The Discourse of ‘Progress’ and the Trusteeship Debate in International Relations

By AL Dunn

Abstract

‘Progress’. A comforting and familiar term. ‘Progress’, it seems, speaks to us all. Yet those who have endeavoured to offer a more precise definition have tended to find their quest frustrating. Does ‘progress’ represent a provisional outcome of human agency or the relentless work of structure? Is it essentially a matter of faith or fundamentally a matter of fact? Demonstrably rooted in classical antiquity or irredeemably modern? By adopting a discursive framework informed by post-structural understandings of power/knowledge, this dissertation will not even attempt to supply such answers; it will, however, somewhat alter the questions. Rather than enquiring into what ‘progress’, understood ideationally, actually is, it will undertake instead to ask what ‘progress’, understood as discursive practice, actually does. The specific site in which such discursive workings will be examined is furnished by colonial and contemporary texts on international trusteeship. In colonial and recent work which advocates (the revival) of trusteeship, it will be argued that deployment of such a discourse does not produce a consensus on the meaning of ‘progress’ but does instead produce the regular effect of a discursive space constitutive of subjectivities defined as anachronistic. The consequences of such a production are, it will be argued, profoundly depoliticising. Pluralist international society texts seeking to counter contemporary proposals for trusteeship affirm the enduring value of sovereignty and pluralist, anti-paternalist norms. Although such texts offer a counter-narrative which significantly differs from that proposed by trusteeship advocates, they nevertheless deploy a similar discourse on ‘progress’ which, whilst resulting in alternative policy recommendations, does not escape the depoliticising effects identified previously. By emphasising a view of ‘progress’ as discursive practice, this dissertation will conclude by arguing for a sensitivity to the (sometimes undesirable, always political) effects such a discourse produces.

Acknowledgements

To link particular names to a comparatively short piece of work on which the verdict is yet to be delivered may appear somewhat presumptuous; in this case, however, it seems to me more presumptuous still to omit to thank certain people whose encouragement has not made this dissertation what it is (that, I am afraid, is all my doing), but has, more importantly, given me the spirit to complete it in the first place.

I would therefore particularly like to thank: Richard Wyn Jones, for a much-appreciated second chance; Jenny Edkins, for kindness, time and intellectual inspiration; and Caroline Morris, a lady without whose open house, kind words and warm heart, the last six months would have been twice as hard and ten times as long.   

Introduction

‘Progress’. The term is a comforting and familiar one. It connotes the seductive allure of a better life; it conveys hope in humanity’s telluric destiny. ‘Progress’, it seems, speaks to us all. Yet when we seek to define it more precisely, it becomes elusive. The field of operations of those who accept the definitional challenge is itself defined by conflict and contradiction, perhaps best exemplified by two seminal accounts of the ‘idea’ written at a sixty-year interval: J. B. Bury’s The Idea of Progress (1920) and Robert Nisbet’s  History of the Idea of Progress (1980). Whilst Bury inaugurates his narrative with the bold claim that “the notion of progress, which now seems so easy to apprehend, is of comparatively recent origin” (Bury, 1920: 6; my italics), the opening lines of the Nisbetian text declare, conversely, that “no single idea has been as important in Western civilisation for nearly 3000 years” (Nisbet, 1980: 4; my italics). Further inspection of the literature on ‘progress’ only compounds our confusion: does ‘progress’ intimate the continuity of linear time or the rupture of revolutionary upheavals? Is ‘progress’ a materiality which looks one in the face or an idea one harbours in the mind? Do we work for ‘progress’, or does ‘Progress’ work for us? Such questions elicit no consistent responses in this literature; it appears we must either sign up to our preferred definition, or renounce our enquiries.

Negara Bangsa Sebagai Komunitas Politik Terbayang

Oleh Asrudin

Pernah dimuat dalam siklus: Jurnal Kajian Hubungan Internasional, Vol1, No.4, Desember 2005, hlm. 170-179

Anderson, Benedict (2002). Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar & Insist Press)

Benedict Anderson defined a nation as “an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”. An imagined community is different from an actual community because it is not (and cannot be) based on everyday face-to-face interaction between its members. Instead, members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity. For example the nationhood you feel with other members of your nation when your “imagined community” participates in a larger event such as the Olympics. As Anderson puts it, a nation “is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion”. 

Saat ini Konsep negara bangsa dalam Studi Hubungan Internasional telah menjadi fokus analisis. Bahkan bagi sebagian ilmuwan HI, negara bangsa merupakan aktor utama politik internasional. Dengan pola pemikiran seperti ini, pantas rasanya kita ajukan pertanyaan, mengapa konsep negara bangsa menjadi begitu penting bagi manusia?, Mengapa manusia dari berbagai individu yang berbeda, wilayah yang berbeda, mau menyatukan diri sebagai sebuah komunitas politik yang bernama bangsa? Tulisan ini akan mereview buku Ben Anderson (2002) yang berjudul Imagined Communities: Reflection on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Dengan melakukan telaah secara mendalam atas pandangan Anderson dalam bukunya tersebut, kita akan dapat mengetahui jawaban atas pertanyaan-pertanyaan tadi.

Pengertian Bangsa

Secara umum bangsa diartikan sebagai sebuah entitas, sebuah unit politik yang di dalamnya terdapat individu yang menaruh kesetiaan terhadapnya (nasionalisme). Nasionalisme adalah salah satu dari kekuatan yang menentukan dalam sejarah modern. Ia berasal dari Eropa Barat abad ke-18; selama abad ke-19 ia telah tersebar di seluruh Eropa dan dalam abad ke-20 ia telah menjadi suatu pergerakan dunia (Kohn, 1984: 5).  

Perkembangan pesat paham nasionalisme kebangsaan di Eropa dan berbagai belahan dunia tentu tidak datang begitu saja. Ada yang membuatnya menjadi demikian. Menurut Ben Anderson, penyebabnya adalah karena terdapat banyak individu manusia yang menyatukan diri dalam sebuah komunitas politik, dengan begitu dia membentuk apa yang dinamakan dengan negara bangsa. Bangsa atau nation, bagi Anderson,  merupakan sebuah komunitas politik terbayang–imagined political community. Ia dibayangkan sebagai sesuatu yang bersifat terbatas (limited) secara inheren, karena pasti ada batas-batas teritorial dengan bangsa-bangsa lain di sekitarnya; berdaulat (sovereign), karena para pembayangnya menganggap perlu ada perlindungan; dan akhirnya ia dibayangkan sebagai komunitas (community), karena para anggotanya memiliki rasa persaudaraan antar mereka (Wiratama, 2003: 86).