Private Security and Identity Politics

Ethical Hero Warriors, Professional Managers and New Humanitarians

Jutta Joachim, Andrea Schneiker

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138195738
• eBook ISBN: 9781317268550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book examines the self-representation and identity politics of Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs).

PMSCs have become increasingly important over the past few decades. While their boom is frequently explained in functional terms, such as their cost-efficiency and effectiveness, this book offers an alternative explanation based on an analysis of the online self-presentations of forty-two US- and UK-based companies. PMSCs are shaping how they are perceived and establishing themselves as acceptable and legitimate security actors by eclectically appropriating identities more commonly associated with the military, businesses and humanitarian actors. Depending on their audience and clients' needs, they can be professional hero warriors, or promise turn-key security solutions based on their exceptional expertise, or, in a similar way to humanitarians, reassure those in need of relief and try to make the world a better place. Rather than being merely public relations, the self-referential assertions of PMSCs are political. Not only do they contribute to a normalization of private security and reinforce an already ongoing blurring of lines between the public and private sectors, they also change what we deem to be 'security' and a 'security actor'.

This book will be of much interest to students of private military companies, critical security studies, military studies, security studies and IR.

1 Identities, identity politics, and PMSCs

In international relations (IR), identities matter, and they do so increasingly in areas previously presumed to be immune to them, such as the field of security. Research on PMSCs is exemplary in this respect. For a long time, functional approaches to this subject predominated, which explains the growing importance of the industry for governments because of their cost-effectiveness and broad range of services when compared with state militaries. However, more recent studies have pointed to the role of ideational aspects that form an important part of commercial transactions and competition (see Joachim and Schneiker 2012a, 2012b, and 2014; Berndtsson 2012; Higate 2012; Chisholm 2015; Carmola 2010). According to Fuchs, PMSCs ‘exercise [… ] discursive power by actively participating in public debates on the definition of political problems and solutions, as well as offensively and defensively shaping their image as economic, political, and societal actors’ (Fuchs 2005, 772), and in the eyes of Abrahamsen and Williams, ‘PMSCs’ clients generally do not know the individual staff members of the company they have to hire [… ]; they have to base their trust on the company’s reputation for expertise’ (Abrahamsen and Williams 2011, 80). This in turn prompts ‘large international companies [to] emphasize their global reputation and their multifaceted global capacities’ (Abrahamsen and Williams 2011, 80).

That reputation matters within the security industry is not only asserted by scholars, but also readily admitted by representatives of PMSCs themselves (e.g., Beese 2004, 2; 2009, 2). Tim Spicer, a director of the now-defunct PMSC Sandline International declared in an interview in 1999 that ‘PR and the media are very much part of our strategy. We recognize that it is an uphill struggle to dispel this image of the “mercenary” and we have to show what we are really about’ (Spicer 1999, 170). Being misunderstood or misrepresented are recurrent issues within the industry (e.g., Messner and Gracielli 2008, 18–19; Stone 2008, 23) and are also of concern to Doug Brooks, former President of the PMSC industry association founded in 2001 and renamed International Stability Operations Association (ISOA) in 2010. According to him, ‘[t]here is much that yet to be learned about this emergent industry, and moreover, there is a similar degree of misinformation about the industry in the public domain’ (Brooks 2006, 4).

The interest of scholars and practitioners in how PMSCs are perceived connects to and echoes recent trends in the business literature more generally, where scholars increasingly pay attention to commercial branding (e.g., Abratt and Kleyn 2012; Bently, Davis, and Ginsburg 2011; Balmer and Gray 2003), as well as reputation building (Barnett, Jermier, and Lafferty 2006; Abratt and Kleyn 2012). Representative of this burgeoning scholarship is the work of, for example, Mara Einstein and Jon Rollins, who assert that the products which companies sell are no longer just regarded as mere ‘necessities’ or as goods with ‘physical attributes’ (Einstein and Rollins 2010, 14). Instead, it is ‘the stories, the fables, the brand mythologies created around them. It is these stories we purchase’ (Einstein and Rollins 2010, 14; see also Leander 2005, 613). Hence, Ben & Jerry’s ‘is not just a frozen sweet confection’ but ‘a socially conscious ice cream’ or a BMW ‘is not just a vehicle to get me from A to B’ but ‘the ultimate driving machine’ (Einstein and Rollins 2010, 14). Our study builds on these bodies of literature to offer a different account of the recent boom in PMSCs, one that rests on their discourses and images. While not negating the role of material factors, we nevertheless suggest that the self-representations of these companies are also consequential. Not only do PMSCs cater to our desire for ‘comprehensive security’ and ‘ultimate protection’ (Joachim and Schneiker 2012b, 9); they also shape our understanding of (in)security, of what constitutes protection, and of whom we should consider a capable security provider, and they ultimately contribute to the normalization of privatized security.

In this chapter, we lay the groundwork for studying the identities of PMSCs. Following a more general treatment of the concept of identity, which we take to be socially constructed and dynamic and to intersect with other identitary categories (e.g., race, class, and gender), we will turn to what we consider to be the multiple and dominant identities of PMSCs: military, business, and humanitarian. We conclude with a discussion of corporate branding, which is the main mechanism for companies to communicate these identities and to shape how they are perceived. While the identities that PMSCs assume take on meaning by companies aligning with or differentiating themselves from other security actors (e.g., state militaries or international [non-]governmental organizations), they allow PMSCs to speak to different audiences and to attract different groups of clients by emphasizing certain attributes more and others less as, for example, the following quote by the PMSC Triple Canopy suggests:

In these times of geo-political uncertainty, organizations are seeking a reliable partner to help mitigate risk, ensure business continuity and achieve organizational objectives. Governments, multinational corporations and non-governmental organizations rely on Triple Canopy for our robust mission support and integrated security services. From supply chain management and construction to advis[ing] and mentoring, Triple Canopy delivers full-scale, contingency support services.

(Triple Canopy 2017)

Uttered through such statements, the identities help companies to establish themselves as new and superior security providers who can deliver the impossible.

From identities to identity politics

With the constructivist turn in IR, ‘identity’ has advanced from an extraneous category to an analytically rich and important factor. As Ted Hopf articulates in his most recent book, ‘IR scholars have recognized that behavior in the international system is not driven solely by the distribution of power, but also depends on the “distribution of identities”. That is patterns of cooperation and conflict depend on how states understand themselves and others in the international system, rather than solely on the institutional or material factors’ (Hopf 2016, 5). We share this assumption and treat identity as endogenous to our analysis and as both constitutive and regulatory of actors’ interests and preferences.

In line with, on the one hand, constructivist scholars, we conceive of identities as socially constructed, relational, plural and fluid in character (Hopf 2016, 5). On the other hand, and drawing on the work of organizational scholars, we view of the identities of PMSCs as indicative of ‘the central, distinctive and continuous characteristics’ of the companies (Ashforth, Rogers, and Corley 2011, 1145; see also Gioia 1998). Just as individuals understand themselves in relation to others, so is a company’s identity defined through, on the one hand, its interactions with its clients, competitors, or partners, and on the other hand, how it communicates with these actors, speaks with them, and understands their security needs. Moreover, we assume that these identities also have a productive quality. They give rise to standards of what or who constitutes a security actor and, by doing so, not only contribute to the normalization of private security but also set relevant standards for themselves as well as for others.

Rather than being assigned a priori, identities are intersubjective categories (Wendt 1994, 385; see also Hopf 2016, 13). Reflecting actors’ self-understanding and generating ‘motivational and behavioral dispositions’ (Wendt 1994, 224), their specific constitution depends as much on the (re)presentation of the self as on the perceptions of others, which is why Alexander Wendt conceives of identities as a product of both ‘internal and external structures’ (Wendt 1994, 224). While often assumed to be an individual-level property, scholars in IR as well as in organizational studies, who are generally interested in larger, corporate entities such as states or international organizations, have drawn attention to the growing importance of identitary factors at the macro level (Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, and Corley 2013, 125). According to Dennis Gioia, this is not at all surprising. In his eyes, identity

resonates because it constitutes the most meaningful, most intriguing, most relevant concept we deal with in both our personal and organizational lives. Identity is about us – as individuals and as organization members – and it enquires into the deepest level of our sensemaking and understanding. When you study identity you are delving into the inner reaches – of yourself and your subject of study.

(Gioia 2008, 63–64)

Hence, identities offer us a more comprehensive understanding and take us further, drawing attention to what is really at stake. Yet they are also challenging to study, in light of their often multiple constitutive components, their ­intersubjectivity, and their historicity.

When applying the concept of identity to the international level and more precisely to states, Wendt distinguishes between ‘corporate’ and ‘social’ identities (Wendt 1994). Constituted by ‘self-organizing and homeostatic structures’ (Wendt 1994, 224), the corporate identity, according to Wendt, affords a sense of self and who one is. According to Gioia et al., with a focus on commercial enterprises, corporate identity captures what in the eyes of the members is ‘central to the organization’s character or “self-image”’ (Gioia et al. 2013, 125; see also Barnett et al. 2006, 33). Social identity, in comparison, is indicative of the intersubjective quality of identities and is cognizant of the broader environment in which they are embedded. Defined by Wendt as ‘sets of meanings that an actor attributes to herself while taking the perspective of others’ (Wendt 1994, 385), this identity variant explains how an organization is distinct from other organizations. At the same time it specifies ‘sets of characteristics [… ] thought to be typical of members of the category, or behaviors expected or obliged of members in certain situations (roles)’ (Fearon and Laitin 2000, 848).

Social identity, therefore, delineates rules of membership that determine who is and who is not a member of a particular category. Precisely because of its constitution, social identity affords, as Gioia et al. succinctly point out, a somewhat paradoxical move of organizations, which ‘as entities in a social space want to see themselves – and to be seen by others – as similar to relevant members of a category or industry and yet somehow distinctive from those other members’ (Gioia et al. 2013, 126). This need for what Brewer refers to as ‘optimal distinctiveness’ (Brewer 1991) is a product of the ongoing competition, which in turn, and according to Wendt, constit...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of abbreviations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Identities, identity politics, and PMSCs
• 2 Professional hero warriors
• 3 Security experts and business managers
• 4 Do-gooders and humanitarians
• 5 From mercenary to hero warrior, security professional, and humanitarian
• Index