Abstract

This article seeks to examine the association of the concept of governance of international relations and, by implication, human population migration, through the rigid practices of “sovereignty-state-territory triad” with the fomentation and exacerbation of societal stereotypes, attitudes and perceptions of xenophobia in Africa, in general, and South Africa, in particular. Ascriptions of the majority of population migration as “international” affirms the centrality of the operationalisation of the “sovereignty-state-territory triad” in understanding the fragmentary constructions of societal attitudes and perceptions of people resident in distinct geopolitical entities ascribed as national territories. State and non-state governance entrapments with this triad perpetuate societal stereotypes that are in concurrence with bordered-territories where populations described as citizens are stimulated to protect endowments and resources of the land against the perceived destruction associated with the conduct of the out-groups. Unsurprisingly, the theorisation of human population migration has equally been intricately involved with environmental conservation and securitisation of biodiversity that enables land dispossession of the vulnerable sections of the population through the Western economic narratives of “Peace Parks”. Simultaneously in Southern Africa, the concept of African Renaissance, inescapably embedded with “cooperation and conflict” at all scales, has offered a buzzword to be realised through “Peace Parks” that have evidently failed to deliver reaffirmation of African cultures, continental emancipation and democratisation. The preeminence of societal stereotypes, attitudes and perceptions of xenophobia and violent abuses of African immigrants in South Africa provides vivid illustrations of the inconsistencies and non-linearity of concepts such as African Renaissance and “Peace Parks”. This article asserts that measures for repairing the landscapes of xenophobia among Africans, especially in South Africa, will remain pipedreams if they are not embedded with adaptive governance designed to undermine the rigidities of the “sovereignty-state-territory triad”, prevalent in the international relations.

Highlights

  • The character of international relations itself, based on the socio-political boundaries, is responsible for the fragmentary “bordering, ordering and othering” of the world population with attendant disputes, conflicts and nationalistic xenophobia (van Houtum & van TD The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 11(4), December 2014, Special ediction, pp. 3046.Human population migration and xenophobia in (South) AfricaNaerssen, 2002; Paasi, 2005; Moilanen & Arponen, 2011; Dallimer & Strange, 2015)

  • Whereas Southern Africa too had jumped onto the bandwagon of “Peace Parks”, persistence of conflicts and absence of spatial socialisation of parties on both sides of the geopolitical boundaries for peace and security has meant that the African Renaissance dream of revaluation of African cultures has remained unattainable

  • Though, it has been difficult for states to ignore the hegemonic international relations that are governed through the fragmentary socio-political “bordering, ordering and othering” and the “sovereignty-state-territory triad” of bounded-spaces and populations (Paasi, 2005; van Amerom & Buscher, 2005; Lunstrum, 2013, 2014; Rusinga & Mapira, 2012; Dallimmer & Strange, 2015; Sibanda, 2015)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The character of international relations itself, based on the socio-political boundaries, is responsible for the fragmentary “bordering, ordering and othering” of the world population with attendant disputes, conflicts and nationalistic xenophobia (van Houtum & van TD The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 11(4), December 2014, Special ediction, pp. 3046.Human population migration and xenophobia in (South) AfricaNaerssen, 2002; Paasi, 2005; Moilanen & Arponen, 2011; Dallimer & Strange, 2015). Insight into the relationship of environmental conservation and securitisation narratives suggests that the establishment of “Peace Parks” to enable capital accumulation provokes land dispossession of the vulnerable sections of the population, creating nuance geopolitical entities that reterritorialise sovereignty in ways that embed cooperation with conflict, inclusive of xenophobic violence (Martin et al, 2011; Kaszynska, Cent, Jurczak & Szymanska, 2012; Massé & Lunstrum, 2015).

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call