Skip to main content

Liminal Insecurities: Crises, Geopolitics and the Logic of War

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Politics of Hybrid Warfare

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the conditions of possibility that enabled the rise of the ‘hybrid warfare’ (HW) discourse in Czechia after 2014. We show that it emerged following a series of crises happening between 2008 and 2013, which produced a sense of social unease and created discursive space that could be filled by new political projects, of which HW was just one contingent possibility. We bring in the concepts of liminality and ontological security to theorise this process. Liminality is a condition of dwelling in an insecure ‘in-between zone’, not belonging fully to categories through which social life is ordered, while ontological security denotes the maintenance of a stable sense of identity through narratives and routines. We suggest that the HW discourse emerged as an attempt to seek ontological security by utilising two more general discursive strategies that aim at ‘resolving’ Czechia’s dual liminality (between East and West, and war and peace): geopoliticisation and warification. In these strategies, ontological security is sought by identifying with ‘the West’ and rejecting anything ‘Eastern’ (geopoliticisation) and/or conceptualising increasing number of social issues as part of ongoing ‘war’ rather than ‘peacetime’ matters (warification). These two strategies then constituted the key pillars of the HW discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The fundamental threat anxiety poses to subjective coherence also makes it different from fear (while the line between the two is rarely clear and is backgrounded in our framework). In this classical distinction that builds on Freud, fear is understood as an already ‘rationalised’ emotion related to a particular object—a spider, a violent partner, etc. Anxiety, in contrast, is a much deeper and much more ambiguous affective state that cannot necessarily be linked to a particular object and, therefore, it is much more difficult to deal with it, hence its paralysing character (Giddens, 1991, p. 44; Kinnvall & Mitzen, 2020).

  2. 2.

    Ontological security studies is a broad church with complexities and internal controversies that cannot be dealt in this book (for recent overviews see Croft & Vaughan-Williams, 2017; Gustafsson & Krickel-Choi, 2020; Kinnvall & Mitzen, 2020; Klose, 2020). We do not aspire to provide a theoretical contribution to this literature, as we have already done so elsewhere (Eberle, 2019; Eberle & Daniel, 2022; Eberle & Handl, 2020). Instead, we downplay the differences and use the key elements of the ontological security framework as building blocks for our examination of the HW discourse. This having said, our approach is closer to the psychoanalytically and post-structurally flavoured end of the spectrum, which questions the very possibility of achieving a durable state of ontological security, considers insecurity as the norm and focuses instead on the processes of ontological security-seeking, including their pathologies and failures (e.g. Kinnvall & Svensson, 2022; Mälksoo, 2019; Rossdale, 2015; Vieira, 2018).

  3. 3.

    As the quote from Zarycki shows, there is also a strong temporal aspect to this way of using civilisational geopolitics, as ‘the West’ is understood as a desirable future, whilst ‘the East’—often labelled as ‘communist’—stands for the unattractive past (Cadier, 2019; Zarycki, 2014). Thereby, movement towards ‘the West’ becomes portrayed also as a movement forward in time (Krastev & Holmes, 2019, p. 26).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Eberle, J., Daniel, J. (2023). Liminal Insecurities: Crises, Geopolitics and the Logic of War. In: Politics of Hybrid Warfare. Central and Eastern European Perspectives on International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32703-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics