Valorizing Erasure: Imperial Knowledge Production in Anglo-American Coverage of Chad's 'Toyota War'.

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Harmata Aboubakar
{"title":"Valorizing Erasure: Imperial Knowledge Production in Anglo-American Coverage of Chad's 'Toyota War'.","authors":"Harmata Aboubakar","doi":"10.1111/1468-4446.70163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How does imperial knowledge production operate when Western media coverage of a Global South subject is predominantly admiring instead of hostile? This article addresses that question through critical discourse analysis of sixty-three Anglo-American news articles covering the Chad-Libya conflict of the 1980s, the 'Toyota War'. Despite Chad's decisive military victory and broadly favourable coverage, systematic coding reveals that Chadian political subjectivity was structurally withheld. Chadian figures appeared as sources in 41.3 per cent of articles but were granted political or strategic interpretive function in only 6.3 per cent: interpretive exclusion despite presence. Western or French officials served as primary interpretive sources in 77.8 per cent of articles, and France was positioned as sovereign arbiter in 82.5 per cent. Three interlocking devices produced this structure: selective valorization, which absorbed political relations into a commodity object; an interpretive hierarchy that routed authority through Western institutional channels; and Orientalist fascination, which made exclusion pleasurable and thereby imperceptible. The article develops a three-tiered model of differential life-worth (Libyan soldiers, Chadian soldiers, and Chadian civilians each constituted through distinct textual genres) and argues that valence, the positive or negative tone of coverage, is an insufficient analytic register: the imperial operation runs through how subjects are constituted, not through valence alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":51368,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Sociology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70163","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How does imperial knowledge production operate when Western media coverage of a Global South subject is predominantly admiring instead of hostile? This article addresses that question through critical discourse analysis of sixty-three Anglo-American news articles covering the Chad-Libya conflict of the 1980s, the 'Toyota War'. Despite Chad's decisive military victory and broadly favourable coverage, systematic coding reveals that Chadian political subjectivity was structurally withheld. Chadian figures appeared as sources in 41.3 per cent of articles but were granted political or strategic interpretive function in only 6.3 per cent: interpretive exclusion despite presence. Western or French officials served as primary interpretive sources in 77.8 per cent of articles, and France was positioned as sovereign arbiter in 82.5 per cent. Three interlocking devices produced this structure: selective valorization, which absorbed political relations into a commodity object; an interpretive hierarchy that routed authority through Western institutional channels; and Orientalist fascination, which made exclusion pleasurable and thereby imperceptible. The article develops a three-tiered model of differential life-worth (Libyan soldiers, Chadian soldiers, and Chadian civilians each constituted through distinct textual genres) and argues that valence, the positive or negative tone of coverage, is an insufficient analytic register: the imperial operation runs through how subjects are constituted, not through valence alone.

价值消除:英美对乍得“丰田战争”报道中的帝国知识生产。
当西方媒体对全球南方主题的报道主要是赞美而不是敌意时,帝国的知识生产是如何运作的?本文通过对六十三个英美新闻报道的批评性话语分析来解决这个问题,这些报道涵盖了20世纪80年代的乍得-利比亚冲突,即“丰田战争”。尽管乍得取得了决定性的军事胜利和广泛有利的报道,但系统编码显示,乍得的政治主体性在结构上被压抑了。乍得数字作为来源出现在41.3%的文章中,但只有6.3%的文章被赋予政治或战略解释功能:尽管存在,但解释性排除。在77.8%的文章中,西方或法国官员是主要的解释来源,而在82.5%的文章中,法国被定位为主权仲裁者。三种相互关联的机制产生了这种结构:选择性定价,将政治关系纳入商品对象;一种通过西方制度渠道传递权威的解释性等级制度;以及东方主义的魅力,这使排斥变得愉快,从而难以察觉。这篇文章发展了一个不同生命价值的三层模型(利比亚士兵、乍得士兵和乍得平民都是通过不同的文本类型构成的),并认为效价,即报道的积极或消极基调,是一个不够充分的分析范畴:帝国的运作贯穿于主体的构成,而不仅仅是效价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.80%
发文量
72
期刊介绍: British Journal of Sociology is published on behalf of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is unique in the United Kingdom in its concentration on teaching and research across the full range of the social, political and economic sciences. Founded in 1895 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, the LSE is one of the largest colleges within the University of London and has an outstanding reputation for academic excellence nationally and internationally. Mission Statement: • To be a leading sociology journal in terms of academic substance, scholarly reputation , with relevance to and impact on the social and democratic questions of our times • To publish papers demonstrating the highest standards of scholarship in sociology from authors worldwide; • To carry papers from across the full range of sociological research and knowledge • To lead debate on key methodological and theoretical questions and controversies in contemporary sociology, for example through the annual lecture special issue • To highlight new areas of sociological research, new developments in sociological theory, and new methodological innovations, for example through timely special sections and special issues • To react quickly to major publishing and/or world events by producing special issues and/or sections • To publish the best work from scholars in new and emerging regions where sociology is developing • To encourage new and aspiring sociologists to submit papers to the journal, and to spotlight their work through the early career prize • To engage with the sociological community – academics as well as students – in the UK and abroad, through social media, and a journal blog.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书