Ssorin-Chaikov, N. (2018) Hybrid Peace. Etnographies of War

AN47CH16_Ssorin-Chaikov ARI 4 September 2018 14:18
Annual Review of Anthropology
Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies

of War
Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:251-262. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by Universidad de Tarapaca on 11/03/18. For personal use only.
Department of History, National Research University Higher School of Economics in Saint

Petersburg, Saint Petersburg 198099, Russia; email: nssorinchaikov@hse.ru
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018. 47:251–62 Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on hybrid peace, ethnography of war, nomos, partisan
July 30, 2018
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article reviews recent ethnographies of war that shed light on intercon-
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317- nected states of security at home, international military interventions, and
050139
hybrid or rhizomic warfare doctrines. I suggest the notion of hybrid peace
Copyright c 2018 by Annual Reviews. to explore global implications of these ethnographic perspectives and to ask
All rights reserved
what it means to inhabit spaces that are constituted by such hybrid warfare.
I argue for the usefulness of Schmitt’s “nomos of the earth” and his theory
of the partisan to conceptualize this condition and bring together different
approaches to warfare.
251
Mir (Rus.): (1) world; (2) peace.
—Ozhegov Russian Dictionary
INTRODUCTION
“Categories of warfare are blurring and no longer fit into neat, tidy boxes,” admits Robert M. Gates
(2009), the US Secretary of Defense from 2006 to 2011; rather, “[o]ne can expect to see more
tools and tactics of destruction . . . being employed simultaneously in hybrid and more complex
forms of warfare.” The term hybrid war gained currency in the early 2000s in discussions of
the US military strategy in new geopolitical conditions. It implies a mixture of conventional and
irregular (guerrilla) tactics, state and nonstate military actors, legality and illegality in terms of
international law, and “physical and conceptual dimensions” (McCuen 2008, p. 108) extending
to media and cyberspace. The term is controversial—and so is the timing of these discussions
that, as many note, cover military and political failure. “Hybridity” is a state of mixture that
presumes, as the anthropology of identity has demonstrated, a historical narrative of pure origin.
What makes these strategy discussions interesting from this point of view is that hybridity marks
a description of the enemy rather than a self-description. The US military sources prefer to focus
on hybrid threats and adversaries, such as those the United States faced in Iraq and Afghanistan,
those faced by Israel in Palestine, and those faced by Russia in Chechnya. In response, the US
Marine Corps may be developing a “hybrid warrior” training program (Cuomo & Donlon 2008),
but the US Department of Defense does not (at least publicly) describe its own strategy as hybrid.
In turn, Russia has been widely seen as engaged in a variety of hybrid wars from military action
in Eastern Ukraine to cyberattacks in the United States. But its government denies involvement
in these actions. Writing for the Russian-language Foreign Military Review (Zarubezhnoe Voennoe
Obozrenie), Colonel S. Klimenko (2015) argues that while accusing Russia of using hybrid warfare,
NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) has in fact been developing its own hybrid
military strategies over the last 20 years.
Such denials are of course part of this very strategy as it is defined in these military and
geopolitical reflections. Hybrid war is unlikely to be openly declared. Its doctrines have emerged in
the shadow of a declared war: the War on Terror, military operations for which have foundational
dates, e.g., the invasions of Afghanistan (in 2001) and Iraq (in 2003). But the hybrid war came
to the fore precisely when it became clear that the War on Terror had neither a foreseeable end
nor clear territorial boundaries (Kilcullen 2009). In many ways, the concept of hybrid war fits
a longer-term global trend of the nuclear arms age in which open interstate military conflicts
have given way to proxy wars, civil wars, counterinsurgency operations, and other forms of state-
induced violence (cf. Armitage 2017, Scheper-Hughes & Bourgois 2003, Waterston 2008, but see
Kwon 2010). A “short twentieth century” between 1914 and 1991 (Hobsbawm 1994) has given
rise to the imagination of global revolutionary war and global class war that is quite on par with
today’s point of disappearance of “the very possibility of distinguishing a war between states and
an internecine war” (Agamben 2015, p. 1).
Yet, post-9/11 warfare is distinct not just as an unprecedented globalization of US domestic
security. First, it has already become a convenient means of new and competitive reassertions of
state sovereignty beyond state borders. The post–Cold War world from this point of view consti-
tutes not so much a global empire in the sense of Hardt & Negri (2000) but a multitude of imperial
interventions of different scale and different kind—visible, for example, in the multilayered inter-
national involvement in Syria. If the twenty-first-century wars started as an exercise of sovereignty
through the state of exception (Agamben 2005), it has since generated a normalized extralegality
that requires a rethinking of this Agamben-inspired theory. Second, and equally important, hybrid
252 Ssorin-Chaikov
war that has proliferated in this context seems to make unfinalizable the very distinction between
the state of war and its opposite, i.e., peace. In this article, I suggest a notion of hybrid peace to ask
what it means to inhabit a world in which war is not quite war but also peace is not quite peace.
I argue that this emergent hybrid peace requires new languages of ethnographic description. My
goal in this review is to indicate some contours of this language.
In what follows, I take my cue from the spatial connotation of the term “peace” in Russian: the
word mir, which is defined as “world” as well as “peace.” I think of this space/peace as “nomos” in
the sense of Schmitt (2006). “Nomos” is a set of foundational divisions, territorial and categorical,
that make up a unity of “order and orientation”: It is from classical Greek nemein, which means
both “to divide” and “to pasture” (Schmitt 2006, pp. 69, 72). It is the ruler in a double meaning
of the one who rules and a measuring device. Nomos refers to the constitutive, and often violent,
land enclosure in the establishment of a city or colony. Schmitt develops this concept to describe
historically changing figurations of international law.
Here I look at warfare as a practice that constitutes hybrid peace as a nomos. In doing so, I think
through the differences between the analytic of the state of exception, which Agamben also takes
from Schmitt, and Schmitt’s The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum
Europaeum. I consider the latter as interlinked with his Theory of the Partisan (Schmitt 2007). Both
works focus on the historical, and in particular modern imperial foundations of European public
law, as well as on the end point of this legal tradition in the figure of the partisan grounded in
the impossibility of a clear distinction between war and peace, enemies and criminals, and soldiers
and civilians.
I begin first with a note on the nomos of the contemporary war ethnographies. At the be-
ginning of his field research on kamajor, a progovernment militia in Sierra Leone and Liberia,
Hoffman (2003) stressed that “frontline ethnography” requires academically frontline combina-
tions of critical theory and practice with rigorously negotiated institutional arrangements with
universities and funding bodies. It is important that the field of the ethnographies of war has
been so far delimited by core case studies written mostly by US-based anthropologists [although
below I also discuss the work of Israeli architect Weizman (2007)]. Now if you come from the
United States, institutionally and ethically, the arrangements for which Hoffman argues are not
possible in all geopolitical locations. For example, what kind of theory and practice and which
countries’ universities and funding bodies might provide an institutional assemblage for frontline
ethnography in Syria (Can 2017; cf. Robben 2011)? How might this assemblage appear, for not
just US or West European anthropology but also Turkish, Iranian, or Russian anthropology?
Substantial ethnographic research into contemporary warfare is only starting in Russia, and I do
not read relevant languages to assess what happens in Turkey and Iran. What follows then is a very
situated discussion of Western English-language scholarship that emerges out of very particular
ethnographic locations and constitutes in turn a very particular nomos of knowledge. I am not
suggesting at all that such knowledge is involved in Schmittean ruling and measuring the conflicts
in questions in any applied sense. In fact, most of the ethnographies in focus here are critical
explorations of the US geopolitics and security state, including attempts by the US military to
embed anthropologists in its frontline operations (González 2009, Roberto 2008). My point is
simply that their very situatedness is an imprint of a broader political and spatial order just as the
hybrid peace appears as an imprint of the hybrid war.
SPACE
In his book Drone: Remote Control Warfare, Gusterson (2016) argues that the use of remote-control
aircraft marks a war paradigm shift for the United States. It allows one to conduct war practically
www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 253

without US casualties and extend conflict to countries such as Pakistan or Yemen, with which
the United States is not formally at war. Drones deliver war globally and require a global support
network to operate it: “The people with their hands on the controls are the tip of a spear that extends
from ground crews in Middle Eastern deserts to generals and lawyers in air-conditioned control
rooms in the United States” (Gusterson 2016, p. 21). Drone warfare scrambles the distinction
between declared war and covert assassination, making it possible to escalate war abroad without
much public notice and scrutiny at home. It constitutes an interrelated yet blatantly asymmetrical
hybrid peace—the one that is strikingly different for targets of a drone missile, which routinely
include civilians and not just insurgent suspects, and for a drone pilot, a computer operator acting
from a safe homeland base rather than a frontline soldier or even a sniper, who, as Schmitt (2007,
pp. 51–52) points out, was initially rendered an illegal combatant to be treated according to martial
law when it first appeared in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871.
This global space is interlinked with the conceptualization of time. Gusterson’s focus on the
military and technological novelty sheds light on futurity as a state of permanent war abroad in the
name of peace at home. Masco (2014) explores contemporary US counterterror temporalities that
aim to shield the homeland from anticipated future risks. The future is war that is to be avoided.
It is a nonevent, constitutive of technosocial and expert infrastructures that are intended to coat
it. This is peace, which is nonetheless a theater of operations dealing with a series of threats, from
terrorist to nuclear and biological. The ethnographic focus here is on new security configurations
that invest in resilient infrastructure immune to disruption. It is this infrastructural emphasis that
has a longer genealogy in the worst-case scenarios of nuclear war that stressed the continuity of
systems over populations and in the permanent war condition in place continuously since the US
National Security Act of 1947, which combined peacetime military spending and a permanent war
footing (Lutz 2002, 2009).
THEORIES OF WAR AND SECURITY

If this scholarship charts global extensions of US security concerns, how is this assemblage of
security and war theorized? Reyna (2016) draws on a Marxist structuralist view of global socioeco-
nomic inequalities and contradictions. He makes a case both for the globalization of US warfare
and for its imperial character from the early beginnings of the United States since its independence
in 1783. But he focuses in detail on the period from 1945 to 2014. The most recent decades are
described in terms of the “situational fixation” on oil and terror (Reyna 2016, p. 309). For instance,
the US war in Afghanistan was an attempt to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda, where they formed
from elements of the US-supported anti-Soviet mujahideen movement. But, for Reyna, it is also
part of the “scramble” for Caspian oil that started in the 1990s. Because this area was landlocked,
“Central Asian [oil] wars have actually been fought outside the Caspian Basin in areas suitable for
pipelines,” namely in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as Kosovo (Reyna 2016, p. 412).
Force is a central category in Reyna’s approach. But it is a complex construct because its use
is simultaneously the mark of a given system’s expansion and entropy. Elites’ structural disposi-
tions produce délire—a constitutive anxiety that leads to violent action where and when, for this
elite, “peace fails” but which in turn does not resolve but exacerbates socioeconomic and political
contradictions. In Afghanistan, despite changing tactics and deploying new military technologies,
including drones, the US military intervention failed on both oil and counterterror fronts (Reyna
2016, pp. 419–23). It is such a failure that engenders what Besteman (2017) terms a “security em-
pire”: the “imposition” of multiple security regimes, in Somalia as her case in point, that are man-
aged from the outside. These security regimes are constituted through the imperial logic of the US
domestic concerns but with unintended consequences. She argues that it was the US foreign policy
254 Ssorin-Chaikov
toward Somalia after 9/11 that enabled the emergence of Al Shabaab as an effective anti-Western
terrorist group (Besteman 2017, p. 411). This action, in turn, made suspect, and thus vulnerable,
Somalian refugees in the United States. In short, the incoherence and multiplicity of these security
regimes are, in fact, generative of the opposite: “spaces of uncertainty, fear and violence” (p. 405).
This view stems from Foucault’s (2003) understanding of the foundational role of security
for the modern biopolitical state. If Reyna focuses on security elites as agents who decide on
going to war, this perspective is about governance regimes over various populations that are
continuous across “multiple and often interlocking spatial scales” that branch out from body,
family, neighborhood, city, and region to the national and the global and, in turn, generating
these spatial scales themselves (Glück & Low 2017, p. 285). There is a homology between these
spaces and scales, but it is relative. This perspective does not constitute a “Russian doll model of
a fixed and nested hierarchy” but one of criss-crossing flows, linkages, and horizontal networks
(p. 285; see also Fawaz & Bou Akar 2012, Goldstein et al. 2010). It is also hierarchical; its relatively
homologous base is to ensure, however improbably, that there is no violence, whereas its top is
to ensure that it can exercise violence. We see a Weberian monopoly of legitimate violence
distributed unevenly in these spaces—hence the concept of “empire” in the singular rather than
that of multiple “empires.” A military isomorphism developed along these spatial scales (Pretorius
2008) in what one may call security metrology, but of course it is not for all kinds of arms. A
relative homology may blur the distinction between domestic and international states of security,
but other distinctions are clear: There are constitutive acts of warfare that some agents, such as
Reyna’s elites, can legitimately do and that others cannot and should not.
Hardt & Negri (2000) identify the Christian concept of the just war in the face of the enemy
that represents a moral as well as a military threat as underpinning this monopoly of violence. But
it is Agamben (2005) who had been influential in linking these forms of governance and specific
means of warfare. Drawing on Schmitt’s Political Theology, he highlighted the extralegality as a
conceptual foundation of sovereignty, making it possible to address ethnographically the new
reality of war, e.g., the unaccountability of its brutality, subcontacting, violations of human rights,
use of foreign territories for prisons and violent interrogation, etc.
This approach has been useful for understanding the beginning of the War on Terror. But
both this war’s duration and its geopolitical effects—some revealed by the ethnographies of war
that I discuss here and some that are still to be explored—challenge the analytic developed by
Agamben.
First, this perspective assumes a singularity of the concept of sovereignty. Here, the work of
Asad (2007) on suicide bombing is suggestive of alternative views of sovereignty as well as of dangers
of reading such alterity through a Euro-American lens, whether Orientalist or Agamben-inspired.
Not all contemporary forms of citizenship are grounded in the distinction of zōē and bios—of
bare or “natural” life versus “full” or “good” life. Not all contemporary forms of sovereignty have
a legalistic foundation—specifically, the Roman law to which the state of emergency is a state
of exception. Kalinin argues that the contemporary language of the Russian state is Bakhtinian
as it draws on the notion of the outside that is nonfinalizable and thus unaccountable but not
exceptional. He exemplifies this concept of the nonfinalizable with a statement of Russia’s Minister
of Defense Sergey Shoigu about the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine: “It’s very
difficult to look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if there’s not any cat. And it’s . . . stupid
to look for a cat [there], if the cat is smart, bold and polite” (Kalinin 2017, p. 5). This statement
simultaneously denies and admits, jokes and does not joke. The phrase “polite people” has become
a euphemism for Russian troops in Crimea during its 2014 annexation.
Second, in the hybrid peace that has emerged as a result of this warfare and global security
regimes, these different forms of sovereignty are mutually constituted. The argument that

Besteman (2017) makes with regard to Al Shabaab in Somalia as engendered by US foreign policy
is applicable to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The comment by Sergey
Shoigu that Kalinin discusses is intended for a domestic audience. But if it implies at all the issue
of international legitimacy of recent military interventions, it is only to question who exactly is the
sovereign who decides on exceptions. In turn, Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical statements beginning
with those from his speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference consistently called into
question the legitimacy of Western interventions from Kosovo to Iraq and Libya. But he also used
these interventions to shape his own idiom of Russian sovereignty and its zone of influence (Russkii
mir)—and not just to take Western interventions as a mark of a “new normalcy,” to borrow a 2001
phrase from US Vice President Dick Cheney, and not just to assert that the “theater of operations”
that this “new” normalcy inaugurates (Masco 2014, pp. 7–8) is not a single-actor stage, but also
to ground it in the narrative of the “old” normalcy of the Soviet and Russian imperial legacies.
Third, the ethnography of war that I have discussed has raised doubts about whether this view
of sovereignty is not contingent on “Schmittean politics” in which both sovereignty and security
are territorially bound. Masco makes this point by drawing on the political philosopher Carlo
Galli:
Globalization is the epoch in which the State no longer protects its citizens from external turbulence.
The principle of protego ergo obligo (“protection, therefore obedience”) was the load-bearing column
of modern politics, but in the global age, anything can happen anywhere, at any moment, precisely
because the State no longer filters disorder from the external environment (terrorist acts, migratory
flows, the movement of capital) and is no longer capable of transforming it into internal peace. (Galli
2010, p. 158, cited in Masco 2014, pp. 35–36).
Yet even if the state’s goal remains this filtering of disorder, this simply cannot be achieved by
a global extension of domestic security. As Gusterson (2016) demonstrates, drone warfare and
global surveillance technologies, while creating a global panoptic space, are not accompanied by
a territorial rule aimed at transforming this gaze into disciplinary power. These technologies of
global vision are deployed to guard security within select red lines and to do so by pointed and
“nomadic” interventions (see below).
However, the recent shape of the “external environment” to which Galli refers is not simply
global. It constitutes distinct territorial patterns of sources of danger and targets of military in-
terventions. For instance, Reyna grounds the decision of US security elites to go to war in what
he calls “Shultzian Permission.” This principle takes its cue from US Secretary of State George
Shultz’s comments about one of the occasions when the Reagan administration resorted to vi-
olence: “If nothing else worked, the use of [military] force was necessary” (Reyna 2016, p. 45).
War is a certain time when politics fails. However, this is not just time but also space. George
Shultz’s case in point was not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) but Grenada and
Panama. Politics has not (as yet) failed in the relations between nuclear powers and in relations
between nuclear powers and strong nonnuclear states, such as Turkey. The United States does
not conduct undeclared drone warfare against Russia or China. There are places, however, where
one can afford to have politics fail and where one can also afford significant enemy casualties while
reducing one’s own to a minimum. This worldview is entrenched geopolitically as well as cultur-
ally and assumes a hierarchical division of spaces and populations. It was this that Schmitt (2006)
has put as nomos: order that constitutes order, an ordo ordinans or “order of ordering” (p. 78). In
other words, I argue that the analytical purchase of a “Schmittean politics” looks different if it
does not privilege Schmitt’s Political Theology and The Concept of the Political but incorporates his
other writing as well.
256 Ssorin-Chaikov
NOMOS OF THE EARTH

Nomos is “the immediate form in which the political and social order of a people becomes spatially
visible” (Schmitt 2006, p. 71). Nomos originates in the initial, constitutive act of land appropriation
in the territorial organization of Greek city-states; by implication, the “nomos of the Earth” is
constituted by the European colonial expansion. In contrast to Schmitt’s own argument in his
Political Theology, it is not about a particular state form but about a global vision that is “open and
fluid”: “[N]ew age and every new epoch in the coexistence of peoples, empires, and countries, of
rulers and power formations of every sort, is founded on new spatial divisions, new enclosures,
and new spatial orders of the earth” (Schmitt 2006, pp. 71, 78–79).
What is especially relevant for my reading here is the way Schmitt complements global lines
and treaties of possession with the concept of “amity lines.” These have to do with the nomos of
what was permissible: “Spaniards occasionally asserted that otherwise valid treaties did not hold
in ‘India,’ because this was a ‘new world’”; “Cardinal Richelieu made a declaration . . . according
to which French seafarers were forbidden to attack Spanish and Portuguese ships on this side
of the Tropic of Cancer, but were given liberty to do so beyond this line, if the Spanish and
Portuguese refuse them free access to their Indian and American possessions” (Schmitt 2006,
p. 93). These lines established the division between locations for direct colonial land appropriation
and those locations for which European states could only agree on “the freedom of the open spaces
that began ‘beyond the line’” (p. 94). This nomos emerges as foundational for areas of freedom
not just for trade but also for war. In turn, war here is not so much a continuation of politics
by other means as it is of economy. It was the “other” of the “old world” in terms of morality
and violence, regimes of property and sexuality, etc., including the very distinctions between
human and nonhuman that have underpinned the concept of race. The making of Westphalian
sovereignty was accompanied and in fact conditioned, from this point of view, by both colonial
land appropriation and the freedom of piracy and trade allocated to the sea beyond the amity lines.
Unlike the studies of “security empire,” discussed above, that project globally a Euro-American
idiom of governance in its either Foucauldian or Agamben-inspired rendition, Schmitt’s Nomos of
the Earth and its sequel, Theory of the Partisan, give equal weight to colonial and Westphalian theory
and to Leninist and Maoist political theory, which have their own views of revolutionary legality
and legitimate violence (see also Burbank 1995). Yet differences of this colonial order and more re-
cent global configurations notwithstanding, the legacies of the colonial nomos are visible in Kwon’s
(2010) observation that the Cold War itself was “cold” (peace) for some and “hot” (war) for others.
There is an emergence of interest in the use of social media and cyberwarfare in contemporary
conflicts. In this research, virtual space is a metaphor for the global space that is homogenous or
at least accessible across older imperial or Cold War borders. For example, Patrikarakos (2017)
describes how power balance can be shifted to digitally connected individuals and networks that can
powerfully intervene in, if not completely disrupt, the above-mentioned global military hierarchies.
Kuntsman & Stein (2015) point out that Israel’s military occupation of Palestine has already taken
a digital form. But my point is that these individual or state projects themselves occur in the context
of what Bratton (2015) calls “software sovereignty,” which is rooted in cloud or platform nomoi
and which in turn repeat familiar colonial and Cold War contours.
Beyond this overall topography of warfare and danger, I find the notions of nomos and amity
lines useful for understanding in detail something specific and nonvirtual: nodes on the world
map as sites of the ethnography of “garrison–entrepôt” (Roitman 2005). Entrepôt is akin to “duty
free”; it is a trading post for resale and reshipment of commodities in a port’s harbor but outside
its land market base. Entrepôts flourished in the early colonial spice trade and piracy. In Schmitt’s
terms, these could be seen as nods of amity lines connecting them to what is “beyond the line,”
i.e., the spaces of war and piracy.

Roitman uses this notion to describe something that happens on land rather than at sea—
specifically, in the Chad River basin. In the aftermath of the civil war in Chad and its 1992
military demobilization program, the decommissioned soldiers “recycled” themselves into small
arms markets and bush bases, incorporating various other under- and simply unpaid soldiers
and the unemployed from Cameroon, Nigeria, Niger, the Central African Republic, Sudan, etc.
Border regions and the outskirts of towns, “speckled with encampments and depots serving as
warehouses, or bulking and diffusion points,” became pools for mercenaries as well as cover for
customs officials and financial regulators (Roitman 2005, p. 418). Out of these posts, trade was
conducted in combination with taxation and extortion, including hijacking cars, attacking road
convoys, and poaching ivory and rhinoceros horns (pp. 418, 427).
WAR MACHINES
Hoffman draws on Roitman in elaborating his own ethnographic prospective on “war machines”
that extend across borders between Liberia and Sierra Leone, while using the borders as “be-
yond the line” bases. This region’s civil wars, continuous from 1989, changing forms of rule
and involving international military as well as this region’s place in the global economy—in di-
amond mining in particular—have generated extensive anthropological scholarship. The result
is warfare’s “thick description” composed of cases of the military and the paramilitary, soldiers’
wives, child soldiers, links with different state apparatuses, political party projects, and patronage
networks (Bolten 2012, Coulter 2015, Ferme 2001, Keen 2005, Murphy 2003). However, the an-
alytical purchase of this literature, which is diverse in focus and in theoretical orientation, is much
broader than regional. It resonates with Lubkemann’s (2010) argument that war is not an event,
however long, which suspends social processes, but is itself fundamentally constitutive of sociality
visible throughout conflict and also surviving it. He demonstrates this point in an ethnohistory
of the civil war in Mozambique (1978–1992) that charts wartime family relations, daily politics,
and ritual. In turn, this work echoes literature that explores socially constitutive and/or trans-
formative effects of the “normalities” of the wartime and postwar everyday elsewhere (e.g., Beck
2012, Finnström 2008, Hermez 2012, Judd 2006, Maček 2009, Ochs 2011, Pettigrew 2013, Rosen
2007).
What Hoffman charts is not merely a normalized wartime state of society but the emergence of
a particular kind of state out of grassroots community defense organizations. Deleuze & Guattari
(1987, p. 386) argue that the stateless “war machine” is “revived” in the “insubordination, rioting,
guerrilla warfare, or revolution as an event” and other operations against the state. Drawing on
this argument, Hoffman looks at a converse process: at how such a war machine morphs into
progovernment militia and is further captured into state political and military organs. Guerrilla
warfare is blended with state making and with labor and market relations in the informal economy
from urban elite housing to diamond mining, the outcome being a simultaneous militarization and
economization of social networks of young men in this region. As Hoffman (2011b) puts it, here
“nothing was outside . . . [multiple] possibilities of exchange” (p. 230). One of the locations where
this multiple exchange is happening, a Freetown hotel, becomes a “striated space for a network
of armed criminal gangs and the labor pool of the new, British-trained [volunteer] army” (p. 67).
The focus here is on the state, military, and economic formations: This “just-in-time” economy of
violence (Hoffman 2011a) supports Hardt & Negri’s (2000) and Reyna’s (2016) political economy
perspectives on global warfare.
If here Deleuze & Guattari provide an analytical frame for understanding warfare, Weizman’s
research into the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) demonstrates an example of tactical doctrine that is
explicitly Deleuzian. Weizman (2007) explores changing configurations of face-to-face combat.
258 Ssorin-Chaikov
This work is an ethnography of the “nonlinear” or “rhizomic” warfare doctrine of a regular army
whose commanders elaborated it with explicit references to Deleuze and Guattari. In the West
Bank in 2002, soldiers avoided using the streets and courtyards that define the architectural logic
of movement through the city, as well as the external doors, stairwells, and windows that constitute
the architectural order of buildings. They were instead “walking through walls,” punching holes
through these buildings’ walls, ceilings, and floors and moving across them. This practice made
prime combat zones out of the bedrooms and living rooms of these settlements’ inhabitants. In
turn, these rooms were interlinked in rhizomic pathways within these buildings’ domestic interiors,
hollowed out of the contiguous city fabric. The goal of this tactic was to counter a guerrilla warfare
that combined the use of high-tech weapons with those of the civilian population as shields and
which, as the IDF strategists put it, involved a virtually instant transfiguration of a civilian into a
militant.
Weizman argues that these forms of warfare constitute new forms of sovereignty in which
agreed political borders do not matter as much as the blurred distinctions between withdrawal
and presence—and, I would add, the state of war and peace as well as the distinctions between
military operation spaces and domestic and private ones. Thus, in this regard, Weizman’s very
distinct ethnographic context of war nonetheless resonates with that of Gusterson in the outline
of the not merely historically shifting but nomadic relationship of sovereignty and warfare.
THE IRREGULAR AND THE PARTISAN

In this review, I have argued that Schmitt’s categories of the nomos and amity lines provide a
useful lens through which to read some of the current ethnographies of war. My goal has been to
interlink them in thinking about contemporary warfare as a practice where a new nomos of the
earth, the hybrid peace, is visible. In following Schmitt’s definition of nomos, I have approached
warfare as entailing various forms of forceful appropriation and “the concrete order contained in it
and following from it” (Schmitt 2006, p. 71). I have observed that this nomos partially repeats the
nomos of the Cold War and that of the modern colonial era. Legacies of both constitute “spaces
of uncertainty, fear and violence” (Besteman 2017, p. 405), where states thrive on their inability to
filter “disorder from the external environment” and transform it into “internal peace” (Galli 2010,
p. 158, cited in Masco 2014, pp. 35–36). In conclusion, I draw attention to the figure of the partisan
as manifesting this hybrid peace by deifying a clear distinction between war and peace, soldiers and
civilians, enemies and criminals. I take Weizman’s research into the IDF as exemplifying Schmitt’s
main point that this notion characterizes not merely the threat that a regular army faces but the
regular army itself.
Weizman describes how rhizomic tactics became an innovation that was emulated interna-
tionally, including by the United States in its War on Terror. But conditions of the possibility of
the development of rhizomic warfare doctrine in Israel include its organizational and ideological
origins in preindependence guerrilla movements (Ben-Ari 1998, Dominguez 1989). Furthermore,
these rhizomic tactics call into question the work of the distinction between the regular and the
irregular in the modern state and in warfare. For Schmitt, some instances of war can be described
as partisan in early modern civil and colonial wars, from the Thirty Years’ War to the American
Indian Wars. But it is only the French Revolution and the First Empire that inaugurated “the
regularity of the state and the military” (Schmitt 2007, p. 3) in a new scale and intensity that in turn
have made it possible to describe and constitute the irregular and the partisan warfare after—that
is, being predicated on and as extensions of—the concepts of the regular and the political. It is
not just that guerrilla tactics appear capable of defeating Napoleonic armies in Spain and Russia;
rather, Schmitt argues, they are conceptualized as part of state making since that time. “Partisan”

is not just a fighter who “avoid[s] carrying weapons openly, . . . fights from ambushes, . . . wears the
enemy uniform and whatever insignia serves his turn, as well as civilian clothing, as decoys” and
using “secrecy, darkness and speed” as weapons. The partisan represents an indivisible unity of
military and civilian and a unity of population and politics, which are at the heart of modernity. For
Schmitt (2007), the partisan means first and foremost a party adherent (Parteigänger): “someone
who adheres to a party” (p. 10). Clausewitz’s formula of “war as the continuation of politics” by
other means is, for Schmitt, “the theory of the partisan in a nutshell” (p. 5).
Schmitt’s genealogy of the partisan includes Clausewitz’s letter to Fichte about war and nation
building: There are new weapons and, more importantly, “new masses” leading to “the most
beautiful of all wars, conducted by a people in its own fields [Fluren] on behalf of their freedom and
independence” (Schmitt 2007, p. 31). Schmitt (2007) adds, quoting from reformers of Clausewitz’s
circle, that this war is “preeminently a political matter in the highest sense of the word”—the
“revolutionary war, resistance and uprising against the established order, even [and particularly]
when it is embodied by a foreign occupation regime— . . . which—so to speak—falls outside the

sphere of the judicial . . . state” (p. 31). He points out that it is already here that war ceases
being a form of contract, openly declared, recognized by both sides as “legal,” with clear and
reciprocal obligations—for example, toward forms of war or prisoners of war. It becomes a matter
of a deterritorialized yet totalizing friend-versus-enemy distinction. One can take this argument
further and approach this distinction itself as a total social fact, which opens a possibility to see
this distinction as between the political and (extra)juridical or religious (which is highly relevant
for understanding the War on Terror) and also to understand how these distinctions are drawn in
specific locations and by specific parties to conflict. Agamben’s (2015) discussion of the civil war
as a “threshold of politicization and depoliticization” (p. 16) could be seen as a case in point of this
perspective.
Schmitt (2007) takes his argument from Clausewitz through Lenin to Mao Tse-tung in a di-
alectic of “regular and irregular, of regular officer and professional revolutionary” (p. 58). This
view can be taken further to the recent doctrines of hybrid war with which I started this article.
Long before Weizman charted the circulation of Deleuzian perspectives among the Israeli mili-
tary, Schmitt (2007) noted that Mao’s “Strategy of Partisan War against the Japanese Invasion”
became canonical in Western military academies (p. 38). But Schmitt concludes with an example
of colonial and counterinsurgency officers becoming a war machine of their own, after having
gained experience in guerrilla warfare and, in effect, following what Napoleon was said to have
commanded General Lefèbvre in 1813: “[Y]ou have to fight like a partisan wherever there are par-
tisans” (Schmitt 2007, pp. 8, 9). Raoul Salan, a decorated veteran of two World Wars and a head
of the French counterinsurgency war in Indochina, was appointed in 1958 as Senior Comman-
dant of the French forces in Algeria. He became one of the leaders of the Organisation d’Armée
Secrète, which opposed Algerian independence, headed a failed putsch in 1961, and carried out
military actions against the Algerian proindependence forces as well as terrorist acts against civilian
populations in Algiers and in France itself (Schmitt 2007, pp. 57–60). The latter was the Vitry-
Le-François train bombing of June 18, 1961, the death toll of which was unsurpassed until the
2015 terrorist attacks in Paris.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
260 Ssorin-Chaikov
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This article has benefited from its discussion at the Higher School of Economics St. Petersburg
anthropology seminar (kruzhok). In particular, I am grateful for comments from Alena Babkina,
Anna Kruglova, Asya Karaseva, Dominic Martin, Tatiana Borisova, and Xenia Charkaev.
LITERATURE CITED
Agamben G. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Agamben G. 2015. Stasis: Civil War as a Political Paradigm. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Armitage D. 2017. Civil War: A History in Ideas. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
Asad T. 2007. On Suicide Bombing. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Beck TK. 2012. The Normality of Civil War: Armed Groups and Everyday Life in Angola. Frankfurt, Ger.: Campus
Verlag
Ben-Ari E. 1998. Mastering Soldiers: Conflict, Emotions, and the Enemy in an Israeli Military Unit. Oxford, UK:
Berghahn Books
Besteman C. 2017. Experimenting in Somalia: the new security empire. Anthropol. Theory 17(3):404–20
Bolten C. 2012 “We have been sensitized”: ex-combatants, marginalization, and youth in postwar Sierra
Leone. Am. Anthropol. 114(3):496–508
Bratton BH. 2015. The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Burbank J. 1995. Lenin and the law in revolutionary Russia. Slav. Rev. 54(1):23–44
Can Ş. 2017. The Syrian Civil War, sectarianism and political change at the Turkish-Syrian border. Soc.
Anthropol. 25(2):174–89
Coulter C. 2015. Bush Wives and Girl Soldiers: Women’s Lives through War and Peace in Sierra Leone. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Cuomo SA, Donlon BJ. 2008. Training a “hybrid’ warrior at the infantry officer course. Small Wars J. Blog,
Jan. http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/training-a-hybrid-warrior-at-the-infantry-officer-course
Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
Dominguez VR. 1989. People as Subject, People as Object: Selfhood and Peoplehood in Contemporary Israel. Madison:
Univ. Wisc. Press
Fawaz M, Bou Akar H. 2012. Practicing (in)security in the City. City Soc. 24(2):105–9
Ferme MC. 2001. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History, and the Everyday in Sierra Leone. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press
Finnström S. 2008. Living with Bad Surroundings: War, History, and Everyday Moments in Northern Uganda.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Foucault M. 2003. “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador
Galli C. 2010. Political Spaces and Global War. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Gates RM. 2009. A balanced strategy: reprogramming the Pentagon for a new age. Foreign Aff. 88(1):28–40
Glück Z, Low S. 2017. A sociospatial framework for the anthropology of security. Anthropol. Theory 17(3):281–
96
Goldstein DM. 2010. Toward a critical anthropology of security. Curr. Anthropol. 51(4):487–517
González RJ. 2009. American Counterinsurgency: Human Science and the Human Terrain. Chicago: Prickly
Paradigm Press
Gusterson H. 2016. Drone: Remote Control Warfare. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Hardt M, Negri A. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Hermez H. 2012. ‘The war is going to ignite’: on the anticipation of violence in Lebanon. PoLAR 35(2):327–44
Hobsbawm E. 1994. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. London/New York: Viking
Penguin
Hoffman D. 2003. Frontline anthropology: research in a time of war. Anthropol. Today 19(3):9–12
Hoffman D. 2011a. Violence, just in time: war and work in contemporary West Africa. Cult. Anthropol.
26(1):34–57

Hoffman D. 2011b. The War Machines: Young Men and Violence in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Durham, NC: Duke
Univ. Press
Judd E. 2006. War and peace. Anthropologica 48(1):3–6
Kalinin I. 2017. ‘Post-socialist realism’: postmodern in form and conservative in content, and vice versa. Paper
presented at the 2nd Annual Forum of the 1917/2017: Disciplinary Regimes of Truth, Sch. Adv. Stud.,
Univ. Tyumen, Russ.
Keen D. 2005. Conflict and Collusion in Sierra Leone. New York: Palgrave
Kilcullen D. 2009. The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One. London: Hurst
Klimenko S. 2015. Teoriia i praktika vedeniia gibridnykh voin. Zarubezhnoe Voennoe Obozrenie 5:109–12
Kuntsman A, Stein RL. 2015. Digital Militarism: Israel’s Occupation in the Social Media Age. Stanford, CA:
Stanford Univ. Press
Kwon H. 2010. The Other Cold War. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Lubkemann SC. 2010. Culture in Chaos: An Anthropology of the Social Condition in War. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Lutz CA. 2002. Homefront: A Military City and the American Twentieth Century. Boston: Beacon
Lutz CA. 2009. Anthropology in an era of permanent war. Anthropologica 51(2):367–79

Maček I. 2009. Sarajevo Under Siege: Anthropology in Wartime. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
Masco J. 2014. The Theater of Operations: National Security Affect from the Cold War to the War on Terror.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
McCuen JJ. 2008. Hybrid wars. Mil. Rev. 2008(March–April):107–13
Murphy WP. 2003. Military patrimonialism and child soldier clientalism in the Liberian and Sierra Leonean
civil wars. Afr. Stud. Rev. 46(2):61–87
Ochs J. 2011. Security and Suspicion: An Ethnography of Everyday Life in Israel. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
Patrikarakos D. 2017. War in 140 Characters: How Social Media Is Reshaping Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.
New York: Basic Books
Pettigrew J. 2013. Maoists at the Hearth: Everyday Life in Nepal’s Civil War. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
Pretorius J. 2008. The security imaginary: explaining military isomorphism. Secur. Dialogue 39(1):99–120
Reyna SP. 2016. Deadly Contradictions: The New American Empire and Global Warring. Oxford, UK: Berghahn
Books
Robben ACGM, ed. 2011. Iraq at a Distance: What Anthropologists Can Teach Us About the War. Philadelphia:
Univ. Pa. Press
Roberto J. 2008. Human terrain: past, present, and future applications. Anthropol. Today 24:21–26
Roitman J. 2005. The garrison-entrepôt: a mode of governing in the Chad basin. In Global Assemblages,
Anthropological Problems, ed. A Ong, SJ Collier, pp. 417–36. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Rosen DM. 2007. Child soldiers, international humanitarian law, and the globalization of childhood. Am.
Anthropol. 109(2):296–306
Scheper-Hughes N, Bourgois PI, eds. 2003. Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Schmitt C. 2006. The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum. New York:
Telos
Schmitt C. 2007. Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political. New York: Telos
Press Pub.
Waterston A, ed. 2008. An Anthropology of War: Views From the Frontline. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books
Weizman E. 2007. Hollow Land: Israel’s Architecture of Occupation. London: Verso
262 Ssorin-Chaikov
ANNUAL REVIEWS
Connect With Our Experts
New From Annual Reviews:

ONLINE NOW!
Annual Review of Criminology
criminol.annualreviews.org • Volume 1 • January 2018
Co-Editors: Joan Petersilia, Stanford University and Robert J. Sampson, Harvard University
The Annual Review of Criminology provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of
criminology, defined as the study of both the nature of criminal behavior and societal reactions to crime. International in scope, the
journal examines variations in crime and punishment across time (e.g., why crime increases or decreases) and among individuals,
communities, and societies (e.g., why certain individuals, groups, or nations are more likely than others to have high crime or
victimization rates). The societal effects of crime and crime control, and why certain individuals or groups are more likely to be
arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison, will also be covered via topics relating to criminal justice agencies (e.g., police, courts,
and corrections) and criminal law.
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR VOLUME 1: • Varieties of Mass Incarceration: What We Learn from State Histories,
Michael C. Campbell
THE DISCIPLINE
• The Politics, Promise, and Peril of Criminal Justice Reform in the
• Reflections on Disciplines and Fields, Problems, Policies, and Life,
Context of Mass Incarceration, Katherine Beckett
James F. Short
THE PRISON
• Replication in Criminology and the Social Sciences,
• Inmate Society in the Era of Mass Incarceration, Derek A. Kreager,
William Alex Pridemore, Matthew C. Makel, Jonathan A. Plucker
Candace Kruttschnitt
CRIME AND VIOLENCE
• Restricting the Use of Solitary Confinement, Craig Haney
• Bringing Crime Trends Back into Criminology: A Critical Assessment
DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFE‑COURSE CRIMINOLOGY
of the Literature and a Blueprint for Future Inquiry, Eric P. Baumer,
María B. Vélez, Richard Rosenfeld • Desistance from Offending in the Twenty‑First Century,
Bianca E. Bersani, Elaine Eggleston Doherty
• Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Contentious Issue,
Graham C. Ousey, Charis E. Kubrin • On the Measurement and Identification of Turning Points
in Criminology, Holly Nguyen, Thomas A. Loughran
• The Long Reach of Violence: A Broader Perspective on Data, Theory,
and Evidence on the Prevalence and Consequences of Exposure to ECONOMICS OF CRIME
Violence, Patrick Sharkey • Gun Markets, Philip J. Cook
• Victimization Trends and Correlates: Macro‑ and Microinfluences • Offender Decision‑Making in Criminology: Contributions from
and New Directions for Research, Janet L. Lauritsen, Maribeth L. Rezey Behavioral Economics, Greg Pogarsky, Sean Patrick Roche,
• Situational Opportunity Theories of Crime, Pamela Wilcox, Justin T. Pickett
Francis T. Cullen
POLICE AND COURTS
• Schools and Crime, Paul J. Hirschfield
• Policing in the Era of Big Data, Greg Ridgeway
PUNISHMENT AND POLICY • Reducing Fatal Police Shootings as System Crashes: Research, Theory,
• Collateral Consequences of Punishment: A Critical Review and Path and Practice, Lawrence W. Sherman
Forward, David S. Kirk, Sara Wakefield • The Problems With Prosecutors, David Alan Sklansky
• Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: Crime, Culture, • Monetary Sanctions: Legal Financial Obligations in US Systems of
and Comparative Political Economy, Nicola Lacey, David Soskice, Justice, Karin D. Martin, Bryan L. Sykes, Sarah Shannon, Frank Edwards,
David Hope Alexes Harris
• Forensic DNA Typing, Erin Murphy
ANNUAL REVIEWS | CONNECT WITH OUR EXPERTS

650.493.4400/800.523.8635 (us/can)
www.annualreviews.org | service@annualreviews.org
AN47_FrontMatter ARI 5 September 2018 14:34
Annual Review of
Anthropology
Contents Volume 47, 2018
Perspectives
Others’ Words, Others’ Voices: The Making of a Linguistic

Anthropologist
Richard Bauman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in

South America Under the Critical Gaze
Cristóbal Gnecco p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279
Ethics of Archaeology
Alfredo González-Ruibal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345
An Emerging Archaeology of the Nazi Era
Reinhard Bernbeck p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Bayesian Statistics in Archaeology
Erik Otárola-Castillo and Melissa G. Torquato p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 435
Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past
Alex W. Barker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455
Developments in American Archaeology: Fifty Years of the National
Historic Preservation Act
Francis P. McManamon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 553
Biological Anthropology
Ethics in Human Biology: A Historical Perspective on Present

Challenges
Joanna Radin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 263
The Bioarchaeology of Health Crisis: Infectious Disease in the Past
Clark Spencer Larsen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 295
Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding
Catherine M. Hill p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
vii
Emerging and Enduring Issues in Primate Conservation Genetics

Richard R. Lawler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 395
Effects of Environmental Stress on Primate Populations
Jason M. Kamilar and Lydia Beaudrot p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417
Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged
Primatology
Erin P. Riley and Michelle Bezanson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493
Hunter-Gatherers and Human Evolution: New Light on Old Debates
Richard B. Lee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 513
Female Power in Primates and the Phenomenon of Female Dominance
Rebecca J. Lewis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 533

Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices
Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Meaning and Value
Martha Sif Karrebæk, Kathleen C. Riley, and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
Language of Kin Relations and Relationlessness
Christopher Ball p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p47
The Ethics and Aesthetics of Care
Steven P. Black p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p79
The Language of Evangelism: Christian Cultures of Circulation
Beyond the Missionary Prologue
Courtney Handman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 149
Children as Interactional Brokers of Care
Inmaculada M. Garcı́a-Sánchez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Political Parody and the Politics of Ambivalence
Tanja Petrović p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
Word for Word: Verbatim as Political Technologies
Miyako Inoue p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 217
Sociocultural Anthropology
Literature and Reading

Adam Reed p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
The Anthropology of Mining: The Social and Environmental Impacts
of Resource Extraction in the Mineral Age
Jerry K. Jacka p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p61
viii Contents
Science/Art/Culture Through an Oceanic Lens

Stefan Helmreich and Caroline A. Jones p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p97
Consumerism
Anne Meneley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Police and Policing
Jeffrey T. Martin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Industrial Meat Production
Alex Blanchette p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 185
Interspecies Relations and Agrarian Worlds
Shaila Seshia Galvin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 233
Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War

Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
The Gender of the War on Drugs
Shaylih Muehlmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Precarity, Precariousness, and Vulnerability
Clara Han p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 331
The Anthropology of Ethics and Morality
Cheryl Mattingly and Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 475
Theme I: Ethics
The Ethics and Aesthetics of Care

Steven P. Black p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p79
Police and Policing
Jeffrey T. Martin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 133
Children as Interactional Brokers of Care
Inmaculada M. Garcı́a-Sánchez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Ethics in Human Biology: A Historical Perspective on Present
Challenges
Joanna Radin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 263
Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in
South America Under the Critical Gaze
Cristóbal Gnecco p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279
The Gender of the War on Drugs
Shaylih Muehlmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Precarity, Precariousness, and Vulnerability
Clara Han p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 331
Contents ix
Ethics of Archaeology
Alfredo González-Ruibal p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345
An Emerging Archaeology of the Nazi Era
Reinhard Bernbeck p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
Looting, the Antiquities Trade, and Competing Valuations of the Past
Alex W. Barker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455
The Anthropology of Ethics and Morality
Cheryl Mattingly and Jason Throop p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 475
Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged
Primatology
Erin P. Riley and Michelle Bezanson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493

Theme II: Food
Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Meaning and Value
Martha Sif Karrebæk, Kathleen C. Riley, and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
Consumerism
Anne Meneley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 117
Industrial Meat Production
Alex Blanchette p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 185
Interspecies Relations and Agrarian Worlds
Shaila Seshia Galvin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 233
Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding
Catherine M. Hill p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 38–47 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 38–47 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 579
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/anthro
x Contents

Ssorin-Chaikov, N. (2018) Hybrid Peace. Etnographies of War

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ssorin-Chaikov, N. (2018) Hybrid Peace. Etnographies of War

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

AN47CH16_Ssorin-Chaikov ARI 4 September 2018 14:18

Annual Review of Anthropology

Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies

Department of History, National Research University Higher School of Economics in Saint

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018. 47:251–62 Keywords

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

Mir (Rus.): (1) world; (2) peace.

—Ozhegov Russian Dictionary

www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 253

THEORIES OF WAR AND SECURITY

www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 255

NOMOS OF THE EARTH

www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 257

THE IRREGULAR AND THE PARTISAN

www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 259

when it is embodied by a foreign occupation regime— . . . which—so to speak—falls outside the

www.annualreviews.org • Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War 261

Lutz CA. 2009. Anthropology in an era of permanent war. Anthropologica 51(2):367–79

New From Annual Reviews:

ANNUAL REVIEWS | CONNECT WITH OUR EXPERTS

Contents Volume 47, 2018

Others’ Words, Others’ Voices: The Making of a Linguistic

Development and Disciplinary Complicity: Contract Archaeology in

Ethics in Human Biology: A Historical Perspective on Present

Emerging and Enduring Issues in Primate Conservation Genetics

Rebecca J. Lewis p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 533

Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices

Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Literature and Reading

Science/Art/Culture Through an Oceanic Lens

Hybrid Peace: Ethnographies of War

The Ethics and Aesthetics of Care

Erin P. Riley and Michelle Bezanson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 493

Theme II: Food

Food and Language: Production, Consumption, and Circulation of

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 38–47 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi