The militarism of US foreign policy makes analyzing and understanding conflict an imperative part of any reform effort. But bad analysis is rampant. Here are some ways to recognize it.
I do appreciate this piece and I broadly agree. I want to second "the need to study history, memory, geography, politics, religion, ideology, ethnicity, etc." (I would emphatically add "political economy" to your list) as a first order requirement of analysis. But I would add that one needs a lens through which to make sense of those units of analysis and their intersections with each other. For me, the one that makes the most sense of the world around me is a Marxist lens that accounts for (1) the hegemonic global system of meaning-making and political economy that is capitalism, (2) the violent regime of state-based colonialism (historically) and corporate and/or state-based neocolonialism that is required to entrench the hegemony of our political economy, and (3) the actual material impacts and impacts of socially-constructed meaning of those first two things on the lived experiences and interactions of individual people, families, communities, organizations, and governments around the world.
I'm curious if you see this lens as reductionist or essentialist or ideological and, if so, what you would change about it.
I would add that I do think there's a way to be extremely reductionist as a Marxist - but I don't think that's the version I'm articulating here. And, I think a Marxist lens is one lens that should be utilized when looking at a conflict - but not necessarily the only one. My point was only to say that I think one needs a coherent theory of "how the world works" in order to make any sense of history, memory, geography, politics, religion, ideology, ethnicity, political economy, etc. There's no way to analyze those things from a "neutral" or "objective" position. The analyst's own perspective always and necessarily becomes part of the analysis, which is why we must articulate that perspective clearly.
All this is very well said and I agree both about the dangers of Marxist reductionism and the possibility of a Marxist lens that avoids reductionism. My own study of Marxist thought could use a lot of work, to be honest - like some (many?) on the left in the U.S. today, my political perspective and analytical approach is mostly something I stumbled into out of frustration with existing policies, rather than the product of some systematic theory-building exercise on my part. With that said, one thing that stands out to me again and again in looking at specific cases is contingency (Lacher is great on this point in his book on Libya; he shows repeatedly how small acts of violence can snowball into huge dynamics that affect the overall trajectory of a conflict). Also, if we take a case like Boko Haram in Nigeria, we could get pretty far down the road in terms of analysis by looking at the effects of capitalism on agriculture, urbanization, inequality; the effects of neoliberalism on the education system, the relationship of citizens with the state, the nature of the Nigerian state and military, etc. All that could help clarify the recruitment base of the movement and why the Nigerian state has been either unwilling or unable to end the insurgency. But I think that framework would ultimately have limits in explaining why Boko Haram emerged precisely when, where, why, and how it did. So if your suggestion is to use a kind of "Marxist analysis plus," then I'm basically on board. Also agree that the analyst's position matters a lot.
I really appreciate this thoughtful response, Alex! To quickly follow up, your point about contingency is great and I think maybe the proper way to deploy a non-reductionist Marxist lens for the purposes of analyzing the broader context and conditions that have created an environment where specific, local contingencies can quickly spiral. Those contingencies are occurring in a broader context and that broader context can either facilitate and incubate those contingencies OR mitigate and reduce them. Perhaps the Marxist lens becomes reductionist when it is used on a granular scale to look at those on the ground continencies that are specific to a particular locality - if this is the case then we should use it primarily to understand broader context and conditions before diving into the local contingencies.
I do appreciate this piece and I broadly agree. I want to second "the need to study history, memory, geography, politics, religion, ideology, ethnicity, etc." (I would emphatically add "political economy" to your list) as a first order requirement of analysis. But I would add that one needs a lens through which to make sense of those units of analysis and their intersections with each other. For me, the one that makes the most sense of the world around me is a Marxist lens that accounts for (1) the hegemonic global system of meaning-making and political economy that is capitalism, (2) the violent regime of state-based colonialism (historically) and corporate and/or state-based neocolonialism that is required to entrench the hegemony of our political economy, and (3) the actual material impacts and impacts of socially-constructed meaning of those first two things on the lived experiences and interactions of individual people, families, communities, organizations, and governments around the world.
I'm curious if you see this lens as reductionist or essentialist or ideological and, if so, what you would change about it.
I would add that I do think there's a way to be extremely reductionist as a Marxist - but I don't think that's the version I'm articulating here. And, I think a Marxist lens is one lens that should be utilized when looking at a conflict - but not necessarily the only one. My point was only to say that I think one needs a coherent theory of "how the world works" in order to make any sense of history, memory, geography, politics, religion, ideology, ethnicity, political economy, etc. There's no way to analyze those things from a "neutral" or "objective" position. The analyst's own perspective always and necessarily becomes part of the analysis, which is why we must articulate that perspective clearly.
All this is very well said and I agree both about the dangers of Marxist reductionism and the possibility of a Marxist lens that avoids reductionism. My own study of Marxist thought could use a lot of work, to be honest - like some (many?) on the left in the U.S. today, my political perspective and analytical approach is mostly something I stumbled into out of frustration with existing policies, rather than the product of some systematic theory-building exercise on my part. With that said, one thing that stands out to me again and again in looking at specific cases is contingency (Lacher is great on this point in his book on Libya; he shows repeatedly how small acts of violence can snowball into huge dynamics that affect the overall trajectory of a conflict). Also, if we take a case like Boko Haram in Nigeria, we could get pretty far down the road in terms of analysis by looking at the effects of capitalism on agriculture, urbanization, inequality; the effects of neoliberalism on the education system, the relationship of citizens with the state, the nature of the Nigerian state and military, etc. All that could help clarify the recruitment base of the movement and why the Nigerian state has been either unwilling or unable to end the insurgency. But I think that framework would ultimately have limits in explaining why Boko Haram emerged precisely when, where, why, and how it did. So if your suggestion is to use a kind of "Marxist analysis plus," then I'm basically on board. Also agree that the analyst's position matters a lot.
I really appreciate this thoughtful response, Alex! To quickly follow up, your point about contingency is great and I think maybe the proper way to deploy a non-reductionist Marxist lens for the purposes of analyzing the broader context and conditions that have created an environment where specific, local contingencies can quickly spiral. Those contingencies are occurring in a broader context and that broader context can either facilitate and incubate those contingencies OR mitigate and reduce them. Perhaps the Marxist lens becomes reductionist when it is used on a granular scale to look at those on the ground continencies that are specific to a particular locality - if this is the case then we should use it primarily to understand broader context and conditions before diving into the local contingencies.
Makes a lot of sense - I agree.
Great article and I appreciate the author's note