Summary of Jim Mittelman's remarks at 2015 Luncheon New Orleans; Comments by our Distinguished Scholar Honoree Bahgat Korany on Mearsheimer

Next link: On the Passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Useful Links
 http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/passing-of-lee-kuan-yew-useful-links.html
____________________________________________________________________

  Prof. Bahgat Korany On Mearsheimer:

Debating   Mearsheimer:    The   Tragedy   of   IR   Theory

The ISA roundtable on Wednesday Feb.18 was one of the first academic activities on the first day of ISA’s 56th Annual convention . The room was packed.. Not only were the roundtable participants some of the heavyweights of IRT but also the topic was crucial and timely: "Advancing Global IR"

One of those heavyweight speakers was John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago , whose Tragedy of the Great Powers is well-quoted in the field and rightly so .Indeed, Mearsheimer's concept of offensive realism adds to Waltz's structural realism and enriches the whole realism perspective.

The essence of Mearsheimer's talk was to affirm that only the Anglo-Saxons are building a worthwhile theory of IR , to the extent that even when he is in China these are the contributions that are mentioned.

Too categorical and not at all nuanced, the performance of such a well-established scholar of a supposedly-universal field was in the end disappointing  I even felt worried about the state of IR if it is so amputated. Mearsheimer is an intellectual leader in a leading institution, and some of his students are bound to take this amputated view of IRT as the truth and could go on spreading it in major schools in the U.S. and beyond.

Rather surprised and even shocked by this narrow approach, I dared to ask him if he feels that IRT is lagging behind such fields of equally " Anglo-Saxon" political analysis as Democratic Transition Studies or Development scholarship.Contrary to Mearsheimer's epistemology, these are fields that shunned arm-chair theorizing, went for field work in non-Anglo-Saxon areas and opened up. Instead of answering the question, Mearsheimer was condescending and went on repeating that present Anglo-Saxon IR contributions  are the ones that count .I felt he was really an unsuitable choice for the roundtable's theme on advancing global IR, and left in disappointment .I felt cheated as the roundtable's title turned out to be certainly a misnomer.

Apparently after my departure other members of the audience took him to task, and tried to pin him down , checking his knowledge about what others are doing in IRT outside his limited U.S. area. He became less categorical , but I wonder if he became so convinced as to go and read other contributions that enrich IRT , even by Anglo-Saxons , say in Historical Sociology or Comparative Politics . With Mearsheimer , we are not facing the tragedy of the great powers but the tragedy of an influential  brand of IRT---parochial and anachronistic.The ISA roundtable on Wednesday Feb.18 was one of the 1st academic activities on the 1st day of ISA 56th Annual Convention . The room was packed . Not only were the roundtable participants  some of the heavyweights of IRT but also the topic was crucial and timely : "Advancing Global IR"

One of those heavyweight speakers was John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago , whose Tragedy of the Great Powers is well-quoted in the field and rightly so .Indeed ,Mearsheimer's concept of offensive realism adds to Waltz's structural realism and enriches the whole realism perspective.

The essence of Mearsheimer's talk was to affirm that only the Anglo-Saxons are building a worthwhile theory of IR , to the extent that even when he is in China these are the contributions that are mentioned.

Too categorical and not at all nuanced, the performance of such a well-established scholar of a supposedly-universal field was in the end disappointing  I even felt worried abut the state of IR if it is so amputated. Mearsheimer is  an intellectual leader in a leading institution , and some of his students are bound to take this amputated view of IRT as the truth and could go on spreading it in major schools in the U.S. and beyond.

Rather surprised and even shocked by this narrow approach, I dared to ask him if he feels that IRT is lagging behind such fields of equally " Anglo-Saxon" political analysis as Democratic Transition Studies or Development scholarship .Contrary to Mearsheimer's epistemology , these are fields that shunned arm-chair theorizing , went for field work in non-Anglo-Saxon areas and opened up . Instead of answering the question , Mearsheimer was condescending and went on repeating that present Anglo-Saxon IR contributions  are the ones to count .I felt he was really an unsuitable choice for the roundtable's theme on advancing global IR , and left in disappointment .I felt cheated as the roundtable's title turned out to be  certainly a misnomer.

Apparently after my departure other members of the audience took him to task , and tried to pin him down , checking his knowledge about what others are doing in IRT outside his limited U.S. area.He became less categorical , but I wonder if he became so convinced as to go and read other contributions that enrich IRT , even by Anglo-Saxons , say in Historical Sociology or Comparative Politics . With Mearsheimer , we are not facing the tragedy of the great powers but the tragedy of an influential  brand of IRT---parochial and anachronistic.

(Comments welcome on this blog entry: JBW)

________________________________________________________________

  

GLOBAL SOUTH CAUCUS: PAST AND FUTURE

Summary of Remarks Delivered at March 2015 Global South Caucus Luncheon

by Jim Mittelman

            Hearty congratulations to Baghat Korany on his well-deserved award as the Global South Caucus 2015 distinguished scholar. I want, too, to extend my gratitude to the Caucus for honoring me for my academic contributions and support for its work.  This affirmation of scholarship on the global South triggers introspection and reflection.

            Soon after returning from Makerere University in Uganda, I joined the International Studies Association (ISA). I attended my first annual ISA convention 40 years ago. The association struck me as a very white, old-boys network mainly oriented to the concerns of scholars in what we now call the global North.

            In the decades that followed, the ISA has made great strides. It is less intimidating to newcomers.  There is encouragement for young scholars and academics of all ages from overseas. The ISA is becoming more pluralistic, increasingly inviting for researchers who study Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean as well as North-South. This move toward tolerant diversity has required teamwork and leadership. In the case of the Global South Caucus, Jacquie Braveboy-Wagner campaigned with athletic-like stamina, grit, and determination to provide a home for colleagues whose interests center on the southern hemisphere and to expand intellectual space. Now, thanks to her and others— Nanette Stevenson, Lisa Richey, and Tim Shaw, to name a few—the Caucus is helping to build a more inclusive ISA.

To add diversity, the aims of the Global South Caucus chime with those of kindred groups in the ISA: among them, the Women’s Caucus and some of the association’s committees and sections. 

            But more is to be done. What then is the Global South Caucus’s agenda? Let me hazard suggestions.

            In the next three to five years, establish forums on how transformations in global order flow from both top down and bottom up. For the global South, the latter are particularly important. Critically-minded scholars are attuned to this vector. Many have their ear to the ground, listening to stakeholders closest to the fault lines in the world order, learning from their ways of thinking. Scholarship on the global South can pick up on indigenous knowledge. It has the potential, sometimes though not always realized, to pose distinctive research questions and produce methods that resonate locally and beyond. These bear the promise of alternatives to the queries and problems inscribed in paradigms that derive and travel from the West. Eventually, there may be spinoffs—concrete results for policymaking, such as improvements in the caliber of governance, following from the ways in which our universities educate the next generations, including future rulers.

            More specifically, I propose two priorities for consideration by the Global South Caucus membership: (1) redouble challenges to Eurocentrism in international studies; and (2) as a knowledge producer, foster cross-paradigm dialogue. Concrete proposals would flesh out these issues and the products would appear as special issues of journals and panels at ISA conventions. Other subject areas would be added to my recommended themes.

            In sum, the ISA has opened intellectually to more diverse constituencies, and the Global South Caucus can play a major role in encouraging it to move further in the direction of pluralism. The Caucus is well positioned to be in the forefront of this undertaking. Ultimately, it will be a matter of choice and resolve.   
 ______________________________________________________________
 Next link: On the Passing of Lee Kuan Yew, Useful Links
 http://gscis.blogspot.com/2015/04/passing-of-lee-kuan-yew-useful-links.html