![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Recent voices have challenged the Eurocentric gaze in IR . Western hegemony over the discipline has been accounted due to structural, disciplinary, language, institutional reasons, and the monopoly over knowledge production by the West. The big bangs of IR, 1919 and 1648, have played a role in the construction of a Eurocentric IR discipline which is still presumed to be a ‘White man's burden' which needs to theorize the non-West. Conversations within the IR academe to recalibrate IR are incestuous, and the ‘dialogue' is going on within the ‘conclaves' of the various national schools, rather than across the various ‘silos' within the IR community. A more appropriate ‘lens’ to make the study of IR ' Global' would be to adopt an eclectic model and to strengthen perspectives like postcolonialism, Contrapuntal reading, and Marxist perspectives to bridge the gap between the core and the periphery and reign in the silenced narratives.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 An abridged version of this article was published in e-ir.info on 29 May 2020 titled, “International Relations Theory: Still a White Man’s Burden.” Here the debate has been carried forward.
2 The movement for a “Global IR” revolves around deconstructing the big bangs of IR, the myths of 1648 and 1919. Although there is a burgeoning literature by revisionist scholars that attempts to debunk the myths of 1648 and 1919, yet admittedly there is a continued persistence of the myths because disciplinary IR is constructed and interpreted or given meaning through the popular course “texts” and the most popular texts persist with these myths which have only reified eurocentrism. For example, Baylis and Smith’s Globalisation of World Politics and Ken Booth and Steve Smith’s International Relations Theory among others. Even debunking of myths involves using examples from the European laboratory which only perpetuates eurocentrism. The canonical myths of IR also give it a historical image that gives the discipline its popular image of presentism which gives it its exclusivist structuration. Therefore, deconstruction becomes an important tool in the move towards a more global and plural IR. Therefore, a movement towards a Global IR will have to revolve around a rewriting of IR texts to include perspectives and historical anecdotes from the global South that seek to deconstruct the European exceptionalism and the classical cannons of IR theory. This will also have to entail a cross national dialogue between and within the national “Silos” of IR, whether it is Chinese IR, Indian or Korean IR, to promote textbook writings that include voices from the Non-Western academia. At the same time perspectives and tools that are more sympathetic and sensitive to a more pluralist IR should be further strengthened to give IR a more democratic persona. Therefore, language as a vehicle to evolve IR to a more democratic and global perspective becomes critical because it is Language that empowers scholars of IR to develop, give meaning, evolve, and interpret the discipline. How language is used to access the audience of IR becomes critical to widen its democratic base and engage diverse “knowers” and to develop knowledge systems that are more de centred from its Eurocentric core.
3 Of late, ISA and WISC conferences have responded to calls for democratizing IR and have included sections, caucuses and themes on Global South and themes particularly on East Asia, South Asia and China. ISA convention 2014, among others.
4 The lack of space does not permit me to take on other examples from the periphery; therefore, I have taken India as an example. India’s case of course cannot be universalized for the non-west.
5 Although resource inequities do account for the stultification of the IR discipline in India the study does not consider the post-colonial legacies and the English language as an instrument of domination. The Indian university system must encounter a stage already set and the script prewritten.
6 The two premier journals in India, International Studies published by JNU and India Quarterly published by ICWA require authors to conform to the American referencing style sheet. There is a kind of a Gramscian hold over the production of knowledge and the advantage of a first mover legacy to a western centric IR discipline.
7 International Seminar on Kautilya, IDSA, 9 April 2014. Source IDSA Website.
8 Scholars like Raja Mohan, Kanti Bajpai and Amitabh Mattoo had raised this issue.
9 Recent studies on the Arab world and North Korea have pointed out to this prevalent silo culture in IR Scholarship. See, (Hazbun & Valbjorn, Citation2018; Clausen & Nurnus, 2015).
10 The social media platforms like ResearchGate and Academia.edu are both headquartered in the West, Germany and San Francisco. Most flagship international journals expect conformation to the American style sheets. Chicago manual or APA and this practice is prevalent in the periphery countries as well. The two premier journals in India, India Quarterly and International Studies seek conformation by authors to the American Style sheets. Even PhD scholars at JNU and University of Delhi are expected to conform to American style sheets.
11 Witt (Citation2020), Eren (Citation2020) and Ole (Citation2005). These are but few of articles with bibliographic references that reflect the silo culture.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Seema Narain
The author teaches at Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi. She has a Master's degree in International Affairs from SIPA, Columbia University, and a Doctorate Degree from Jawaharlal University ,New Delhi. Her subject interests include International Relations Theory/International Security, India's Foreign Policy and Gender issues.