We need to talk about silence: Re-examining silence in International Relations theory

Abstract

The critique of silence in International Relations theory has been long-standing and sustained. However, despite the lasting popularity of the term, little effort has been made to unpack the implications of existing definitions and their uses, and of attempts to rid the worlds of theory and practice of silences. This article seeks to fill this vacuum by conducting a twofold exercise: a review and revision of the conceptualisation of silence current in the literature; and a review of the implications of attempts to eliminate silence from the worlds of theory and practice. Through the discussion, the article suggests that we deepen and broaden our understanding of silence while simultaneously accepting that a degree of silence will be a permanent feature of theory and practice in international politics. Finally, the conclusion illustrates the possibilities for analysis and theory opened by these arguments through an exploration of how they may be used to interpret and address recent events in Yemen.

Seeing (in)security, gender and silencing: posters in and about the British women’s suffrage movement

“…While useful in revealing security threats, emphasising verbal and written text creates epistemological boundaries that preclude looking at visual and/or bodily discourse. Concern with speech alone has the danger of (re)producing a dichotomy and leaving little space for a more complicated, multi-modal, relationship between speech and silence/ing that operates beyond a binary (Dingli 2015). Silence or silencing on one plane-e.g.…”

How to do things with silence: Rethinking the centrality of speech to the securitization framework

“…The anxiety here is that silence, in any form, is a ‘threat to politics’ and henceforth to society ( Ferguson, 2003 : 53). The agential ability of the subject remains pervasive, even in the most recent assessment of the place of silence in international relations ( Dingli, 2015 : 726). Moreover, the securitization framework’s engagement is also premised on another important assumption that ‘a person cannot not communicate’ – that is, produce signs and meanings.…”

“…The ambiguity of silence makes possible myriad meanings; it invites an overinvestment of the interpreter’s own meaning to fill it. This hermeneutical overinvestment is linked to the fact that the literature in international relations and security studies is dedicated to uncovering what (a) silence means (see Dingli, 2015 ). This is problematic as it does not enable us to conceptualize silence as more than just the absence of sound/voice/speech – that is, as a negative property of speech.…”

Was vom arguing übrigblieb…

“…Als Teil dieser Forschungsrichtung gerade mit Blick auf nichtstaatliche oder vermeintlich »schwache« Akteure in der internationalen Politik sehe ich auch neuere, richtungsweisende Arbeiten zur Rolle von Stille und Schweigen, zu den sounds of silence im Diskurs. Mit Konzepten wie silence oder listening beabsichtigen die Vertreter*innen dieser neuen Strömung in den Sozialwissenschaften, die Priorisierung von Äußerungen und Argumenten als materialisiertem Diskurs zu hinterfragen (Bhambra/Shilliam 2009;Constable 2009;Dingli 2015). Stattdessen stellen sie das »Etwas-nicht-Sagen« ins Zentrum ihres Erkenntnisinteresses und zwar nicht nur als Ausdruck von Exklusion und Macht, sondern auch von Widerstand oder Gleichgültigkeit.…”