rogermacginty

Historian Niall Ferguson had a bizarre opinion piece in the Financial Times at the weekend. Perhaps the kindest thing that can be said about it is that it was a ‘rush job’. Drawing on PRIO data, and Pinker’s arguments on the long decline on violence among humans, it sought to make a number of big statements on trends in war and conflict. Given that the article was written by a historian, it was surprising to see the following extremely a-historical and unreflective claim:

“In 2000, according to my calculations, 35 per cent of the fatalities in armed conflicts were in wars involving Muslims. In 2014 it was 79 per cent.
This is not the clash of civilisations prophesied by Samuel Huntington. Much of today’s conflict is between Muslims. Certainly religion is not the sole cause for increasing conflict, but it is surely more than a coincidence that global warfare is so concentrated in the Islamic world.”

To be fair to Ferguson, he was writing in a newspaper and so he did not have the space to fully develop his arguments and attach justifications to them. Nevertheless, Ferguson’s claims are breathtakingly sweeping. His statements show little understanding of the history of ‘the Islamic world’ (whatever that is). And he’s the historian.

He conflates ‘Muslims’ into a single category which airbrushes the tremendous diversity found within the faith. The ‘Muslim-ness’ of many regimes is subservient to their strategic interests. Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, for example, are happy to persecute some Muslims in alliance with western partners. Their raison d’etre as states is the continuation of the ruling autocracies. There doesn’t seem to be anything particularly ‘Muslim’ about that. It is simple power politics.

Ferguson also fails to mention to the wars ON Muslims and Muslim-dominated countries perpetrated by the US and its allies over recent decades. Turmoil in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and other countries is a direct result of intervention by western states. As we know, these interventions were poorly thought-through and executed. They destabilised the entire region and have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. These were wars of choice. Bush, Blair, Sarkozy and many other western leaders had opportunities to pursue other routes. They chose not to take them. Their long wars against Muslim-dominated countries have done much to objectify ‘Muslims’ as suspect communities. One gets the sense that Ferguson’s article is in this territory. At one end of the spectrum is the sort of ‘othering’ we see in Ferguson’s article. At the other are the opinions of US Republican Presidential hopeful Ben Carson.

Startlingly, Ferguson omits to mention geo-politics. This is odd given his interest in empire (indeed, his regard for empire). He, of all people, should be aware of the geo-political role played by the wider Middle East. A key reason for wars and authoritarianism in the region rests on oil, the western imperative to defend allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the ‘grand game’ of containing Iran.

Finally, the claim that ‘global warfare is so concentrated in the Islamic world’ is simply rubbish. It rests on the notion that warfare is something that occurs on the battlefield, and fails to take into account the long trains of events and processes that lead to battlefield deaths. A quick look at the arms industry tells us that ‘global warfare’ is located – firmly – in the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council (states that often declare themselves to be ‘the international community’). And if we look beyond the arms industry, to the manufacture of narratives that construct and other particular identity groups, then any reasonable analysis would need to include those actors that frame ‘the Islamic world’ (still confused about what that is) as a propagator of war. It is worth asking if Mr Ferguson constitutes part of that industry.

It is the start of the academic year and I am delighted to say that we have a bumper crop of MA Peace and Conflict Studies students. I’m looking forward to the debates and the intellectual exchange. One thing that is noticeable about the class is its profile: it is overwhelmingly female. This is neither a new nor a Manchester phenomenon. I have noticed it at other universities, MA programmes and summer schools. The study of peace is a largely a female pursuit. Why?

There is merit to a socialisation argument. This goes much deeper than the common refrain that girls have Barbie Dolls and boys have GI Joe and Action Man. The socialisation and validation of gender specific roles and behaviours is often so embedded in societies that it is rarely questioned. If something is so familiar (like a piece of household furniture, for example), then it can persist for long periods unquestioned. Gender socialisation goes very deeply to the roles and tasks that gain approval among children and students. Deep in the very core of how society is organised, there is a sense that care-giving, empathy and a range of activities and emotions linked with fair-play are somehow ‘female’. Is it too much to speculate that Peace Studies (as opposed to War Studies) is somehow seen as being more appropriate for female students? Clearly gendered divisions are by no means absolute: both men and women study war and peace, and not all men and women fit easily into neat silos. But there is a discernible female preponderance in Peace Studies classes and it is probable that the reasons lie in deep in the organisation of society.

There is no problem per se in having classes dominated by one gender or the other. What matters is that all classrooms are inclusive learning environments. But I taught in a few summer schools where the female preponderance in the classroom did seem to have the effect of silencing the one or two male students who were present. This probably mirrors the situation in programmes (civil engineering perhaps) where there are only a few females.

While the study of peace at MA level is dominated by females, we cannot say that peace studies – as an academic profession – is dominated by females. Certainly there are senior female scholars out there – as journal editors, full professors, heads of department, and prominent theorists, researchers and teachers. The number seems to be growing too. But a rough head count of full professors suggests – to me at any rate – that females still lag behind in the seniority stakes. The key question is whether the current crop of younger female scholars will be able to progress their way up the career ladder or are the structural impediments too great?