Abstract
This article demonstrates how concepts and notions such as ‘warlordism’ and ‘terrorism’, supposedly framed to enable an understanding of complex crises, can have exactly the opposite effect. It exposes their conceptual ambiguity, a factor contributing to their success, and comments on their practical application in the Somali context. The article seeks to analyse how these two ‘categories’ have contributed to building a specific ‘regime of truth’—vocabulary, assumptions of meaning, labels and narratives that function to select and interpret events, emphasizing some and disregarding many others. The article presents the argument that the recurrent mobilization of these particular expressions has resulted not in deepening analysis, but rather in sifting information and providing moral condemnation and political prescription that are highly debatable.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
