Description
This paper revisits materials (conversations, participant observations, interviews) from ethnographic research on post-war perceptions of dangerousness and readiness to resort to violence I conducted in Sierra Leone in 2009, seven years after the end of an eleven-year war. Based on these materials, I describe how ordinary Sierra Leoneans identified and remained vigilant against “dangerous young men” suspected to be former fighters. These “dangerous ones” shared experiences of socio-economic marginalization and massive dehumanization because of their suspected dangerousness – yet many, if not most of them had not fought during the war and were not ready to resort to violence post-war. I connect these findings with recent debates about race in critical security studies. It has been argued that the rendering dangerous of populations is always already racialized (e.g. Howell and Richter-Montpetit 2019). But what about dangerousness in a place like Sierra Leone where the history of disciplinary power is not the same as in Europe; where the state is certainly not the only nor always the most important securitizing actor; and where Blackness is not experienced in the same ways as in Europe (or in the US)? I argue that the dehumanization suffered by “dangerous young men” in post-war Sierra Leone resembles forms of racialization that have been described in the context of EU migration policies or police violence in places like the US and Brazil. I make the case that exploring such similarities (and differences) and understanding genealogies of dehumanization in a place like Sierra Leone could contribute to decolonial political theory building in the sense of building theory with a focus on West African postcolonial politics (see e.g. Getachew/Mantena 2021).
