ISA 2015-AWARD
Remarks by Bahgat Korany , Feb. 20th
, 2015
I want to thank you all for coming to this lunch honoring
me. In addition to Caucus members who voted for me, my thanks go to the chair,
Jacqueline, who surprised me with this news when I didn't even know that I was
a candidate for this award. Very special thanks also to Tim Shaw who presented
me so elegantly , ignoring all my vices he knew too well since our student days
at Sussex University back in the 1960s.
Since we had to change to a bigger room without a
microphone, I will be brief. I will emphasize three points:
I-In
relation to the Global South, what does IR theory offer? What do hard data/content
analysis of basic IR textbooks/handbooks tell us?
II-If we feel that the
Global South has been marginalized and ignored, what can be done: Forget IR
theory or fight back?
III-If we fight back , how to win such a basic fight?
I-
IR theory and the Global South:What do
hard data tell us?
These data come from two
sets. The first group is based on 2001- Kim Nassal’s analysis of 14 widely-used
textbooks, with many in their 4th or even 6th edition.
They are then replicated by my content analysis data of two recent influential
Handbooks by major publishers: Oxford Handbook of International relations
(edited by Ch. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal) (2008), and Handbook of
International Relations (edited by: W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse & B.
Simmons) (2013, 2nd edition). As we know , Handbooks are both influential
syntheses of knowledge in the field and also visible signposts mapping the
field's future, even directing it.
These two Handbooks are
composed of 77 chapters, totaling 1649 pages, by 91 authors of the heavy
weights in the field. Their research is impressive as it is based on 7762 references.
Indeed , this number of
references is truly impressive , at least quantitatively . Qualitatively,
however ,these references tell a different story. Scratching beyond the surface
shows that the field has not evolved beyond Hoffman’s characterization of IR almost
40 years ago as an "American Social Science”. Both textbooks and handbooks
data show that IR suffers from the same epistemological, conceptual and
methodological patterns . Here are some examples .
1-
Many authors still talk in the 1st
person: essentially Americans talking to Americans, e.g. “our” foreign policy.
If we take names off, there is no difficulty for any reader to know where
authors come from and who their primary audience are .
2-
IR is represented as a discipline which only
Americans - or Anglo-Saxons- contribute to. The discipline is shown as
revolving around the U.S. , whereas the
world outside there is beyond the water's edge - as in Hoffman's 1977-article,i.e.
‘a relative zone of darkness’. When sometimes references are made to this
‘relative zone of darkness’ , they include factual errors.
3-
Despite the huge number of sources used, they
are usually unilingual, mostly U.S. sources. If "foreigners" are
cited, they are usually those who published in U.S. Journals or collaborated with
U.S. institutions. IR speaks
English , and principally with an American accent.
4-
The discipline is not only American-centric,
but tends to be worse: it verges on being incestuous. For instance, as even
Katzenstein lamented , authors dealing with similar topics but publishing in
different U.S. Journals, e.g. Journal of Conflict Resolution vs International
Security - rarely quote each other. Thus U.S. academic tribes and cartels and
their mutual neglect/narrow debate are bought in this supposedly-universal
field. Any potential breadth of vision is sacrificed.
No wonder that the cold war was
described as the period of the “long peace”, when the longest war in the
post-1945 period , the Iran-Iraq 1980-1988, was taking place. Moreover, IR was
busy splitting hairs between Neo-Realism/Neo-Liberalism and their different
branches when the Berlin Wall was falling and the USSR was collapsing.
II-What
is to be done ?
If IR theory is that high realm of irrelevance and neglect for the Global South,
even failing in its mission as a universal discipline (becoming that “ higher bullshit” as Rosenberg put it unkindly in 2007 ), what
to do about it? As Lenin put it in a
different context: what is to be done? At least two options deserve discussion:
A-
Forget about IR theory, as it is beyond
saving. After all, even major IR theory contributions from the Global South
(from Acharya to Bilgin, Braveboy-Wagner, Tickner or Shaw) are marginalized or
even altogether ignored.
But I feel this could be the
easy way-out . It is also a self-defeating one. Indeed it is harmful both for the Global South and
even the IR field itself. The field has to be claimed back to emphasize its
original universal mission. It cannot be left to continue as parochial ,incestuous
and even anachronistic . We have a role, and indeed, a responsibility to carry
out a re-orientation in this respect.
B-
Fight back to recover ownership of the
discipline for all, not only for our own sake but for the sake of the discipline
and to make it as universal as it is supposed to be. My example here is Robert
Cox, my former professor, and quite a few colleagues working in the field of
critical theory.
III-Operationally, what are the steps ?
A- If we are not an ISA formal section
such as FPA, we should be or coordinate/combine force with other sections such
as Global Development . We should collect section fees and publish our
newsletter.
B- In addition to institutionalizing our networking, we should enlarge
our membership especially through
younger scholars; explore ways of offering grants to bring more people from the
Global South to the ISA ,perhaps contact some fund-providing institutions , outside and within the Global South ,e.g.
within the Gulf region , or in collaboration with its different programs at Sciences Po. in Paris ,
or LSE in London..
C)Add to publications that deal with our issues, such as Third World
Quarterly , add also to different series with major publishers ,
e.g.Palgrave-Macmillan ; Routledge…; making up for topics that are still
marginalized by mainstream and dominant IRT: impact of issues such as
Development , Post-colonial identity , religion….. The objective is to make IR
less of another dismal science and analyze world order from below, bottom up.
D)We can win for we have two important resources
i- Human/intellectual capital
ii-
We are working on the ground , constantly
engaged in field-work
(sustained field experience
is what saved Development Studies and
some aspects of Comparative Politics from liabilities that iarebringing the misery to the state of IR).
So let us fight back and recover ownership of our
discipline, for the sake of a universal discipline as well as our own sake. It
is a strategy of win-win.
Bahgat
Korany
Next blog post:URGENT: PLEASE VOTE, 15% THRESHOLD NOT REACHED
Next blog post:URGENT: PLEASE VOTE, 15% THRESHOLD NOT REACHED
No comments:
Post a Comment