Between Emergency and Emergence

8/3/2019 Between Emergency and Emergence

1/10

SimonAddison:BetweenemergencyandemergenceDRAFTDONOTCITE 1

BetweenEmergencyandEmergence:

HumanitarianActionandthePoliticsofBecoming.

SimonAddisonMarieCurieResearchFellow,SchoolofEnvironment&Development,UniversityofManchester

VisitingFellow,CenterforPlace,Culture&Politics,CityUniversityofNewYork

[email protected]

DRAFTWORKINPROGRESSDONOTCITE

Mypaperattempts to tackle some of the problematicpolitical ambiguities that arise

fromtheontologyofemergencywhichguidesmosthumanitarianactionatthecurrent

time.Muchoftheambiguity,Isuggest,arisesfromtheincipientdichotomythatpersists

withinthenotionofemergencybetweenthemomentthatiscodifiedasanexceptional

crisisontheonehandin relationto the supposednormon theother.Muchhas been

writtenaboutthenatureof thisrelationinrecentyears,particularlyin lightofGiorgio

Agambensworkonthenatureofthestateofemergencyasitrelatestosovereignty.My

thoughtsareverymuch rooted in that literature,buttakea different tack,which has

beensuggestedinpartbytherecentworkofMichaelDillonofLancasterUniversityon

theevolvingnatureoftheemergencyasacategorynotofsovereignpowerbutofthe

more diffuse and more apparently beneficient power of biopolitics, of which

humanitarianaction,broadlydefined,isverydefinitelyacomponent.

My thoughts arise out of a series of discomforts with the state and nature of

contemporary humanitarianism, none of which, I admit, are novel. Indeed, it never

ceases toastonishmehowmany ofthemost important debates of the humanitarian

sector seem constantly to circulate without apparent resolution. Many of my

discomforts were well rehearsed fourteen years ago at a meeting hosted by the

University of Manchester in 1997, where a number of the leading voices of todays

humanitarianstudiesdisciplinegottogethertodebatethepoliticsofemergency.Many

of themajor themes fromthat debate reverberate to this daywithoutresolution: the

needtoacknowledgetheinherentlypoliticalnatureofhumanitarianaction;itstendency

todepoliticisesituationsofpowerfulpoliticaldynamism;itsfailuretoaddressthereal

political-economic causes of emergency as they relate to historical and geographical

processesofunevendevelopment;theproblemofpermanentemergenciesintheglobal

southandthemergingofdevelopmentandemergencyinapproachestohumanitarian

intervention.


2/10


AspeoplelikeMarkDuffieldandDavidKeenandAlexdeWaalhavecounseledusfora

long time, the humanitariandesire toaddress these important issues bydoingmore

betterdoesnotseemtoresolvethem.Onewayofconsideringthisproblem,Isuggestis

tofollowthetraildownintotherootsofemergencythinkingitself,toconsiderhowitis

that within our socio-political constitution we have come to consider particular

moments of socio-economicandpolitical-ecological transformation inthe languageof

emergencyinthefirstplace.Howdoesthisontologyofemergencyshapeandstructure

humanitarianresponsesinwaysthatarenotnecessarilyapparent,andhowcanweuse

a deeper understanding of the operations of this ontology to shape responses in a

mannerthatallowshumanitarianactorstofreethemselvesoftheconceptualshacklesin

which they have bound themselves by thinking about emergencies and emergencyresponsesinradicallydifferentways?

TobeginwithithelpstostateafewconcreteexamplesoftheproblemsthatIamtrying

to think through at the moment. The first is the apparently permanent nature of

complexemergenciesincertainpartsoftheglobalSouth,whetherCongoorSomaliaor

Afghanistan,thechronicnatureofwhichandtheapparentabsenceofobvioussolutions

begthe questionof whetherornotthe distinctionbetweennormandemergencyhas

any purchase in those situations whilst also raising the implications of merging

humanitarian action with development in an attempt to build human security. The

second,whichislinkedtothe first,relatesspecificallytothesituationofhumanitarian

emergency that took place in northern Uganda up until 2006, where again the

ambiguous and contradictorymanner in which humanitarian relief operations were

mobilized in relation to development planning and military discipline brought into

question the emergency/norm distinction and raised serious questions about the

manner in which humanitarians think through emergency. Thirdly, I have been

thinkingaboutthewayinwhichthepoliticalrevolutioninLibyahasbeentransformed

into a humanitarian emergencygoverned by international humanitarian intervention

andamconsideringtheimplicationsthatthisshiftindiscourseandactionhasforthe

natureofsuchmomentsofproperpoliticsasSlavojZizekwouldcallthem.Fourthly,and

directlyrelatedtothis,Iamstruckbythecuriousemergencythathasbeendeclaredin

Italy as a response to the influx of Libyan refugees since the revolution began. And

finally I have been thinking about the apparently or potentially global and universal

emergenciesthatarenowthoughttothreatenhumanityasawhole,whethertheyare


3/10


theprospectofterrorism,ofcatastrophicclimatechange,ofnewpandemicdiseases,of

exponentialincreasesinurbanization,ofchronicfoodinsecurityandthelike.

Thesesituations are all,ofcourse, verydifferent fromone another, but they all raise

difficult and important questions about themanner inwhichsituationsofemergency

aredefined,identified,preparedforandrespondedtoatthecurrenttime.Theyprovide

coordinates if youwill, that allow us to mark out a small part of a general political

economyofemergencythatoperatesacrossandinnosmallpartgovernstheterrainof

humanexistencethesedays.

Inparticulartheyraiseacoupleofkeyissues.Thefirstistheapparentnormalizationof

emergencyinthecurrentmoment.Welive,itoftenappearstome,inapermanentstateofemergency,inwhichthefardistantcrisesfacedbyruralcommunitiesinAfricanand

Asian countries collide with terror attacks on London buses, the economic crisis,

tornadosandfloodsexperiencedtodayintheUS,theprospectofglobalfoodcrisesover

thenexttwentyyearsandtheeventualinundationofmostmajorcoastalcitiesinthe

world. Furthermore, it appears that where emergencies occur, they often become

permanent, enduring, recycling moments of catastrophe that take decades to be

resolved. Emergency, it appears, is everywhere and always, if not now, then maybe

tomorroworatsomeindeterminatebuttoodistantmomentinthefuture,andassuch,

emergencythinkinghasgraduallycometogovernasignificantpartofpoliticalthinking,

notonlyinstatesandwithintheinternationalsystemsofglobalgovernancethathave

madeittheirconcerntomonitorthelifeandhealthofthehumanpopulation,butwithin

the fabric of civil society itself. So, the threat of emergency is inescapable, its event

horizonhavingstretchedso farandwideintimeandspaceas toencompassalmostall

lifeitself.Thestateofemergencyhasbecome,tosomedegreeatleast,evenifonlyinits

catastrophicpotential,thenorm.

Thesecondissue,whichisinfactanadjuncttothefirst,isthequestion,raisedbyDillon,

thatinrecentyearsasituationhasdevelopedinwhich,increasinglyitisthedynamic,

unpredictablenaturebywhichhumanandotherformsoflifeevolvethatnowposesthe

threatof emergency. Accordingto this analysisas technologicaldevelopmentsevolve

andastheconnectionsbetweenpeople,placesandthingsproliferate,generatingnew

modesofbeinginwaysthatoftenexceedtheregulationoflifeandpopulationthathave

beendevelopedtoadministerthem,asthecirculationsofpeopleandthingsspeedup

and encompassmore andmore of the world, they come tobe judged asdangers, as


4/10


threatstotheestablishednormsofthegoodlife,particularlywheretheyareassessed

and adjudicated tobedifferent orexceptional to the establishednormsof life under

liberalcapitalistdemocracy.

Thus,myconcernwiththispaperistoenterintotheambiguitiesandcomplexitiesof

thinkingabouthowitisthatinthepasttwentyorthirtyyearswehavebeenbroughtto

apasswherenotonlyisthethreatofemergencynolongerparticularlyexceptional,but

normal, and where it is the burgeoning emergence of life itself in all itsmultiplicity

comestobeunderstood,asDillonputsit,asdangerous-becoming.Tomymind,what

we face here is a complex and contradictory situation in which the norm and the

exception, inwhich the immanent processes of lifes emergence and the intentional

dynamicsof the stateof emergency are collapsing inupon one another,producing azoneofindistinctionnotdissimilartothatdescribedbyAgambeninhisdiscussionon

thenatureofsovereignpower.

ButAgambensanalysisis insufficient,I believe,toprovideanadequateunderstanding

ofwhatisgoingonhere.Thisaporiabetweenemergenceandemergencyisnotamere

functionofthesovereigndecisiontoadjudgethedistinctionbetweenjustifiedandbare

lifeandthecallingintobeingoftheinclusiveexclusionthatbindsthemtogetherina

contradictory fashion though it certainly plays its part. I believe there is a more

substantive problem at play, one that reflects Nietzsches contemplation of the

fundamentalbutindeterminaterelationbetweenbeingandbecomingandthewaythat

this has been taken up in the post-foundational political thought of theorists like

Ranciere,BadiouandNancy.

Whatwemightsay,tobeginwith,isthatinordertofullyunderstandtheimportofthe

ontologyofemergencyanditsimplications,wemustfirststripitawayandconsiderhow

toconceiveofthesesituationsradicallydifferently.Fromtheperspectiveofanontology

ofemergence,a flatontologicalperspectiveofmanifoldbecoming,thenan emergency,

whetheritisa floodorasituationofmasspopulationdisplacementcausedbyconflict,

canbeunderstoodasaparticularconjunctureofforcesinplaceandtime,amomentof

dynamic unfolding and interaction in which multiple, manifestly different entities

bestowedofvariegatedcapacitiesandnaturesarticulatetoproducea newrealitythat

may have either positive and negative outcomes for them, depending upon their

position within the conjuncture and in relation to the other entities they encounter.

Interconnections and articulation produce new entities and unities, and as those


5/10


connections and articulations increase in frequency and intensity, more and more

differententities,moreandmoreformsoflifeandlivingemerge,whileothersrecedeor

dissolve,andthesenewentitiesandunitiesassume,foraperiodoftime,durabilityand

stability and become beings. This, we might say is a processual ontology of the

becomingbeingofthings,analwaysdynamicprocessesoffluidcreativedestructionin

which new beings and situations emerge from contested processes of becoming to

constantlyreformandreshapetheconstitutionofthenorminanunstoppableprocess

ofwhatCowenandShentonmightrefertoasimmanentdevelopment.

From an ontological perpective of being, however we see an utterly different world

beforeus.Thisistheworldnotofemergenceandever-becoming,butaworldinwhich

effortsofreasonandconscience,ofpoliticsandoflawattempttogroundthemomentofemergence inthe termsof the norm,to founda spaceof social and political stability

throughthecalculationsofmindandtheapplicationoftechnologiesofgovernment.This

isanontologythatunderstandsbeingascoherent,indivisibleandbounded,ofdivisions

betweeninsideandoutside,ofusandthem,ofnormsetinrelationtoexception.Itisthe

realm, asCowenand Shentononce againmightput it, of intentionaldevelopment, of

sovereigntyandterritoryandthegovernmentofthings.

Itisalsothesourceoftheontologyofemergency,whichestablishesastateofexception

incontrasttothenorm.Thisistheprocessbywhichbeingseekstosecureitselfagainst

thedangerouslycontingentbecomingofemergentlife,whichthreatenstooverwhelmit

andmobilizesalltheresourcesatitsdisposaltoregulateandmanagetheexcessivelife

force which confronts it, even those which are exceptional themselves. As such, it

represents awayof conceiving existence that inevitably parses the fluxof becoming,

establishingboundariesofnormandotherinanefforttosecuretheeligiblelifeofthe

normativeorderagainstthedangerous-becomingofemergentlifewhichiscastinthe

termsofexception.Theemergencyisthatnewformoflifewhichemergesinexception

tothenorm,andwhichthenormmusteithernormalizeandbringtoorder,orbound

andcontainandabandontoitselfinaplacewhereitcandonoharm.

Emergency thinking, then, represents a manifestation of the ontology of being. It is

rationalityforgoverninglifeitself,intheinterestsoflifeitself,butwhichstillpossesses

thepowerfulpotentialtoboundparticularsituationsandformsoflifeasexceptional.As

such, it is another face of the sovereign power expounded by Agamben, that which

decidestherighttotakelifeorletlive.Butthisaspectofthepoweroftheexceptionmay


6/10


betterbeconceived,inFoucaultstermsasthebiopoliticalpowertomakeliveorletdie.

Itisthepowerofmedicine,ofpublichealth,of socialplanning,itisthepowerthrough

whichhumanitariansandemergencymanagers,whetherwithinthestateorwithoutit,

assume to themselves the authority and the right to identify and declare states of

emergency.

Itisperhapsnot necessary here togivean overviewof thewaythat thisontologyof

emergency,thisbiopoliticalontologyofbeingthatunderstandstheemergenceofnew

forms of life as permanent potential emergency, informs and shapes contemporary

humanitarian practice and the political effects that this produces. Writers likeMark

DuffieldandJennyEdkinshavedonethissomejusticeinrecentyearsandspacedoes

notallowit.IwillperhapsraiseafewpertinentissuesthatrelatetoafactorthatDuffieldhashighlightedasbeingparticularlysignificantinrecentyears,andthatisthenotionof

humansecurity.

Firstly,Ithinkitisfairtosaythathumansecuritythinkinghasplayedaverysignificant

roleinproblematizingtheentiretyofthehumanconditioninthetermsofemergency.

The discourse and policy of human security elevates the issue of the contingency of

humanexistencetoacentralplaceinthepoliticalcalculationsofliberalhumanismina

manner that effectively securitizes the human simultaneously at the level of the

individual and species. By bringing together violence, human rights abuse, poverty,

underdevelopment,governanceandmoreunderasinglerubric,theemergentnatureof

humanbeingitselfisconstruedasradicallycontingent,asanemergencytobemanaged

at all scales simultaneously, bringing thepermanent emergencyof contingent human

becomingtofruitionintheideaofhumansecurity.Thelifeofthehumanspecies,ofeach

and all,becomes the governmentalpreserve ofthosewhowouldsecure it againstall

threats,eventhosethatemergefromtheemergenceoflifeitself.

But this isnoneutral project.While the dictatesofhumanitarianism state that relief

must be provided on the basis of need alone, and emergency needs are determined

throughostensiblyapoliticaltechniquesofcountingandcalculatingandapportioningin

the interestsofthebestpossibleoutcomeforeach and all, noneofthese practices is

neutral. Each derives from and is sustained by the very ontology of emergency that

determinesthedistinctionbetweentheexceptionandthenorminthefirstplace,which

seeks toestablish the normwherever they lay theirhumanitarian gaze.Each carries

withitthedeeplybiasedlegacyofanepistemethatestablishestheboundsofeligible


7/10


andworthy life and judges the nature ofthepolitical system thatproducesitsother.

While,asMichaelBarnettusefullyremindedus,therearemultiplehumanitarianismsat

playintheworld,andalwayshavebeen,eachdefinesandcalculatesitsresponseand

mobilizesitsoperationsinlinewithaparticularrationalityofgovernment,whichhasat

itsheartaparticularunderstandingofthenatureoftherelationbetweenthenormand

theexception.Eachoperateswithaparticularviewofthenormativeendinmind,evenif

eachoperateswiththeavowedlyuniversalobjectofhumansufferingasitstarget,andin

striving to secure the human in its own particularmanner, in striving to secure its

particularnormativevisionitboundstherealityoflifeinallitsbecominginanattempt

tosecureandproducethenormofbeing.Assuch,eachactsinamannerthatdefinesthe

boundary of a distinctly political community, and I would vouch that even when

humanitarians seek to retreat to the supposed purity of humanitarian principles, itremainsimpossibletoescapethegravitationalfieldofemergencypolitics.

Aswewellknow,themajorhegemonicforceinthehumanitariansector,theforcewhich

definesbyandlargethetermsoftheontologyofemergency,andwhichhasdefinedand

operationalisedhumansecuritythinkingisthatofliberalhumanismwithitsidealsof

liberal capitalist democracy. And it is these ideals that, if not explicitly, at least

ontologicallyand epistemologicallyunderpin thevastmajorityof humanitarianpolicy

andpractice,bothasitisdeterminedbystatesandintergovernmentalorganizationsas

well as NGOs. We well know many of the problems associated with this mode of

governmentalrationalityinseekingoutpositivehumanitarianoutcomes,buttwoareof

particularimportance,disciplineanddepoliticisation.

TheproblemofdisciplinehasbeenwellexaminedbywriterssuchasJennyHyndman,

JennyEdkinsandLiisaMalkkiwithreferencetorefugeescampsinparticular,butmore

generally discussed in a wide ranging literature that describes the manner inwhich

humanitarian interventions, even in their most apparently innocuous and technical

programmes serve todisciplineemergency-affectedpopulations,bringingthem inline

with a determined norm but using the objectives of emergency relief and human

securityastheirjustification.MarkDuffieldhashighlightedinparticularthetendencyof

humanitarian programmes informed by development methodology to promote and

inculcate modes of practice which emphasise personal responsibility and individual

copingstrategiesinthefaceofdisasteroverbroaderprogrammesofsocialinsurance,

therebydiscipliningpopulationsintothemodusoperandioftheliberalcapitalistmarket

place.SimilarlymyownresearchinnorthernUgandaexposedthemannerinwhichthe


8/10


implementation of water delivery programmes in IDP camps reinforced neoliberal

economic policies that emphasized principles of demand management, cost-recovery

andcommunitymanagementofwater resourcesin a situation that could notsupport

such an approach. As Michael Dillon has put it, hidden behind the apparently pure

operationality of technologised intervention for the securing of human life, lies a

particularmodeofgovernmentalitythatisdeeplyandinescapablypolitical.

Yet this political undercurrent is generally disavowed, obscured by the apparently

common sense necessity of saving human life and defending human rights from the

threatofemergency,andbycleavingtotheapparentlyrationalandempiricalcertainties

of technical expertiseandcodes ofbestpractice,statisticalassessmentsandminutely

planned and engineered solutions. Thus, on the one hand, humanitarian actionoperating fromwithinthe liberalhumanistontologyof emergencydepoliticizes itself,

wearingdiscoursesofcommonsenseactionandnecessity,thehumanitarianimperative

andthesuretyofempiricismasfigleavestohideitsshamefulpoliticalnature.Onthe

otherhand,italsooftenservestodepoliticiseitsobject,theemergencyitself,inmuch

the same manner, reducing complex situations of political turmoil into technical

problems of facilitating human survival, obscuring the deeply historical and

contemporaryprocessofunevendevelopmentthatnotonlystructurethevulnerability

ofindividuals,householdsandpopulationstoshocks,butwhichfeedtheprocessesof

conflict, resource degradation and labour exploitation that produce situations of

emergencyinthefirstplace,orrenderingmomentsofpurelypoliticalbecomingsuchas

spontaneouspoliticalrevolutionsorthearmeduprisingsofinsurgentgroupseitherinto

criminalmomentsofaberrantandintolerableexceptiondeservingoferadication,oras

opportunities for the application of liberal humanist discipline through military

humanitarianintervention,peacebuildingandstatereconstruction.Indoingso,liberal

approachestohumanitarianactionservetorenderemergentformsoflifeasliberalisms

other,asexceptionstobenormalizedthroughdisciplineorabandonment.

Thediscourse,policyandpracticeofhumansecuritythusexhibitsthetwokeyissues

thatIidentifiedatthebeginningofthepaperasthekeyproblematicsoftheontologyof

emergency, for on the one hand human security doctrine not only transforms the

entiretyofhumanbeingintoapotentialemergency,therebynormalizingemergencyas

a state of being. In this respect it reflects the manner in which the norm of being

confrontstheemergent life forceofbecoming, rendering itexceptionalanddangerous

andgeneralizingthestateofemergencyacrosstheentiretyoflifeitselfandproducinga


9/10


zoneofindistinctionbetweenbeingandbecoming,normandexception,emergencyand

emergence.

So,hereinliesthefinalparadox.Byseekingtosecuretheintegrityofhumanbeinginthe

face of lifes becoming the declaration of emergency across the field of life itself

produces its own dissolution by precipitating a zone of indistinction in which the

boundariesofnormandexceptioncollapse,whichisjustasNietzscheprojected.Beings

encounter with becoming precipitates, inevitably, beings dissolution, for it cannot

secureitselfindefinitelyagainsttherisingtideofhistory.

Twenty yearsago Francis Fukuyamadeclared the end of history as it appeared that

liberalcapitalistdemocracyhadtriumphed,usheringinerainwhichthetenetsofliberalhumanismwould prevail across all of the peoples of the world, and in doing so he

exposed the political ambitions that lie behind the liberal humanist ontology of

emergency tobring anend tohistoryitself, when the field ofthepolitical isswept

cleanandreformedinitsownimage.Fukuyama,itturnsout,wassomewhatpremature.

Properlypoliticalmomentsstilloccurandtheyoftendonotappeartobepalatablefrom

aliberalhumanistperspective.Theyemerge,oftenatthemarginsasexcessiveforcesof

becomingaswilltopower,newlyemergentlifeformsthataremoreoftenthannotcast

inthetermsofemergency,asexceptionsthatmustbenormalizedorneutralized,forthe

centermusthold.

Yetitcanonlyholdforsolong.TransformationmustoccurandaccordingtoNietzsche,

theinevitableendofbeingseffortstoholdthecenterinthefaceofbecomingisnihilism

asbeinglosessenseofitsselfanditsplaceintheworld.Buttheanswer,Iwouldsuggest

tocombatthis,isnottoholdonmorefirmly,itisnottoidentify,planforandrespondto

aneverproliferatingarrayofemergenciesthatassaultthenormofourbeing.Rather,we

needtothinkthroughthisaporiafromapersectiveofradicalbecomingthatdoesnot

codifycontingencyasanemergency,butwhichisabletotakeintoaccountandrespond

tohuman suffering and the danger ofmodernity through a politics of solidarity and

cosmopolitanismthatexceedsthestateandothermodesofgovernment.

Inmany respects the humanitarian movement has begun this project, yet there are

manyproblemswiththeontologyofemergencythatismobilizedbyitparticularlyin

itsfailuretoreimaginethepoliticalseriouslyinamannerthatisbothfullyreflexivein

itsunderstandinginthepoliticsofhumanitarianismandwhichcanthenalignitselffully


10/10


with a liberatory trajectory that truly exceeds statebased, liberal politics and which

fully empowers people without operating from within a neo-liberal politics of

paternalism, that envisages human life as a true becoming-together which actually

embraces thepotentially becoming-dangerous of emergent life andof political life in

particular.

This is not a call to ignore the urgency of human suffering or the need to provide

sanctuaryandsuccorquitetheoppositeitisacallforahumanitarianpoliticsbeyond

emergencyordevelopmentahumanitarianpoliticsofemergencethatdoesnotreduce

political revolutions to depoliticized moments of technical salvation of a population

renderedasaflockinneedofagoodshepherd

Ends

SA

Documents

Between Emergency and Emergence