See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/356530158

International relations theory, perspectives from India

Article in Global Affairs · November 2021

DOI: 10.1080/23340460.2021.2003218

CITATIONS READS

0 2,464

1 author:

Seema Narain
University of Delhi
8 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Seema Narain on 30 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Global Affairs

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

International relations theory, perspectives from

India

Seema Narain

To cite this article: Seema Narain (2021): International relations theory, perspectives from India,
Global Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/23340460.2021.2003218

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 24 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 65

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
GLOBAL AFFAIRS
[Link]

International relations theory, perspectives from India

Seema Narain
Department of Political Science, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Recent voices have challenged the Eurocentric gaze in IR . Western Received 1 September 2021
hegemony over the discipline has been accounted due to Accepted 30 October 2021
structural, disciplinary, language, institutional reasons, and the
KEYWORDS
monopoly over knowledge production by the West. The big Eurocentrism; Western
bangs of IR, 1919 and 1648, have played a role in the dominance; post-coloniality;
construction of a Eurocentric IR discipline which is still presumed core and periphery;
to be a ‘White man’s burden’ which needs to theorize the non- methodology; ontology;
West. Conversations within the IR academe to recalibrate IR are epistemology; Global IR; Big
incestuous, and the ‘dialogue’ is going on within the ‘conclaves’ Bangs of IR; Contrapuntal
of the various national schools, rather than across the various reading
‘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.

Introduction
Recent voices have challenged the dominance of the West and the Eurocentric gaze in IR for
example Amitav Acharya, Barry Buzan Ole weaver, Navnita Behera, Sidharth Mallavarapu
among others.1 A Gramscian Western hegemony over the discipline has been accounted for
due to structural, disciplinary, language and institutional reasons in addition to the mon-
opoly over knowledge production by the West. The big bangs of IR, 1919 and 1648, have
played a profound role in the construction of a Eurocentric IR discipline as well as the bin-
aries that created the hierarchies of the “West” and the “non-West” (Narain, 2020). These
tags have been continuously interrogated by scholars who talk of a “Global IR”. However,
mere interrogation of categories does not bring us proximate to a “global IR” rather, as
studies have shown, it only reifies the differences and reproduces Eurocentrism.

State of the art

This paper will evaluate the “state of the art”, by analysing the notable contentions and
gaps in the discipline, on the completion of a century. A nuanced self-reflection of the
discipline alludes to three major contentions that came to challenge the narratives of
IR, in its centenary report card (Narain, 2020). Firstly, is the discipline writing its own
epitaph? Secondly, the methodological divide and the subject/object debate. Thirdly,

CONTACT Seema Narain seema_1narain@[Link]

© 2021 European International Studies Association
2 S. NARAIN

the polarization of the discipline around the core (West) and the periphery (non-West).
Do the subjects of the discipline conform to its title, “International”? In plain speak; is the
discipline of IR ontologically and epistemologically truly international?
The academic discipline of International Relations (IR) came full circle in the year
2019 after it completed a centenary, having been established at the end of the First
World War in 1919.2 Its first chair was established in 1919 at the University College of
Wales, Aberystwyth. At the end of a century, IR is still grappling with the familiar
issues of conflict and instability. The time is befitting for a self-reflection of the disci-
pline’s transformative trajectory of its self-images from “debates” to “paradigm shifts”
from mainstream theories to post-positivism, post-modernism to critical theory, post-
structuralism, feminisms to post-colonialism, foundationalism and anti-foundational-
ism, to list some of them (Booth & Smith, 1995, pp. 1–38). After several twists and
turns in the discipline from empiricism to a normative turn, since the past few
decades there has been a burgeoning critical movement denouncing Western dominance
and Eurocentrism in IR (Acharya & Buzan, 2007; Behera, 2007; Inoguchi, 2007).
If there is one area where we see a globalism of the discipline, after the initial calls
made by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan as to “why is there no non-western IR
theory?”, there seems to be a near consensus among scholars of IR of its Eurocentric
vein and Western dominance. Yet, although the disciplines’ Eurocentric orientation is
widely acknowledged, what constitutes “Global” is not sufficiently interrogated. It is
important to keep interrogating it because in theory and praxeological IR we have not
been able to plug the loopholes in the core and periphery divide in IR scholarship and
move towards a more global IR. Therefore, it is imperative that newer and different
aspects must be contributed towards the movement for a “global IR” to solicit a varied
and diverse response to Eurocentrism than what has already been articulated and
acknowledged in IR scholarship. Many a time what may be articulated need not necess-
arily be acknowledged or accepted in scholarship. For example, although revisionist
scholars disparage the genesis of the discipline from the widely accepted Big Bangs of
IR 1648 and 1919 (De Carvalho, Leira, & Hobson, 2011), in pedagogical sources
popular textbooks of IR hardly acknowledge it and persist in anchoring IR’s origins on
the Big Bangs of IR (De Carvalho et al. 2011). This praxeology is widely prevalent in aca-
demic institutions across the globe. This dichotomy reveals the discrepancy between the
acceptance of ideas and perspectives and their acknowledgement (Narain, 2020). It also
underlies the importance of rewriting and rereading texts to decolonize the discipline, the
classroom as well as the universities. Revising the syllabi and course curriculum and
drawing from the traditional knowledge systems, besides, as famously said “decolonising
the mind”.
Scholarship, both from the West and Non-West, has articulated the need for a more
inclusive IR representing the voices from the Global South (Acharya & Buzan, 2007,
p. 203; Puchala, 1997; Voskressenski, 2017). A growing critical movement has denounced
western monopoly of the IR discipline and the worldwide production of knowledge
(Wæver, 1998). The International Studies Association conventions and World Inter-
national Studies Conferences have been organized around these themes.3 In other
words, there has been a near-universal call for democratizing the IR discipline (Crawford
& Jarvis, 2001; Smith, 2002; Wæver, 1998). A recent empirical study has countered this
critical literature denouncing western dominance by citing other local factors that have
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 3

disincentivized the internationalization of the discipline rather than the “presumed”

western dominance (Alejandro, 2018).
This paper suggests that we must adapt to a layered approach in IR that is ontologi-
cally and epistemologically more democratic and reflects its “international” tag. Taking
the lead from calls for analytic eclecticism (Katzenstein & Sil, 2010) and syncretic uni-
versalism (Acharya, 2018), this paper recommends an eclectic approach that engages
with “traditional IR” as well as with the movement for a “Global IR”. It also suggests
that the endeavours towards a more global discipline should make concerted efforts to
incorporate concepts from the traditional indigenous literature and its historical, social
and cultural milieu, independent of a western reference point. New research methods
and concepts must be developed from the vast repertoire of traditional knowledge
resources (Narain, 2020). A case in point is India.4 For example, can one locate traces
of the “international” from a re-reading or reinterpretations of the history of the great
Mughal dynasty or from the political treatise of Arthashastra? (Boesche, 2003; Saha,
2018). Apprehensions of “nativism” in post-colonial India should not detract the periph-
ery from evolving theories, concepts and new methods from the autochthonous knowl-
edge systems to bridge the gaps between the core and the periphery. Arguments and
counter arguments can lead to new argumentations and evolve a discipline further.
Causal investigations using methods, concepts and theories adapted from traditional
IR will broaden the gaze of IR to include diversities from the Global South. A rising
India will need to engage intellectually with the world to play a significant role in the
shaping of international system and future world orders (Paul, 2017). Language is of par-
ticular importance as a vehicle of communication and interpretations of meanings to
‘speech ‘and ‘texts ‘in IR. Language is constitutive of knowledge itself. Therefore,
regional, and vernacular language skills must be evolved to offset the language “hege-
mony” of English as also catalyse the local IR audience to contribute its own readings
or re-readings and tools constitutive of the’ international’.

End of IR theory?
It was the special issue of the EJIR that spearheaded the proclamation, bemoaning the
“End of IR theory” (Dunne, 2013). The follow-up debates pointed out the malaise in
the IR discipline that required diagnosis and immediate first aid. This “decay” of the dis-
cipline was attributed to two causes (Narain, 2020). Firstly, stagnation because of the div-
ision of the discipline into intellectual camps and contentious inter paradigm debates that
tended to view things through their narrow prisms. Resultantly, the tone and tenor of the
discipline were acrimonious. It was either power versus institutions, structure versus
process, West versus Non-West, self or the other binary. The pulse of the IR Academia
resonated with a sense of war of all against all (Bryman, 2008). This leads to stultification
of the discipline disallowing the development of new theories and precluding diversities.
In fact, some scholars have gone as far as proclaiming that any theory building after 1979
is a mere footnote to realism. Secondly, the imperative of bailing out the discipline from
“the prison of political science”. This caveat alludes to pigeonholing IR in a political/
power straitjacket which kept it within the confines of its political niche. Calls for incor-
porating societal multiplicities and pluralistic universalism, grounding in world history
while integrating regions into the central concerns of IR (Acharya & Buzan, 2007)
4 S. NARAIN

redefining existing theories and methods and building new ones (Acharya & Buzan,
2007) were made to pave the way for a more diverse IR that was truly international
and veered away from its western biases, ethnocentrism and exceptionalism (Acharya
& Buzan, 2007; Bajpai, 2005; Mallavarapu, 2010, & Mattoo, 2009; Buzan & Lawson,
2014). This, it was surmised would resolve the crisis of the missing ontology in IR (Sid-
diqui, 2019).

Methodology and IR. ‘Quo Vadis IR?’

Since 1975 after Feyerabend’s call to abandon method in IR, there has been an erudite
debate on methodology in IR both in reputed journals and university forums. The
debate may not yet be conclusive but has certainly opened avenues for new and innova-
tive methods beyond the conventional quantitative/qualitative divide and has furthered
new directions for research and inquiry in the discipline (Lacatus, Schade, & Yao, 2015).
Calls have been made by scholars to research and dialogue on innovative methods to
include new data for research, new comparative approaches to induct new social and pol-
itical phenomenon into research or even cross disciplinary methods. Amidst problems of
structuring research in IR around “isms” which delineates the discipline into rival camps,
fresh calls have been made to mix methods for more pragmatic research and to overcome
the “silo” culture.
“Ontology” is the reality of being. Reality can be made up of facts that can be inves-
tigated, and inferences made from causal logic, or they can be constructed based on
human perceptions. Issues of “knowing” the reality fall in the domain of knowledge or
understanding (epistemology). Approaches of knowing for example constructivism,
empiricist and idealist or realist are based on certain types of “knowing” premised on
human constructs of knowledge, subjectivity versus a neutral objectivity or through
the predominance of senses. In other words, knowledge oscillates between being objec-
tive/value neutral or subjective/value laden. It is then, assumptions about what can be
known that guides our choice of research. Research in global politics is about using meth-
odology as tools to seek knowledge about its normative dimensions, constitution and
functions. A discipline’s distinctiveness is determined by its methodology. Methods
link the research design to the central research question and guide the nature and direc-
tion of the discipline. Research has an impact on pedagogy, policy-making and govern-
ance of the discipline (TRIPS). The question then needs to be asked is, “who has the right
to research?” and “who is in denial of this right”? Post-colonialism poses such theoretical
and empirical questions and therefore its intervention in IR has gone a long way to open
up methodological and epistemological debates in IR. Deconstruction of existing
methods and myths in particular exposing the “hierarchical” nature of IR rather than
“anarchical”, the naturalization of the colonial narrative and reigning in the intersection-
ality of race, gender, class and oppression in understandings of IR have gone a long way
in promoting diversity in the path towards a “Global IR” (Narain, 2020).
To take IR research beyond the limits of the conventional divide of quantitative/quali-
tative methodology IR has taken a call for mixing methods, seen a visual turn which
encourages the explanatory power of images and interdisciplinarity (Lacatus et al.,
2015). The constant reconsideration of scope and methods makes the discipline rejuve-
nated and broadens the scope of inquiry in relation to recent developments in
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 5

international relations. Once a choice of method is made, it becomes subjective and mor-
alistic. Method to that extent becomes a moral choice and is not devoid of preferences
and subjectivities. Interrogating methodology therefore becomes another way of
making the field reinvent itself (Narain, 2020).

Construction of the West and Non-West in IR

The construction of the West is not only polemical but also hegemonic, privileging the
thinking of the West (self) as against the non-West (other) to rationalize the actions of
the West. The construction of the “West” is spatial, spreading across Europe where the
discipline originated and America where the US leads the positivist thinking in the aca-
demia. However, the West is not a monolith structure and there is stratification within
the American academia on ways of doing IR as there are stratifications within the
European Academia, as well (Kristensen, 2015; Maliniak et al., 2014). The historical
and cultural aspects of the third world are conspicuously missing in the books of IR
and therefore the discipline is viewed by its critics as exclusionary, parochial and Euro-
centric. The IR discipline applies western values of the “self” (superiority, civilized and
dominant) and thinking on the “other” which is often (inferior, uncivilized and subordi-
nate) (Said, 1978). The claims of the “self” can be applied to both, the Coxian “problem
solving theory” as well as “critical theory” (Castro, 2011). The problem-solving theories
or mainstream IRT (Realism and Liberalism) were positivist, rational and status quoists
as they upheld the prevailing order of the Great Powers (Cox, 1981). Critical theory,
although, exposed the underlying power relationships and the nexus between knowledge
and power, did not script a narrative for the “freedom from” or independence of the
Non-West (Hobson, 2007). Hegemonic orders in the Gramscian sense imposed by
consent could be dismantled by dissent. Therefore, IR literature noticeably excluded
the study of colonialism and imperialism which have had a significant impact in
shaping western history. This “selective amnesia” of “unknowing” the non-West was
conjured up to keep the study of colonial societies and experiences of imperialism
within the precincts of the literature on modernization and development. “Development”
itself was lodged on a linear progression towards western models that set the standards of
modernization and civilization, to be subsequently embraced as the goal posts of devel-
oping societies (Narain, 2020).
It was claimed that IR originated in the West as a tool in the hands of policy-makers to
impose peace and conflict prevention (Castro, 2011). The goal posts of mainstream IR
were simply to predict and avoid wars with states as the primary, unitary actor, deperso-
nalized and acting on its own (Narain, 2020). Political phenomenon was analysed in the
Global South using the lenses of a Eurocentric IR, but unsuccessfully. If the rational actor
model was instrumental in establishing peace along the US-Soviet highway then by
extension it could be applied to the regional context, for example, South Asia (Sagan
& Waltz, 1995). Some analysts noted however, that limited nuclear proliferation in the
South Asian context led to the stability-instability paradox and brinkmanship
(Krepon, 2004). The discourse in the nuclear realm was also racialized as some states
were not considered “rational” enough compared to others (Biswas, 2014). In fact, the
post-colonial turn in IR, has been particularly useful in opening the epistemological
and the methodological debates in IR by deconstruction of existing methods and
6 S. NARAIN

methodology that reproduce the coloniality of knowledge and a reconstruction of and/or

reinvention of colonial practice (Narain, 2020).
Responses to a Eurocentric epistemological underpinning of the IR discipline (or the
exclusivist logic of IR) led to a proliferation of literature on issues, contentions and pro-
spects of a non-western IR theory from scholars located both in the centre and the per-
iphery. The lamentations of Acharya and Buzan on “Why is there no Non-Western
theory of IR” flowered into a sequel of national schools of IR by local scholars, years
after Martin Whight had bemoaned in a similar vein “why is there no international
theory” (Wight, 1960). A more erudite understanding points to the existence of diversity
in the responses to Eurocentrism across the non-West. The category non-West is not a
monolith impenetrable structure and remains contested. It needs to be further interro-
gated to lay bare the teleology of western modernity and language use to generate the
binary oppositional categories, to impose ethnocentrism in the social sciences, and by
derivation, to IR (Capan, 2018).
A recent study questions the presumed agency of western hegemony responsible for
dwarfing the development of IR as a discipline in the Non-West (Alejandro, 2018).
This research is important because it challenges the very thesis of the critical movement
denouncing IR for its Eurocentric orientation (Narain, 2020). The study points out that
not Eurocentrism, but local dynamics are instrumental in preventing the evolution of the
IR discipline in India and Brazil. However, the case studies of India and Brazil point out
to very different local dynamics in the development of IR and its internationalization and
cannot be generalized under the category non-West. There are different ways of doing IR
in China, India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. The Non-West is not a monolith struc-
ture. The study, although very innovative because of the “bottom-up” approach instead
of the “top-down” approach, gives a kaleidoscopic picture of how IR is done at the
ground level in India and Brazil commencing from the universities, researchers, pedago-
gical structures, and the academia in the so-called non-West. It is argued that it is not the
presumed dominance of the West that has stifled the development and internationaliza-
tion of IR but, the poverty of resources and other structural and institutional disincen-
tives that have prevented the growth of a robust IR discipline in the two countries.
What then explains the fact that the dominant security narrative in India is still
ensconced in the realist (mainstream) paradigm? The Indo-Pak relations are best
explained through the realist prism – trapped in a security dilemma manifested by
three major wars border disputes and arms race. A bottom-up approach would look
beyond the security narrative to focus on the everyday and lived experiences of the
people as well as the marginalized groups like women and children. The agential role
of other actors beyond the state will only make for a more inclusive scholarship on
Indo-Pak relations. By denying agency to western dominance in constraining the inter-
nationalization of IR in India and Brazil, the protagonist only reifies Eurocentrism. The
method of reflexivity is not undertaken devoid of the social context or the psycho-
analytical socialization of the individual researcher. The questions framed for interviews,
the qualitative analysis is imbued with the early socialization and the socio-cultural values
internalized by the researcher right from early childhood through adulthood. The situat-
edness of the researcher, place of education and of work have a profound influence in
constructing individual identities and values. Hence, the research methods and the con-
clusions drawn thereof, of research, cannot be value free and to that extent cannot be
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 7

decentred from the researchers’ socialisation. One of the lacunas of the aforementioned
thesis is that the “international” or “International Relations” has not been sufficiently
problematized. It has neither been sufficiently interrogated. What are the historical,
social or cultural sources that are constitutive of the “international”? How has it been
constructed, the historical and cultural context and its “telos”. How can one define Inter-
national Relations as a discipline? Does it have trans-disciplinary characteristics? What
about the colonial legacies and the tecnicization of the discipline? Is it gender inclusive
or blind? What are its interests and methods?

The ghost of the Westphalian past

The Peace of Westphalia has been pivotal to the evolution and structure of the Inter-
national System. Among the core features of the Westphalia narrative is the idea that
it embodied the principles of sovereignty and secularism. By curbing the hegemonic
aims of the Holy Roman Empire, the Peace allowed the establishment of sovereign
states that were territorially bounded and monopolized the means of violence within
their territory and were externally supreme (Narain, 2020). The Peace was also instru-
mental in limiting the universal claims of the church thereby, separating the state
from religion or the public from the private. Together these principles and institutions
of Westphalia, political and religious tolerance stretched throughout Europe where it
was consolidated and later spread worldwide with the expansion of colonialism.
IR scholarship is crafted by the political and ideological affinities of the IR scholars. Its
ethnocentricity is manifested in the standard historical references of the disciplines’
description of the evolution of the state system its institutions and international relations,
which are almost exclusively drawn from European history (Narain, 2020). This skewed
narrative has had a profound impact on theorizing about modern international relations
and presents European thought as the motor that animates the international system with
its values of enlightenment, modernity, democracy and human rights. IR theory reeks of
the conviction that the West sets the standard of civilized human conduct and order in
the international system. Once the values of Westphalia, political and religious tolerance
are assimilated and further consolidated amongst the European states, a second narrative
is crafted dealing with the non-western states that are devoid of western values. The quin-
tessential binary opposites are derived from the European reasoning of superiority and
exceptionalism of the “self” as against the “other”. The “self” which is consistent with
the values of law, legitimacy, pluralism, self-restraint and freedom, as opposed to the
“other” which is devoid of these values. This distorted understanding prevents inter-
national relations scholars from envisioning the integration of non-western societies
without coercion and domination accompanied by an assumption of European superior-
ity. This powerful use of the Foucauldian nexus between knowledge and power by
Edward Said, Spivak and Bhabha (The trinity of Post-colonialism) can be the lens
through which to view the dominance of Eurocentrism in IR and the powerful insti-
tutions of the West that validate the production and dissemination of Knowledge.
The silences and marginalities in the Westphalia narrative, speak louder than the
written script, in ringing in the tones of Eurocentrism (Narain, 2020). The marginaliza-
tion of imperialism, race, colonialism, forces that have been most influential in shaping
world politics and have been the causes belle of the very wars and conflict that IR aims to
8 S. NARAIN

prevent. The Eurocentric and westphalian prism not only give a skewed image of the
current world order but portrays the international world order as one that is based on
sovereign equality of states despite the prevailing influences and legacies of imperialism
existing in post-colonial states. Therefore imperialism, race, gender, colonialism must be
factored into any narrative of the international. That realism has its antecedents in the
political treatise of the Arthashastra is now well established and recognized by scholars
from both the West and Non-West but obliterated in the annals of the “Great
Debates”. Deciphering the historical narrative of international national relations devel-
opment beyond its Westphalian prism will recognize and integrate the global and
regional diversities in the construction of the “international”. A truly global IR will
have to accommodate references to diverse ethical systems such as Jewish, Chinese,
Indian and Islamic. The Non-West cannot remain the object of knowledge but rather
included as the subjects of knowledge production. The Non-West will have to
conform to being the creators of knowledge.
Evidentially, the categories West and Non-West are not monolith structures and
need to be disrupted to bridge the gap between the core and the periphery. Eurocentr-
ism is an epistemological construction. Europe is presented as the originator of all kinds
of development be it democracy, human rights or sovereignty. It is this biased chron-
icling of the historical narrative that structures the time/space hierarchies through
which the “international” is given meaning and is understood. The West as a construc-
tion is better understood by further reiterating the “difference” or the oppositional qual-
ities with the non-West. The binaries are not only relational for example, but the self is
also superior in relation to the other which is inferior, or the civilized West in relation
to the uncivilized non-West (for works that challenge the binary constructs see Barkawi,
2017; Bilgin 2016a, 2016b; Çapan, 2017; Go & Lawson, 2017, Grovogui, 2006). The bin-
aries feed on each other to further reify the differences and perpetuate the hierarchies.
Therefore, an analysis that interrogates beyond the binaries is imperative if the gaps are
to be narrowed and the IR historical narrative is to be read in a singular voice. This calls
for rewriting and reinterpreting the histories of IR not as separate and bounded spaces
of the West and the Non-West but as a cross-cultural/civilizational exercise and inclus-
ive of other “third” spaces as well. The reality around us (ontology) and the ways of
knowing (episteme) must be decolonized. My contention is that these categories that
emerge from a discipline that is Eurocentric and disregards the “other”, should be dis-
mantled and strengthen other methods from the vast pool of tools of analysis to bring
about the connectedness of hitherto abstracted European modernity from its colonial
situatedness. Bhambra’s inspirational take on Sanjay Subramanyam’s method of gener-
ating connected histories from plural locations which are hereby artificially isolated
from each other due to the ways in which disciplines are structured is a case in
point. Bhambra takes on the challenge of reconstructing theoretical categories to
create new undertandings that will not only change previous ones but also reconstruct
the understanding of the social world through plural locations by identifying new con-
nectedness between events, entities and peoples. Hence the project to interrogate the
global cuts across various disciplines and points to the pertinence of interdisciplinarity
and that the critique of Eurocentrism has seeped through various disciplines in the
social sciences.
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 9

Language is the key vehicle to communicate ideas and knowledge. The dominance of
the English language in pedagogical structures, published articles and in high-quality
peer-reviewed journals, the use of binaries in the English language also perpetuates hier-
archies (Narain, 2020). Theory is written for someone and for some purpose (Cox, 1981).
However, theory is also written by someone and for a particular audience. Hence it at
once becomes ideological and contextual. Here, vernacular languages can be used to
promote the accessibility of IR literature locally, hitherto deprived because of language
unproficiency in English. Locally, within India and other regions like China and
Japan, researchers are satisfied with having successful careers in their own local languages
(Alejandro, 2019). Developing local languages will also help counter the language hege-
mony of English as the dominant medium for the dissemination of knowledge and com-
munication in IR discipline.

Post-colonial legacies
Alejandro’s study does not consider the post-colonial legacies in the case of India.5 Post-
colonial India inherited the legacies of the British imperial Raj. Modern India was built
on the legacy of British institutions, whether it be the administrative set up, communi-
cation system, legal system, and the modern education system. The term Macaulayism
is referred to as an attempt to by a colonizing culture to impose itself on its colonies
through education (Narain, 2020). Language, which is the key vehicle for the creation
of knowledge through communication, has catapulted English as the medium of instruc-
tion in premier central universities, although bilingualism does exist. The education
system has been established along the lines of the British System. Even the current inter-
national relations course structure for undergraduate study, at the University of Delhi,
has a major section on the world history of Europe from 1919 to the end of the cold
war. The other section includes the study of mainstream IR theories with the reading
list including books written by western authors and predominantly in English, a
formula to reproduce Eurocentrism. The paradigmatic structuration of the IR discipline
privileges it with the first-mover advantage as the introductory lectures in IRT begin with
the positivist debates. Other theories are mere footprints to realism. The hold of Euro-
centrism due to the tecnicization of the discipline in terms of certain levels of the
English language, the publication standards that conform to either the Chicago Style
manual or other Anglo-American writing styles, gate keeping and publication practices
of peer-reviewed journals explain the challenges of crafting a robust IR discipline in these
countries, besides resource inequities.6 Decolonizing the university system together with
revision of the course structures to include historical and innovative research methods to
integrate traditional knowledge systems is called for to decentre IR discipline from its
Eurocentric orientation. This would translate into a complete overhaul of the university
structure, which is one of the primary sites of knowledge creation, to include texts from
the Indian traditions and to encourage research programmes to develop concepts from
this repertoire of Indian traditional knowledge systems. It is imperative to develop con-
cepts and research methods that are independent of the western reference points.
Language laboratories and the development of vernacular and multilingual resources
to unearth the vast repository of traditional knowledge systems is critical to integrate
and evolve a new episteme for a more plural and diverse IR. The internationalization
10 S. NARAIN

of the discipline in India must be seen in conjunction with the a priori structures, insti-
tutions and practices that have been inherited from the colonial legacy.
Indian scholars have argued that because of their background in subaltern studies and
post-colonialism the reversion to indigenous concepts and ideologies for developing
Indian IR has the tendency to fall into the nativist trap or become self-serving (Shahi,
2014). Indigenous scholars and Indologists for instance have taken the call for historicity
very seriously and undertaken a lot of work on Arthashastra and other Indian traditional
resources.7 For example, Kautilya’s Arthashastra has been compared to a treatise on real-
politik and viewed as a precursor to realism (Shahi, 2014). This has stoked interest in
fuelling research and dialogues on Arthashastra in India amidst calls for theorizing
from the traditional Indian texts to accompany the rise of India.8 Given the Foucauldian
nexus between knowledge and power, it is deemed crucial to have Indian IR to negotiate
with India’s rise and its ability to deal with its neighbourhood and global power relation-
ships. However, the extrapolation of Arthashastra as qualitatively superior to Machiavel-
li’s “The Prince”, relapsed Indian IR into a nativist discourse. Scholars tried to extricate
themselves from nativism by widening the intellectual base of Arthashastra and drawing
overlaps with Alexander Wendt’s social constructivism, a western construct that is sym-
pathetic to identity formations in the third world (Shahi, 2014). However, attempts at
comparing traditional Indian concepts to western counterparts only reproduce Euro-
centrism. Apprehensions of nativism (Shahi, 2014) should not though, restrain dialogue
and discovery of concepts in the Indian historical repertoire that are relevant to under-
standing or providing tools for India to negotiate its rise and engage successfully with the
global system. This should be done by evolving indigenous concepts and assumptions
independent of western references to understand the “international”. The lineage of
the “International” can be in the cultural and historical narratives of the Mughal
dynasty. The “mandala” theory can be applied to study India’s policy in its extended
neighbourhood of East Asia, West Asia, towards its North and South. Stitching up
peace agreements or “cooperation” can be inferred from Akbar’s matrimonial alliances
and religious pluralism.
More importantly, western scholars should also engage in the study of the literature
from the periphery to decentre the discipline from its western orientation. Discovery
and dialoguing should be a two-way street to make the IR discipline more global. At
present the conversations on a globalizing IR are a monologue, not a dialogue. The con-
versations are bordering incestuousness as they are going on within the various conclaves
or boroughs of national and regional schools/perspectives of IR (e.g. American, Chinese,
Korean, Arab, and Japanese or Indian schools of IR).9 Whereas, the conversations must
be cross-cultural and dialogic. Cross-cultural dialogue will lead to increased networking
and cross-flow of ideas, concepts and interests across geo-epistemological and geo-cul-
tural boundaries and encourage the process of “travelling” of theories and concepts
across the core/periphery dichotomy (Odoom & Andrews, 2016). The academia in the
West/Non-West should engage within the discipline’s literature on a reciprocal basis
to open a window of innovative ideas to diversify IR. Western IR academe can contribute
ideas from the indigenous resources of the non-West repertoire of literature and vice-
versa. It must be a joint enterprise. The cross-cultural dialogue will have to be carried
out within the agora of the Global IR academe as well as the academic structures, be
they institutions, universities, published texts and journals because it is here, through
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 11

written “texts” and “speech” that knowledge is produced, given meanings and consumed
by the “knowers”. The process of decolonization must go on in the universities and class-
rooms as well. Here it is pertinent to ask the question, “How many academics from the
non-West/periphery are contributing to the flagship journals of IR”? Is there gate keeping
practices? Who is writing, what and from where? How is knowledge received, given
meaning and legitimized? These are the key questions concerning the production of
knowledge and theory building. Popular practices reveal, however, that Western hege-
mony has a Gramscian hold over IR knowledge production which is still skewed in
favour of the West. Much has already been written on this (Acharya & Buzan, 2007;
Bilgin 2016a, 2016b; Hoffmann, 1977; Kayaoglu, 2010). When it comes to publishing,
scholars from the West or those who work at the centre of IR Studies (America and
Western Europe) have a clear advantage over those in the periphery. We have yet to
see greater diversity in the contributions from the periphery in the flagship journals of
IR, for example those published by ISA or the European Journal of International
Relations, Millennium, International Security, and International Organization. Those
that come from scholars from the periphery having substantive knowledge or ideas
should not be rejected but reinvited to submit with the revisions of writing style
(Tang, 2016). The editorial boards should be more diverse and inclusive of editors
from the periphery. These steps will incentivize scholars from the periphery and standar-
dize their writing styles to measure up to the high-quality standards expected by flagship
journals in the field. Incentivizing scholars in the periphery to contribute high-quality
articles in English and local languages is the need of the hour. Social media platforms
and the tecnicization of the discipline also privilege the scholars from the core rather
than the periphery.10

A layered and eclectic model

Drawing from the postulates of analytical eclecticism and syncretic analysis (Sil & Kat-
zenstein 2010), a movement towards a global IR will have to change the “lenses to a
more layered analysis”. The prism to view global politics to pull in greater diversity
will have to be through a layered approach employing methods from both traditional
IR and the movement towards global IR. International politics has transformed into
global politics enabling the shrinking of the world in terms of both the temporal and
spatial dimension bringing about deepening, widening and greater interconnectedness
in the technical, economic, social and cultural aspects. So too the lens to analyse
global politics must change. This approach should adapt to traditional IR using insights
from levels of analysis and constructivism to imbricate diverse voices and hitherto mar-
ginalized groups, actors both state and non-state into analysis.
Only producing knowledge in a holistic way by reading in the hitherto silenced or
unacknowledged sources and sites of knowledge production will bring us closer to a
“Global IR”. This paper argues that the IR discipline 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 are going on within the various “conclaves”
of the various national schools (a reality not acknowledged in the literature on IR theory
in the West), rather than across the various “silos” within the IR community. The paper
proposes that a more appropriate “lens” to make the study of IR “Global” would be to
12 S. NARAIN

adopt an eclectic mode of analysis to include perspectives that reign in inclusivity rather
than reinforce the dichotomy between the West and Non-West. If “knowledge is power”
in the Foucauldian perspective then the knowledge systems that have been imposed by a
Eurocentric social science, the concepts and categories that emanate from this source of
knowledge production must be undermined by strengthening other perspectives that
offer a more holistic perspective of the study of IR. A dialogue must be mutual and
cross-cultural between the subaltern’s and the West. The conversations must be with
each other “not” merely about each other. Both the West and those that are hitherto
silenced must be heard by one another and engage with each other to form a “dialogue”.
What is spoken by the silenced must be heard and responded to. It is then that these dia-
logues will become conversations. It is pertinent here to revisit the question raised by
Spivak, “Can the Subalterns still ‘speak’”? Gayatri Spivak, one of the seminal scholars
of post-colonial theory lashed out at the inability of the “speech act” by the subalterns
as a space of difference and therefore the impossibility of understanding the meaning
of their speech anchored within an epistemological framework which is deeply
entrenched in western philosophy, thought and metaphysics. The subalterns are
excluded from this structure therefore it is impossible to understand the speech act of
the subalterns. A speech act is complete only when one is heard (Spivak, 1988). The sub-
altern women in Spivak’s essay are not heard because even through the act of suicide or
death of the “Sati” woman leaves no imprint on the colonial or patriarchal structures
(Spivak, 1988). It is in this vein that I see the “speech act” not being entirely complete
in the movement to globalize IR because the dialogues have yet to be cross-cultural.
To a large extent the institutional, disciplinary and the tecnicization of the discipline
together with gatekeeping practices constrain the production and dissemination of
knowledge from the Global South. Additionally, the bibliographic references of scholar-
ship on Global IR in the West are indicative of the “Silo” culture in IR theory.11 How can
dialogues about Global IR be carried out within and by the western academe predomi-
nantly? Can western voices be authentically representative of the non-West? The conver-
sations emanating from the global South will have to be responded to by the Global
North. The Ashish Nandi’s, Bajpai’s, Mattoo’s will have to be responded to by the
Western academe and vice-versa.
In fact, the use of opposition binaries should be disrupted as should the inside/outside
dichotomy because it only reinforces the self/other differences. A more layered analysis
which is an eclectic amalgamation of perspectives from the existing pool of knowledge
and strengthening of post-colonialism, feminism and Marxist perspectives like depen-
dencia models that look at both sides of the narratives will move us towards a more
Global IR. Amalgamating others like contrapuntal reading (Bilgin 2016a, 2016b) and his-
torical sociology/visual analysis as a method will draw in the colonial and imperial con-
texts leading to a more objective analysis. New theories are not essential to reign in
inclusivity. Interdisciplinarity and a more eclectic analysis will bridge the geo-cultural
divide between the core and periphery. A lot of very powerful and influential work
has already been done by post-colonial scholars like Said, Spivak, Bhabha, Bhambra
and Subramanyam, many of whom have used insights from Foucault (Subrahmanyam
1997). Bhabha’s concept of cultural hybridity which connotes a non-essentialist
reading of culture as an isolated essence and foregrounds the development of alternative
narratives (Bhabha 1994). That is to say that the concept of hybridity can be a lens to
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 13

explain cultural hybridization for example in contemporary globalization and obliterate

the grand colonial narrative of self/other as mutually exclusive zones. So therefore,
besides connected histories and connected sociologies we also must take cognizance of
connected ideas that prevail in scholarly literature (Bhambra 2014). After all the great
canons of IR are evidence of circulation of IR concepts and theories through centuries.
The various levels of situatedness of actors and groups, at the level of individuals, state
and the international, together with structures, processes, agents, and their interactions
can usher in greater inclusiveness (Narain, 2020). The analysis will have to be agential
and one of agency. This method can reign in a wider set of actors (state, non-state, insti-
tutions, religion and culture) and have a universal application. It will be empirical as well
as normative. This approach will cast its analytical net more comprehensively ontologi-
cally and epistemologically. Constructivism, by being sympathetic to cultural and iden-
tity formation cannot be abandoned as methods merely because they have Eurocentric IR
as their reference point. The intervention of post-colonialism can only be welcomed in
raising the visibility of intersectionality and persistently interrogating the international.
Deconstruction as a method to debunk the myths and expose the European exception-
alism and the ahistorical prism with which IR is perceived will have to be infused in
the newer methods. Post-colonialism’s contributions lie in problematizing race,
gender, sexuality as a major variable in constructing a Eurocentric IR, the concept of
the nation and the international. These powerful tools of analysis must be strengthened
for more inclusive research designs and the foot notes, texts, syllabi and language labs will
reflect greater inclusivity.
There is an imperative to deepen and broaden global values drawn from the traditions
of political and religious systems e.g. from the Ottoman millet systems, Chinese tributary
system, or Mughal Emperor Akbar’s religious pluralism, etc. Decentring the IR discipline
from a westphalian spotlight to a more objective analysis of the international system and
international society is in order. The European centric model of a linear progressive evol-
utionary development of the international system, international society and international
relations theory will have to be replaced by a multilinear or multi-layered, non-hierarch-
ical, competitive, and even a politicized narrative of IR in its diverse avatars. This is not to
conclude that old theories have become irrelevant. They did serve a purpose during a
certain context and time. It is time to move forward. It is time to reinvent international
relations to revive it.

Notes
1. An abridged version of this article was published in [Link] on 29 May 2020 titled, “Inter-
national 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
14 S. NARAIN

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 criti-
cal 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 knowl-
edge 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; there-
fore, 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 instru-
ment 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 Quar-
terly 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 advan-
tage 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, 2018; Clausen & Nurnus, 2015).
10. The social media platforms like ResearchGate and [Link] are both headquartered in
the West, Germany and San Francisco. Most flagship international journals expect confor-
mation 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 (2020), Eren (2020) and Ole (2005). These are but few of articles with bibliographic
references that reflect the silo culture.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
The author teaches at Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi. She has a Master’s degree in Inter-
national Affairs from SIPA, Columbia University, and a Doctorate Degree from Jawaharlal Uni-
versity ,New Delhi. Her subject interests include International Relations Theory/International
Security, India’s Foreign Policy and Gender issues.
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 15

References
Acharya, A. (2018). “Imagining a Global IR Out of India” In ORF ISSUE BRIEF, January Issue No.
224.
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-western international relations theory? An
introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 287–312. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm012
Alejandro, A. (2018). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR
in Brazil and India. Brazil: Routledge.
Alejandro, A. (2019). Western dominance in international relations? The internationalisation of IR
in Brazil and India. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge
Bajpai, K. (2005). International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) home. In K. Bajpai &
S. Mallavarapu (Eds.), International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back home (pp. 17–
38). New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Barkawi, T. (2017). Soldiers of empire: Indian and British armies in World War II. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Behera, N. C. (2007). Re-imagining IR in India. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3),
341–368. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm014
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge. 1–338
Bhambra, K. G. (2014). Connected sociologies. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 1–178.
Bilgin, P. (2016a). “Contrapuntal reading” as a method, an ethos, and a metaphor for Global IR.
International Studies Review, Volume 18(Issue 1), 134–146. doi:10.1093/isr/viv018
Bilgin, P. (2016b). How to remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A complement and a challenge for the
Global transformation. International Theory, 8(3), 492–501. doi:10.1017/S1752971916000178
Biswas, S. (2014). Nuclear desire: Power and the postcolonial order. University of Minnesota Press.
Boesche, R. (2003). The First great political realist: Kautilya and his arthashashtra. London:
Lexington Books.
Booth, K., & Smith, S. (1995). International relations theory today. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Bryman, A. (2008). The End of the paradigm wars? In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp. 13–26). London: Sage.
Buzan, B., & Lawson, G. (2014). Capitalism and the emergent world order. International Affairs, 90
(1), 71–91.
Capan, Z. G. (2018). [Link]
non-west/
Castr, F. L. (2011) Does International Relations theory privilege Western ways of thinking and
acting? [Link]
Cox, W. R. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond International relations.
Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126–155. doi:10.1177/
03058298810100020501
Crawford, R. M. A., & Jarvis, D. S. L. (2001). International relations—still an American social
science? Toward diversity in International thought. Alybany: State University of New York Press.
Çapan, Z. G. (2017). Writing International Relations from the invisible side of the abyssal line.
Review of International Studies, 43(4), 602–611. doi:10.1017/S0260210517000341
De Carvalho, B., Leira, H., & Hobson, J. M. (2011). The Big Bangs of IR: The myths that your tea-
chers still tell you about 1648 and 1919. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 735–
758. doi:10.1177/0305829811401459
Dunne, T. (2013). “The end of International relations theory” special issue. European Journal of
International Relations, 19(3), 405–425. doi:10.1177/1354066113495485
Eren, D. (2020). Against Eurocentric and Anti-Eurocentrism: International Relations, Historical
Sociology and Political Marxism. Journal of International Relations and Development, 23,
285–307.
Go, J., & Lawson, G. (2017). Introduction: for a global historical sociology. In J. Go & G. Lawson
(Eds.), Global Historical sociology. Lawson: Cambridge University press.
Grovogui, S. (2006). Beyond Eurocentrism and anarchy US. Palgrave, New York: Macmillan.
16 S. NARAIN

Hazbun, W., & Valbjorn, M. (2018). The making of IR in the Middle East: Critical perspectives on
scholarship and teaching in the region. In APSA-MENA Newsletter, No. 5 (fall) (pp. 5–9).
Hobson, J. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism?
Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33(S1),
91–116. doi:10.1017/S0260210507007413
Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.
Inoguchi, T. (2007). Are there any theories of International Relations in Japan. International
Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), 369–390. doi:10.1093/irap/lcm015
Katzenstein J. P., & Sil, R. (2010). Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the study of World
Politics. London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Kayaoglu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in international relations theory. International
Studies Review, 12(2), 193–217. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2010.00928.x
Krepon, M. (2004). Nuclear risk reduction in South Asia. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Kristensen, M. (2015). Revisiting the “American Social Science”- mapping the geography of inter-
national relations. International Relations Perspectives, 16(3), 246–269.
Lacatus, C., Schade, A., & Yao, Y. (2015). Quo Vadis IR: method methodology and innovation.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(3), 767–768. doi:10.1177/0305829815587822
Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R., & Tierney, M. J. (2014). TRIP 2014 faculty survey.
Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations. Available
online at [Link]
Mallavarapu, S. (2010). Development of international relations theory in India traditions, contem-
porary perspectives and trajectories. International Studies, 46(1), 165–183.
Mattoo, A. (2009). The state of international studies in India. International Studies, 46(1-2), 37–48.
Narain, S, (2020). International Relations Theory: Still a White Man’s Burden, May 29,2020, E-
International Relations [Link]
a-white-mans-burden/
Odoom, I., & Andrews, N. (2016). What/Who is still missing in International Relations scholar-
ship? Situating Africa as an agent in IR theorising. Third World Quarterly, 38(1), 42–60.
doi:10.1080/01436597.2016.1153416
Ole, W. (2005). Figures of International Thought: introducing persons instead of paradigms. In X.
Neuman & X. Waever (Eds.), The Future of International Relations (pp. 1–41). London, NY:
Francis & Taylor, Routledge.
Paul, T. V. (2017). Indian International Relations studies: The need for integration with Global
scholarship” ORF issue brief, 219.
Puchala, D. J. (1997). Some non-western perspectives on International relations. Journal of Peace
Research, 34(2), 129–134. doi:10.1177/0022343397034002001
Sagan, D. S., & Waltz, K. (1995). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Norton.
Saha, A. (2018). Decolonizing the ‘great debates’ in International Relations theory: A perspective
on history, Approaches and methods. Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs, 6(4), 1–4.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. Pantheon Books.
Shahi, D. (2014). The eclectic face of kautilya. Economic &Political Weekly, 49, 41.
Siddiqui, M. (2019). “Assessing the claim that the development of International theory is over”. e-
[Link]
Sil, R., & Katzenstein, J. P., (2010). Beyond paradigms; Analytic eclecticism in the study of world
politics. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan.
Smith, S. (2002). The United States and the discipline of international relations: Hegemonic
country, hegemonic discipline. International Studies Review, 4, 67–85. doi:10.1111/1521-9488.
00255
Spivak, C. G. (1988). Can the Subaltern speak. In Nelson & Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the
interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Subrahmanyam, S. (1997). Connected histories: Notes towards a reconfiguration of early modern
Eurasia. Modern Asian Studies, 31(3), 735–762. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00017133
Tang, S. (2016). Practical concerns and power considerations. International Studies Review, 18(1),
162–163. doi:10.1093/isr/viv035
 GLOBAL AFFAIRS 17

Voskressenski, A. D. (2017). In: Non-Western theories of International relations. Cham,

Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wæver, O. (1998). The Sociology of a Not So International discipline. American and European
developments in International relations. International Organization, 52(4), 687–727. doi:10.
1162/002081898550725
Wight, M. (1960). Why is there no international theory? International Relations, 2(1), 35–48.
doi:10.1177/004711786000200104
Witt, A. (2020). Problematizing the Global in Global IR. Millennium Journal of International
Studies, 49(1), 32–57.

View publication stats