deviance, danger or evil (Barth, 1969; Hylland-Eriksen, 1993; Jackson, 2004; Walker, 1993). Securing the subject requires the policing of boundaries and the taming or homogenization of an imagined self. Arguably, this occurs more or less violently; in extreme cases, the border guards secure these boundaries through tactics that result in killing in the name of cleansing.6 Hence, discourses of (in)security work to conceal the unavoidable deferral of security through the production of an identity (as representation of the subject of security) that is stable and knowable, and therewith securable. Evocations of danger and threat to this identity shall be overcome and disarmed through particular security strategies that will end insecurity. Indeed, the very enactment of these strategies maintains the illusion of the possibility of a secure subject as immanent (Dunmire, 2005). The promise of security thus appears as if it can, indeed, be kept. We can summarize some of the discursive moves attendant to the dominant logic of securing a we as follows: First, the subject of security (we) is imbued with a certain identity (see Weldes, 1999). Second, this identity is constructed as stable and certain throughout time as self identical to the subject as it was then, as it is now, and as it will be into the future. Third, the subjects of security are inscribed as residing in a particular and demarcated space. Fourth, danger is named and threat identified. Spatial borders
6

Ethnic cleansing is a term that has gained much attention in the wake of the brutal tactics employed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in Rwanda/Burundi. The killing of the Other in the name of purity, however, is a practice that has punctuated many conflicts throughout history.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

194

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

and boundaries both define this subject against the dangerous Other and protect it from the threats this Other poses. Fifth, cognitive borders and boundaries are established to distinguish an us from a them. These borders also prescribe codes that distinguish normalcy from deviance or betrayal, good from evil, Us from Them, etc. Sixth, despite the evocation of danger and threat, security discourses reassure us that order and safety are seemingly re-established or at least promised and are therefore immanent (the answer to security is in the past, embedded in the foundation, which is already known: how we were before). Seventh, security discourses set the stage for the enactment of certain security measures or strategies to ensure safety and survival as sovereign subjects in the face of dangerous Others (Jackson, 2004). How, then, do such dynamics play out in Mayan womens (in)security narratives? The Conundrum of (In)Security in Mayan Womens Texts
The woman is the educator, even the generator of this world. . . . The woman has a lot of importance. . . . We are starting to see, as part of the history, as Mayan women in Guatemala. The grandparents have told us that before the Spanish invasion the woman was respected . . . and her opinions were taken into account, because . . . women shared much with Mother Earth. Mother Earth gives life; also, women give life. . . . Women lost all of this importance after the Spanish invasion. From that point on they began to rape the women, our grandmothers. There was no more respect. Onelia, cited in Stern (2005: 113) Ladino,7 or as we call it, Meztizo, is when, let us say, one already has mixed blood, or that is, one does not practise ones own language, own customs, rituals, traditions, but instead, has another perspective. . . . [Ladinos] do not believe in the Mayans being included. They view them as Indios, treating the concept [Indios] contemptuously. . . . They devalue indigenous women because of the same situation of inculturation that they have. . . . They practise another culture which is not theirs. Diana, Guatemala City, 1995 Many Mayas have stopped wearing their traditional dress so that the other society . . . the Ladinos will accept them. . . . They lose much within the group. The group doesnt view them anymore as Mayas, because they do not speak the language, dont wear the clothes, as if they devalue themselves, devalue the culture. . . . There are women who have done this . . . and it is dangerous, dangerous to devalue [us]. . . . The Mayan culture is starting to decay . . . and we women are those who supported it the most. In [such a] case, she loses everything, it is dangerous because she is decaying the culture. . . . It is not necessary to arrive at this . . . losing being Mayan; instead, she needs to be sure of herself, valorize herself and be conscious of her role as a woman. Elena, Guatemala, 1995; cited in Stern (2005: 116)
7

Ladino/a refers to the dominant population, which typically has mixed Spanish and indigenous heritage. Ladinoization is a term for the process whereby an indigenous (Mayan) person becomes assimilated into the ladino/a culture.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

195

Crucial to Mayan womens struggle for security, and the attendant naming of threat, danger and safety, was also the production of an identity (or identities) to represent the subjects in resistance: a we that, although perhaps multiple (Mayanwomenpoor), could also be named and thereby secured. In these texts, Mayan women (or The Mayan Woman) is cast as the known and a priori subject of a promised security. Her/their status as sovereign subject is assumed as a given; the narrators know who she is now and who (and where) she has been throughout history. These stories map an uninterrupted lineage from the Spanish invasion to the counter-insurgency war of the 1980s. Mayan women remained the same character in the unfolding of an ancient narrative about danger and threat, as well as past glory, importance and respect (Alcoff, 2003; Hall, 1990: 225). The connection to the past allowed Mayan women a clear and irrefutable sense of who they are in the midst of a morass of historical and present-day subjugation and danger. Knowing who they, their ancestors and their children are offered a safe space in which uncertainty was thwarted and belonging brought both support and immortality. The Mayan heroes and heroines of history lived on and enjoyed a particular site in the human community, despite the attempts at ethnocide and genocide on the part of their enemies (Anderson, 1991). This subject had certain and knowable positive attributes, which were contrasted with a notion of the dangerous Other (see Campbell, 1992; Jackson, 2004; Weldes, 1999). The narratives established that we are close to Mother Earth, promote and guard the culture, speak Mayan languages and wear traditional clothes, are worthy, sacrificing, reproductive. They are rapists, disrespect Mother Nature, repress us, devalue indigenous women, treat indigenous people contemptuously, have no identity. Through such contrasts, the narrators specifically worked towards countering the definition of the victim and the Other in the oppressors eyes with a subverted, valorized identity. They thus replenished the denotation of being indigenous with positive associations of gendered national (ethnic) pride and belonging, culled from the past. At the precipitous time on the eve of Peace, being Mayan bore with it not only a history of racist repression and violence, but also one of greatness and splendour, even privilege. It is this latter sense of being Mayan women that promised the narrators a sense of themselves as secure political subjects, pregnant with future possibilities and still glimmering with the glory of the past. Borders and boundaries both defined this subject against the dangerous Other (the violent Guatemalan state as current embodiment of the Spanish; the Ladino society) and protect it from the threats this Other poses (rape, disrespect, repression and bullets, as well as the decaying of culture and the loss of identity and heritage). The narrators defined Ladinos in direct relation to their self-definitions. Rosa, for example, identified the history, knowledge

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

196

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

of and access to culture as one of the largest areas of distinction between Ladinos and Mayans Mayans had culture, while Ladinos did not:
Ladinos are looking for their identity, but they are not going to find it. . . . We can identify ourselves as Mayans. . . . Ladinos still havent found their identity. But, we have made forums and meetings to identify ourselves because we dont want confusion about our being Mayans. Rosa, Guatemala, 1995

The narrators, like Rosa, thus emphasized culture/customs as markers of difference: Mayans looked different; they thought differently than Ladinas; and they identified with different activities and cultural expressions. For example, in her narrative, Susanna (another narrator) maintained a system of differentiation that lent itself to strict dictates of how a Mayan should think, act and identify herself. This system was in direct relation to an (imagined) assessment of how Ladinas thought, acted and identified themselves. When I asked Susanna how she could tell whether someone was Mayan or Ladina, she responded:
[One can tell whether someone is Mayan through] the customs that they have. Because when I studied in ________, the compaeras who were not Mayans did not look like Mayans and did not have the same thoughts as Mayans. They think differently. For example, we do not have the same customs as the women or men who are not Mayans. If there is a party . . . or a disco: Lets go, [they say], and they go. Among the Mayans, this cannot be done. Yes, it can be done, but it should not be done. . . . We do not identify very much with . . . disco music or with going to parties. We identify more with making Mayan ceremonies or fiestas, like marimba. . . . Also it looks bad for our parents or our grandparents if we go out in the case of girls/women. Women should not go out to parties. One has to be careful that ones girl does not go out and get a bad reputation or, that is, stain the honour of her father more than anyone else. So this is the difference. Susanna, cited in Stern, 2005: 107

Here, one can read how gendered ethnic ideologies determined how a girl should be Mayan. In this statement, gender ideologies became discursively important in determining the differences between Us and Them, as well as between female and male (thus also hinting at the many different vectors that, as Mendieta explained, tear us asunder; see also Benhabib, 1999). Gender also inscribed the discourse of danger underlying the narrators statement: the threat of indecency would impair the dividing lines between an immoral Them and a pure Us (Yuval-Davis, 1997). The representation of we as a morally superior community, fundamentally unblemished by the evils of Western modernization, would lose its salience as a call for unity and resistance. The decline of the Mayan culture (as well as gender-specific honour) would be at risk. Borders and boundaries thus established to distinguish an us from a them also prescribed codes that distinguish normalcy from deviance, or

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

197

betrayal: a Mayan women must know her identity, her role in society, so as not to devalue us and cause the culture to decay (Elena). Indeed, the fear of losing the culture and betrayal ran as an underlying theme in these (in)security narratives. When addressing the problems that sexism posed inside the Mayan pueblo, Rosa, for instance, was careful to not alienate herself too much from the Mayan pueblo, as doing so might mean betrayal, and therewith possible estrangement from a base of security even from her real self. She stated: always the men, the fathers, have this machismo. But, they are not to blame, no they are not. But they always believe that women are less, always, always, the woman is less(Rosa, Guatemala City, 1995). Machismo was not the fault of her father; instead, machismo came with the colonial invasion. She, like many other narrators, emphasized that both women and men needed to wake up and recognize the real story, the Mayan story, which told of the complementarity between women and men and the value of women in the Mayan culture. She thus tied her narrative back into a contained whole where the different discourses of danger fit under an overriding one that served to secure Mayan women inside a cohesive Mayan pueblo. The narratives of Elena, Onelia and Mara underscore how, when speaking of securing Mayan women in the face of violent national security strategies and the racist power of Ladinoization, these strategies required collapsing all that people called Mayan women are into the specific and strict naming of who they are now and have been throughout history. By so doing, it was possible to render this specific articulation of being Mayan women seemingly securable in the face of great danger. This identity required both definition and cohesion (unity) among all Mayan women in order to be a potent force of resistance and thereby securable, as was evident in the words of Mara above. As Edkins reminds us, at the moment of securitization (Waever, 1995) or technologization, the political is effectively foreclosed and all that remains is the following of a script (Edkins, 1999: 117). Identity categories become more fixed or stable. Importantly, the fixing of identity relies on the being of the subject of security as already established as foundational through the narrative of its always already having been (Campbell, 1999: 24). According to this logic, only its correct identity remains disputable. The script that the narrators chose was one written in certain and recalled history. Mara and Onelia emphasized how, because of the violence and extremity of the marginalization of Mayans throughout history, it was paramount that Mayan women counter the harms caused by the nation-state and the Ladino society by rescuing and reclaiming Mayan culture. Only through an excavation of that culture could Mayan women find the tools to create a future that would honour the grandness of their heritage and religion, and would deflect the power of the forces of modernization, militarization and

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

198

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

racism. In all of these stories, safety resided in a culture of resistance that delivers/promises participation and worthiness, that is already as a dormant instance of continued past glory. These (in)security narratives thus set the stage for the enactment of certain security measures or strategies (knowing ones identity and fulfilling ones role in Mayan society; unity; recuperation of memory; history; sacrifice; and the making of certain claims for participation in Guatemalan society) to ensure safety and survival as sovereign subjects in the face of dangerous Others. Thus, safety was contingent upon securing and strengthening the identity category, Mayan woman, through cultural revival and historical remembering. The grandmothers, as Mara and Onelia explained, could guide the way to the real role of Mayan women, and to their true identity. Any deviations from this path were a result of the Spanish invasion and the resulting colonization/imperialism. The Spanish and their descendants caused the degradation of Mayan womens standing and dignity. Mayan women, therefore, needed to find their original connection to the life-giving forces of the earth in order to regain their importance and respect. They could thereby re-establish the balance between men and women, people and their natural environment and the stature of the Mayan pueblo. Lacunae and Refusals Yet, clearly, Mayan women are more than they appear in these depictions, as other moments in the narrators texts also attest. For example, Susanna (cited above) also acknowledged the securitization of the systems of difference she outlined between Mayan girls and Ladinas. She underscored how they were necessary to maintain in theory and as a cornerstone of the rhetoric of Mayan revindication. However, life was more complicated, and the dividing lines between Mayans and Ladinas blurred much more fluidly. She thus revealed through her efforts at obscuring the anomalies and contradictions in the cohesiveness of her representations of the identity: Mayan woman. When I pressed her and asked if she (then 17 years old) liked to attend discos, she smiled and laughed, saying Oh Yes! Then she explained:
I grew up in an ambience in which my parents and my grandparents were not so radical in the Mayan culture. One is Maya, and one does not stop being Maya because of the act of going to a party with others. One is always Maya and one will continue being Maya even if one doesnt want to. So, if there is some party, I go. (Susanna, cited in Stern, 2005: 107)

Susanna deemed that she was so grounded in, aware of and secure in her Maya-ness that she need not uphold the exterior signs of Maya-ness with the same degree of rigidity that she prescribed for Mayan girls in general. She was in danger neither of changing her way of thinking nor of losing her

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

199

culture (as many of the Ladinas had). She therefore need not limit her activities to those that solely reproduced/re-performed the Mayan culture and the gender roles and ideologies that sustained it. For her, it seemed, being Mayan was something that was beyond the definition she herself gave it in her (in)security narrative. It could not be fully represented through its naming or performative enactment. She, like Rosa above, thus disclosed the scaffolding of a grammar necessitating strict demarcations between self and other in order to secure the self. Another lacuna in the collective (in)security narratives of the Mayan women I interviewed came from a dissident voice within the Mayan womens movement. Manuela, another narrator, experienced the need for strict definition and circumscription of the identity Mayan women as frightening and exclusionary, even harmful:
I assume the triple identity, even if I dont look like one thing or another for many people. They even question me about it. . . . They say: You are not Kaqchikel, you speak like a Ladina, you think like a Ladina. So I said: Damn, we are making stereotypes amongst our own selves, so if I dont appear [to be Kaqchikel], I am not? So what . . . are we constructing? So what does it mean to be indigenous? . . . You are pushing me out of a space, without any right, out of a space that I consider mine, as well. . . . And what preoccupies me is where we are going to end up with these types of positions . . . [The criteria of wearing traditional dress as necessary in order to be a Mayan woman] makes me afraid . . . because it has to do with how we are making claims for ourselves and in front of others. (Manuela, cited in Stern, 2005: 142)

Furthermore, when speaking about the impossibility of defining herself as a political subject, Manuela explained: Perhaps they dont have a name for that which makes me who I am, or makes me think what I think, or feel what I feel (cited in Stern, 2005: 190). As these words suggest, the attempt to close down/off all that Mayan women are into a representable identity that can be secured through the naming of danger and the complementary construction of identity/difference can reproduce relations of discipline, exclusion and even violence (Connolly, 1991; Butler & Connolly, 2000). What might this mean for the conundrum depicted at the beginning of this article? Concluding Thoughts: The Political Potential of Failure?
Suspending the demand for self-identity or, more particularly, for complete coherence, seems to me to counter a certain ethical violence which demands that we manifest selfidentity and require that others do the same. For subjects who live in time this will be a hard norm to satisfy. And for subjects who are multiply constituted, and sometimes constituted in ways that are not quite known or knowable, this will be an ethical norm before which one can only fail. But then the question we might say post-Kafka is whether a new sense of ethics emerges from that inevitable ethical failure. And I suppose that it does, and that it would center perhaps on a certain willingness to

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

200

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

acknowledge the limits of acknowledgment itself, that when we claim to know and present ourselves, we will fail in some ways that are nevertheless essential to who we are, and that we cannot expect anything different from others. This involves, perhaps paradoxically, both a persisting in ones being (Spinoza) and a certain humility, or a recognition that persistence requires humility, and that humility, when offered to others, becomes generosity. For me, though, an essential part of that generosity involves the suspension of the regime of truth that governs the elaboration and totalization of identities. If the identity we say we are cannot possibly capture us, and marks immediately an excess and opacity which falls outside the terms of identity itself, then any effort we make to give an account of oneself will have to fail in order to approach being true. And as we ask to know the other, or ask that the other say, finally, who he or she is, it will be important that we do not expect an answer that will ever satisfy. And by not pursuing satisfaction, we let the other live, offering a recognition that is not based on knowledge, but on its limits. (Butler in Butler & Connolly, 2000: 4)

The totalizing effects of a dominant logic of (in)security (or regime of truth in Butlers words, quoted above), as that logic resonates in the (in)security narratives in resistance portrayed here, evokes a certain measure of despair. How can we break the seemingly endless ripples of violence that struggles for security animate? The narratives show us that even careful attention to the multiplicity of identity that is evoked to capture or stand for who Mayan women may be as a person or a movement or a people seems to depend on a picture being painted of the people called Mayan women (Pin-Fat, 2000: 667). Through the writing of danger, this picture became more cemented or entrenched, since so much was at stake in the representation of the subject Mayan women as symbolically correspondent to the real (Connolly,1991; ek, Edkins 1999: 113; Hekman, 1999: 1819; Z iz 2000: 173). Furthermore, such a picture demanded the harmful construction and policing of boundaries and the exacting definition of content that resides within its contours, even if those boundaries shifted and recomposed themselves. Importantly, the we promised correspondence with more than just the inscription of the imagined community Mayan women as subject. The narrators supported Andersons claim that people are often willing to die and kill for such limited imaginings (Anderson, 1991).8 In giving the representation of a whole political community the status of corresponding with the soul or core of the substance, which is that community, the possibility of attaining the ultimate existential security of the community as sovereign subject makes sense. If we know what Mayanness is, then we can surely secure it. The trick, so the modern story of (in)security goes, is to find the most real representation (multiple, hybrid or deep) that captures the being of the community. Through the writing of
8

For instance, when discussing the dangers of organizing in such a violent and dangerous climate, the narrators explained that fear for their own lives did not weigh as heavily as fear for the lives of others (Stern, 2005: 126).

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

201

(in)security, identities are taken to be veritable representations of the subject we and elide into being we (Weldes, 1999). Articulations of identity thus serve to denote the subject in terms of securable representations (the content of identity categories) such as we who respect Mother Earth that can be confined and safeguarded against those who do not, have not and are not. Yet, the narratives also show how these discursive sleights of hand never quite work. In other words, they fail. As Mendieta points out, and as the struggle of Rosa between two related systems of oppression indicated, we are many. One image cannot reflect all that a subject shall be (Mendieta, 2003: 408). Additionally, the words of Manuela attest to the claim that a subject is too large, excessive, messy, fluid, changing, contradictory and unbounded to be adequately or fully represented or therewith secured.9 It is always becoming, and therefore cannot be pinned down in a single representation or even in a series of multiple repetitions within the confines of language (Mendieta, 2003: 407; Butler, 1997; Edkins & Pin-Fat, 1999: 11; Edkins, 1999: 15; Irigaray, 1985). In sum, the navigating by Susanna between the script written through a highly securitized identity and the fluidity of her daily life, the discursive strategies of Rosa for maintaining unity, as well as the unease, fear and challenge of Manuela, hint at the spaces for resistance, even a different ethics (as Butler states above) offered by this failure. These sites of refusal to the dominant logic of (in)security underscore how any given (and thereby supposedly securable representation) of the subject Mayan women will be haunted by supplementary or excluded voices, subject positions What about me? that will inevitably clamour for attention in even the most careful attempts at representation. Despite the cohesiveness with which the (in)security discourses of Mayan women attempt to capture and secure the subject of security into a strictly defined and coherent identity that could be secured, the security of the subject, Mayan women, remains both impossible and unknowable. The refusals explored above disturb and unsettle the ordering and seemingly stable foundations of the subject of security and indeed of the possibility of security by revealing the lacunae in the cohesiveness of the narratives that promise and produce them. Drawing on the later work of Wittgenstein, Pin-Fat explains that, according to an (im)possible dynamic, what counts as possible depends upon what is already tacitly accepted as impossible (Pin-Fat, 2000: 664; Pin-Fat & Stern, 2005). In sum, representing and securing the subject called Mayan women can be seen as (im)possible for two reasons: first, insecurity is the inevitable supplement to security. Second, we can never be fully represented (and
9

The sentiments expressed by Manuela remind us of much critique that has been directed against the core ek, 2000; Edkins, Persram & foundation of the Cartesian subject (e.g. Butler, 1997; Butler, Laclau & Z iz ek, Pin-Fat, 1999; Foucault, 1980; Jabri, 1998; Z iz 2000).

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

202

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

therewith secured). Arguably, violence occurs (in part) through the concealment of these two inherent (im)possibilities, and resistance to violence through the failure of this concealment located in the refusals or the cracks within supposedly coherent discourses. Herein lies the possibility to disrupt the dominant logic of (in)security in its repetitions of violence through, as Burke advises, paying close attention to how people live the necessity for identity and security in their daily lives, and also how they resist some of the totalizing moves that inhere in their struggles. In so doing, instead of trying to resolve the conundrum of (in)security as it plays out in the lives, hopes and fears of people, we can choose, instead, to refuse the pursuit of satisfaction, and invite both humility and generosity: to let people live (as Butler puts it above). Perhaps then, we can begin to resist the seductions of a grammar that also inflicts harm.
* Maria Stern is Research Fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs (SIIA) in Stockholm, and Lecturer and Research Fellow at the Department of Peace and Development Research Institute at Gteborg University, Sweden. She is author of Naming SecurityConstructing Identity: Mayan Women in Guatemala on the Eve of Peace (Manchester University Press, 2005) and co-editor with Brooke Ackerly and Jaqui True of Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2006). The author is grateful to Peter Burgess, Stephanie Buus, Maria Eriksson Baaz, Vronique Pin-Fat, Marysia Zalewski and the anonymous referees for their insightful and extremely helpful comments on this article, as well as to the Special Research Programme at the SIIA for the generous support of my research.

References
Alcoff, Linda Martin, 2003. Introduction: Identities: Modern and Postmodern, in Linda Martin Alcoff & Eduardo Mendieta, eds, Identities: Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality. Oxford: Blackwell (19). Anderson, Benedict, 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. Barth, Frederik, 1969. The Social Organization of Cultural Difference. Oslo: Universitetsfrlaget. Behnke, Andreas, 2000. The Message or the Messenger? Reflections on the Role of Security Experts, Cooperation and Conflict 35(1): 89106. Behnke, Andreas, 2004. Terrorising the Political: 9/11 Within the Context of the Globalisation of Violence, Millenium: Journal of International Studies 33(2): 279312. Benhabib, Seyla, 1999. Sexual Difference and Collective Identities: The New Global Constellation, Signs 24(2): 335361. Bhaba, Homi, 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Burke, Anthony, 2002. Aporias of Security, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 27(1): 127. Butler, Judith, 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Butler, Judith, 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

203

Butler, Judith & William Connolly, 2000. Politics, Power and Ethics: A Discussion Between Judith Butler and William Connolly, Theory & Event 4(2); available at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_ and_event/v004/4.2butler.html (accessed 10 March 2006). Campbell, David, 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Campbell, David, 1999. Violence, Justice and Identity in the Bosnian Conflict, in Jenny Edkins, Nalini Persram & Vronique Pin-Fat, eds, Sovereignty and Subjectivity. London: Lynne Rienner (2137). Connolly, William, 1991. Identity/Difference. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Connolly, William, 2004. The Complexity of Sovereignty, in Jenny Edkins, Vronique Pin-Fat & Michael Shapiro, eds, Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge (2341). Der Derian, J, 1995, The Value of Security: Hobbes, Marx, Nietzsche, and Baudrillard, in Ronny Lipschutz, ed., On Security. New York: Columbia University Press (2446). Dillon, Michael, 199091 The Alliance of Security and Subjectivity, Current Research on Peace and Violence 13(3): 101124. Dillon, Michael, 1996. Politics of Security. London & New York: Routledge. Dillon, Michael, 2004, Correlating Sovereign and Biopower, in Jenny Edkins, Vronique Pin-Fat & Michael Shapiro, eds, Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge (4161). Disch, Lisa, 2003. Impartiality, Storytelling, and the Seductions of Narrative: An Essay at an Impasse, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 28(2): 253263. Dunmire, Patricia L., 2005. Preempting the Future: Rhetoric and Ideology of the Future in Political Discourse, Discourse and Society 16(4): 481513. Edkins, Jenny, 1999. Post-Structuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. London: Lynne Rienner. Edkins, Jenny & Vronique Pin-Fat, 1999. Introduction: The Subject of the Political, in Jenny Edkins, Nalini Persram & Vronique Pin-Fat, eds, Sovereignty and Subjectivity. London: Lynne Rienner (118). Edkins, Jenny; Nalini Persram & Vronique Pin-Fat, eds, 1999. Sovereignty and Subjectivity. London: Lynne Rienner. Edkins, Jenny; Vronique Pin-Fat & Michael Shapiro, eds, 2004. Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge. Fanon, Franz, 1963. The Wretched of the Earth, trans. Constance Farrington. New York: Grove Press. Foucault, Michel, 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977. London: Harvester. Hall, Stuart, 1990. Cultural Identity and Diaspora, in Jonathan Rutherford, ed., Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart (222237). Hall, Stuart, 1996. Introduction: Who Needs Identity?, in Stuart Hall & Paul Du Gay, eds, Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage. Hekman, Susan, ed., 1999. Feminism, Identity, and Difference. London: Frank Cass. Heyes, Cressida, J., 2003. Introduction, in Cressida J. Heyes, ed., The Grammar of Politics. London: Cornell University Press (117). Huysmans, Jef, 1998. The Question of the Limit: Desecuritization and the Aesthetics of Horror in Political Realism, Millennium 27(3): 569589. Hylland-Eriksen, Thomas. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism. London: Pluto. Inayatullah, Naeem & David L. Blaney, 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York: Routledge.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

204

Security Dialogue vol. 37, no. 2, June 2006

Irigaray, Luce, 1985. This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jabri, Vivienne, 1998. Restyling the Subject of Responsibility in International Relations, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27(3): 591611. Jackson, Richard, 2005. Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics, and CounterTerrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Jonas, Susan, 2000. Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemalas Peace Process. Boulder, CO: Westview. Krause, Keith & Michael C. Williams, eds, 1997. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Maalouf, Amin, 2000. In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need To Belong, trans. Barbara Bray. New York: Arcade. McSweeney, Bill, 1999, Security, Identity and Interests. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mendieta, Eduardo, 2003. Afterword: Identities Postcolonial and Global, in Linda Martin Alcoff & Eduardo Mendieta, eds, Identities: Race, Class, Gender, and Nationality. Oxford: Blackwell (407417). Pin-Fat, Vronique, 2000, (Im)possible Universalism: Reading Human Rights in World Politics, Review of International Studies 26(4): 663674. Pin-Fat, Vronique & Maria Stern, 2005. The Scripting of Private Jessica Lynch: Biopolitics, Gender and the Feminisation of the U.S. Military, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 30(1): 2553. Roe, Paul, 2004. Securitization and Minority Rights, Security Dialogue 35(3): 279294. Schmitt, Carl, [1932] 1996. The Concept of the Political, trans. Georg Schwab. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Stern, Maria, 2005. Naming Security: Constructing Identity. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Stern, Maria & Marysia Zalewski, 2005. Fledgling Deconstructions? Familiar Feminist Fables of Warring Reconsidered, paper presented at the 46th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 15 March. Sylvester, Christine, 1994. Feminist International Relations in a Post Modern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Charles 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wver, Ole, 1995. Securitization and Desecuritization, in Ronny Lipschutz, ed., On Security. New York: Columbia University Press (4686). Walker, Rob B. J., 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walker, Rob B. J., 2004. Conclusions: Sovereignties, Exceptions, Worlds, in Jenny Edkins, Vronique Pin-Fat & Michael Shapiro, eds, Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics. London: Routledge (239251). Weldes, Jutta, 1999. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Weldes, Jutta; Mark Laffey, Hugh Gusterson & Raymond Duvall, eds, 1999. Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wibben, Annick, 2002. Security Narratives in International Relations and the Events of September 11, 2001: A Feminist Study, doctoral dissertation (International Politics), University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Williams, Michael C., 2003. Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics, International Studies Quarterly 47(4): 511531.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011

Maria Stern The Power and Failure of (In)security

205

Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1997. Gender and Nation. Sage: London. Zehfuss, Maja, 2003. Forget September 11, Third World Quarterly 24(3): 513528. Zerilli, Linda M. G., 2003. Doing Without Knowing: Feminisms Politics of the Ordinary, in Cressida J. Heyes, ed., The Grammar of Politics. London: Cornell University Press (129149). Ziarek, Ewa, 1995. The Rhetoric of Failure: Deconstruction of Skepticism, Reinvention of Modernism. New York: SUNY Press. ek, Slavoj, 1999. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Z iz Verso. ek, Slavoj, 2000. Holding the Place, in Judith Butler, Ernesto Laclau & Slavoj Z iz ek, Z iz Contingency, Hegemony, Universality: Contemporary Dialogues on the Left, pp. 308329. London: Verso.

Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at The John Rylands University Library, The University of Manchester on October 15, 2011