King’s Research Portal

DOI:10.1017/S2045381719000121

Document VersionPeer reviewed version

Link to publication record in King's Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):Fierke, K. M., & Jabri, V. (2019). Global Conversations: Relationality, Embodiment and Power in the movetowards a Global IR. Global Constitutionalism: Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law, 8(3), 506-535.https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381719000121

Citing this paperPlease note that where the full-text provided on King's Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this maydiffer from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination,volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you areagain advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyrightowners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

•Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.•You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain•You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the Research Portal

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact librarypure@kcl.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 05. Jan. 2020

1

GlobalConversations:

Relationality,EmbodimentandPowerinthemovetowardsaGlobalIR

K.M.Fierke,UniversityofSt.Andrews

(kf30@st-andrews.ac.uk)

and

VivienneJabri,KingsCollegeLondon

(Vivienne.jabri@kcl.ac.uk)

Keyworks:GlobalIR;global;conversation;relationally;intra-action

Abstract:The‘globalturn’inInternationalRelations,likepostcolonialand

decolonizingapproaches,movesawayfromtheEurocentricdominanceofthe

discipline,andtowardstheinclusionofpluralperspectivesonglobalpolitics.The

articleinvestigateswhatsuchacallmeansinepistemologicalandontological

termsbyfocusingontheconceptof‘globalconversations.’Insectionone,we

showthattheconceptof‘global’conversationsnecessarilyshiftsfroman

individualontologytoarelationalontologyofintra-actionwithinaglobalspace.

Insectiontwoweexplorewhy‘conversation,’asdistinctfromdialoguefitsmore

comfortablywiththisrelationalshiftandhaspracticalimplicationsforhowthe

engagementtakesplace.Thethirdsectionengagesinanexplorationofsomeof

theobstaclestoglobalconversation,andnotleasttheemotionalobstacles,in

lightofhistoricallyembeddedandembodiedrelationsofpowerthatshapewho

canspeakandwhoissilencedorheard.Thefinalsectionthenengagesina

discussionofthetypesofpracticalengagementandresearchthatmightflowfrom

2

thisanalysis.Inmovingbeyond‘dialogue’,thearticlerevealstheintersectionof

power,language,emotionandembodimentintheconstitutionof‘global

conversations’,andhowtheseinturncometoconstitutetheglobal,itsnormative

structuring,contestationsandtransformation.

TherecentemergenceofGlobalIR(Acharya2014;HellmannandValbjorn2017;

Politics2018;Wiener2018)intersectswithmorelong-standingcritiquesregardingthe

absenceofnon-WesterninfluencesonInternationalRelationsTheory(Acharya2011;

AcharyaandBuzan2007;2009;Chan,MandavilleandBleiker2001;Ling2013;

Mallavarapu2009;Qin2007;TicknerandWaever2009;Xinning2001).Itbuildson

postcolonialtheoryanddecolonizingperspectivesthathavesoughttoanalyzethepost-

colonialcondition,stressingthecontinuationofcolonialdiscoursesandinstitutional

practicesthatunderpinglobalinequalities(see,forexample,Grovogui2001;Jabri2013;

Sabaratnam2017;Shilliam2010),andfurtherconnectstodebatesregardingthelimits

ofanindividualistontologyandinstrumentalrationalism,andaturntorelational

theorizing(Barad2007;Ling2013,Kavinski2018;Kurki2015;Qin2018;Wendt2015;

Fierke2019).

‘Global’IRresonateswiththosewhowishtoseetheprovincializationofthe

discipline’sEurocentricdiscourses(Chakrabarty2000).Butthelargerquestionisoneof

howsuchamoveisconceptualized,howwemightthinkofthe‘global,’andthe

conversationsthismightentail.Almosttwentyyearsago,Chan,MandavilleandBleiker

(2001)pointedoutthatthelimitedgeographicandculturalspacefromwhichthe

disciplineemergedhasprofoundimplicationsforunderstandingthechallengesofanew

3

era.MostscholarsofIR,theyclaimed,wouldn’tknowhowtoaskaquestion,relating,for

instance,toHinduorBuddhistcosmologies,regardinghowagencyrelatestokarmaand

fate.Theissueisnotmerelyoneofrecognizing,asAcharya(2014:634)does,thepoints

ofconnectionbetween‘this-worldly’and‘other-worldly’knowledge,betweenscience

andspiritualunderstandingsofseeingandbeing.Itisfirstandforemostoneofrejecting

anyhierarchicalrenderingofknowledgesystemsandtheviewthatwhile‘science’

belongstoarationalWest,the‘other-worldly’isnecessarilyoftherest.

Chanet.al’sclaimaboutthelimitsposedonourabilitytoaddressthechallenges

ofaneweraiscrucial.Thefailuretoseeorengagebeyondthemodernstatessystem,or

withthescientificdiscoveriesandcosmologieswithwhichpracticesinothertimesand

placeswereintertwined,constrainsourhorizonsforthinkingbroadlyabouthowto

addresspressingglobalproblems,andnotleastenvironmentaldeteriorationor

migration.Whilemanyoftheseproblemsemergefrompracticesthatspanamerefew

centuries,the‘graveethicalfailureinglobalsecurityaffairs’(NymanandBurke2016)

raisesaquestionofwhether‘we’mightactuallylearnsomethingfromanengagement

with‘therest’andsystemsofthoughtthatsustainedhumanlifeformillennia.

Aconceptofthe‘global’raisessignificantandchallengingquestionsrelatedto

waysofknowingandarticulatingthatarenoteasilyreducedtomonolithicstatements

aboutparticularcultures.Itsuggestsacritiqueoftheepistemologicalandontological

hierarchiesthathaveinformedthedisciplineandarecognitionofpluralmethodsand

modesofinterpretationbothwithinandacrossepistemesastheyrelatetothe

justificationofknowledgeclaims.Recognizingthatapluralistorientationimplies

‘encounter’and‘conversation’(InayutallahandBlaney2004:17;Jackson2011:210-

211),andpushingbeyondEun’s(2018)questionofwhetherIRshouldpursuedialogue

andengagementacrosstheoreticalandspatialdivides,thisarticleexploresaconcept

4

andmethodof‘globalconversations’aswellassomeoftheobstaclestoitsrealization

inlightoftheembodimentandsedimentationofglobalrelationsofpoweroverthepast

fewcenturies.Weexplorethenormative,empiricalandpracticalimplicationsof‘global

conversations.’

Aconceptofglobalconversationsisneededatatimewhenboth‘advanced’and

‘new’democraciesarethreatenedbyapolarizationofargumentthatisdestructiveof

reflection,deliberationandopen-endedness.Havingsaidthis,ourconcernisnotwith

thedomesticpoliticsofdemocraticstatesintheWestbutrathertohighlighttheextent

towhichglobalpatternsofcommunicationandpower,andtheepistemologiesand

ontologiesfromwhichtheyarise,haveconstitutedanythingbutanidealspeech

situationforlargeportionsoftheworld,whichoverthepastfewcenturieshavebeen

writtenoverbytheimperialpracticesofWesternstates,andnotleastthosefromwhich

InternationalRelationsastheoryandpracticehasemerged.

Forinstance,theconstructionoffreeandequalcitizenshasoftengonehandin

handwiththeforceddisplacementandslaveryofmillions,aswasmostevidentinthe

theU.S.context.AsLepore(2018)details,muchofthehistoricalcontestationoverthe

legalcategoryof‘citizen’intheU.S.hasrevolvedaroundaquestionofwhether

forcefullydisplacedAfricans,Chineseimmigrantsorwomencouldorshouldpossibly

qualify.Similardebateshavetakenplaceinsocietiesacrosstheglobewhereminorities

andimmigrantshaveoftenbeenatbestsecond-classcitizens.Theincreasing

xenophobia,racismandintolerancethathaveaccompaniedpoliticaldebates,and

particularlymigration,intheU.S.,BritainandmanyEuropeancountries,onlyreinforces

thepoint:Inclingingtomodesofargumentationandspatialorganizationthatrelyon

mutuallyexclusiveterms,whetherofbelonging,rightsorspeech,thequalitiesof

conversationthatmakedemocracypossibleareunderminedandultimatelydestroyed.

5

Ouremphasisonconversationdoesnotdenytheimportanceorpresenceof

contestation,andnormativecontestationinparticular(Wiener2008;2014;2018),but

ratherhighlightsamodeofengagementthathaslargelybeenlostwiththeerasureof

thesubjectivityofsomebothhistoricallyandasbattle-linesaremorefirmlydrawn.The

purposeofthisarticleistoclarifywhywewillallbeenrichedbyaconversation,as

distinctfromadialogue,argumentordebate,andwhytheconversationisnecessarily,

constitutively,globalatthiscriticaljuncture.

Thearticleisaconceptualexplorationthatgrowsoutofconversationbetween

thetwoauthors,andothersalongtheway,andisthusmoreconversationalinstylethan

isusuallythecase.WhilewerefertomuchthathasbeenwrittenonGlobalIRand

relatedsubjects,wedonotprovideanextensiveliteraturereviewbywayof

establishingourplacewithindisciplinarydebates,whichasBarkawiandLaffey(2006)

note,areoftenmoreinwardlookingthanoutward.Anumberofstudieshavealready

provideddevastatingcritiquesoftheWesternbiasesofInternationalRelations

theorizingandtheunacknowledgedinfluencesofnon-WesternthoughtinInternational

PoliticalTheory(seeearliercitations).Weseektoexaminewhatitmeanstoengageina

moremulti-perspectivalexchangewhichplaceshistoryinalonger-termframework,

whileaddressingthemultiplepotentialsforspeaking,actingandrethinkingour‘world

ofworlds’(Ling2018)andhowweengagewithdifference.

Insectionone,weshowthataconceptof‘globalconversations’requiresashift

fromanindividualontology,towhichanynotionof‘inter’isattached,toarelational

ontologyofintra-actionwithinaglobalspace,whilealsoproblematizingthefrequent

emphasisinGlobalIRoncultureandregions.Insectiontwoweexplorewhy

conversation,asdistinctfromdialoguefitsmorecomfortablywiththisrelationalshift

andhaspracticalimplicationsforhowtheengagementtakesplace.Thethirdsection

6

outlinestheemotionalobstaclestoglobalconversations,inlightofhistorically

embeddedandembodiedrelationsofpowerthatshapewhocanspeakandwhois

silencedorheard.Thefinalsectionhighlightsaresearchprogrammethatmightflow

fromthisapproach.

Wepresent‘globalconversations’asaconceptandamethodforatruly‘global’

IR,exploringitsontologicalandepistemologicalterms,i.e.whatconstitutes

conversation,whomaytakepartandtherelationshipofconversationtopower.The

conceptsuggestslanguageanddiscursivity,butalsoembodiedencounterandthewider

materialityoflivedexperience.Asamethod,‘globalconversations’capturesthe

relational,unfixedandopen-endedaspectsofaprocessofconstitutionthatisglobal.As

demonstratedbythesuggestedfutureresearchagenda,ithassaliencefortheanalysis

ofspecificconversationsastheyrelatetoeffortstoresolvesharedproblemsindifferent

contextsacrosstheworld,aswellasthosethatrelatetoglobalconstitutional

transformation.

AGlobalontologyof‘intra-action’

InhissignaturepieceonGlobalIR,Acharya(2014:657)intendstocreatea

‘vibrantinnovativeandinclusiveenterprisethatreflectsthevoices,experiences,

interestsandidentitiesofallhumankind.’Thereismuchinthepiecetoadmire,fromthe

emphasisonagroundinginworldhistory,toeschewingexceptionalismandrecognizing

multipleformsofagencybeyondmaterialpower.Inthisarticle,weraiseaquestion

aboutwhatitwouldmeantoconstructconversationsthatincludethevoices,

experiences,interestsandidentitiesofallhumanity,whilealsopointingtotheobstacles

inherenttosuchaprocess.WhileAcharyaseestheneedtoaddressdiversity,heisnot

veryexplicitaboutwhatthismeansinpractice.InternationalRelationsitselfis

7

constitutedinalanguage,andthatlanguageplaysaroleinsettingtheparametersfor

whatcanandcannotmeaningfullybesaidorthought,aswellaswhocanandcannotbe

heard.Butperhapsthebiggestissue,onceonemovesbeyondmonolithiccategoriesof

states,nations,regionsorcultures,andrepresentativesthereof,iswhatconversationis,

whyitisneededandwhothesubjectsofaglobalconversationwouldbe.Inwhat

follows,weseektoexploretheideathataconversationisanexchangebetween

multiplepartiesthatchangesallwhoareinvolved.Itisan‘intra-action,’touseKaren

Barad’s(2007)term,thattransformstheboundariesofdifferenceandtheworld.As

such,aconversationcanbedistinguishedfromdialogue,negotiation,andargument,as

moreestablishedmodesofthinkingaboutcommunicationwithinIR.Crucialtothis

shiftisthedistinctionbetweenanindividualistontologyandarelationalone.

Thecritiqueoftheabsenceofnon-WesterninfluencesonIRbeginswithaclaim

thatscholarslocatedinonecorneroftheworldhavenarratedtherestoftheworld

basedontheirownassumptionsandcategories,muchasearliercolonizerswroteover

cultures,subjects,etc.Forinstance,NgugiWaThiong’o’s,IntheHouseoftheInterpreter

(2012),anautobiographicalnovelsetincolonialKenya,revealstheprocessof‘writing

over.’Partoftheauthor’schildhoodisspentatthecovetedEnglishSchool,‘Alliance’,

wheretheintentionistoprovidetheselectedKenyanchildrenwithan‘English’

education,whiletheworldoutsidetheschoolcanonlybedefinedasoneofcolonial

violenceand‘terror‘.Ngugi’sclassroomexperienceisoneofthewholesalenegation,

evenbytheAfricanteachers,ofKenya’slandscapeandtheexperiencesofits

inhabitants.Ashestates:

‘Icouldnotescapethemagicofliterature,itsendlessabilitytoelicitlaughter,

tears,awholerangeofemotions,butthefactthattheseemotionswere

exclusivelyrootedintheEnglishexperienceoftimeandplacecouldonlyaddto

8

mysenseofdislocation.NoteveryflowerintheworldwasoneofWordsworth’s

hostofgoldendaffodils.Kenya’sfloraandfauna,andtherainyanddryseasons,

couldalsoprovideimagesthatcapturedthetimelessrelevanceofart,butwedid

notencountertheminclass.’(NgugiWaThiong’o2012:66).

NgugiwaThiong’o’sreflectionswithinthewallsoftheschoolroomwere,asheputsit,

framedbythe‘imperialistpointofview’,ofhistory,literatureandgeography,while

outsidetheperimeterfenceandbackinthevillage,thecolonialauthoritiesforcibly

removedpopulationsfromtheirancestrallands,whiletheever-presentwatchtowers

andcheckpointspolicedthepopulationandgovernedthespaceandtimeof

conversationanditspotentialityforresistance.The‘epistemicide’(Ndlovu-Gatsheni

2018:3)of‘other’culturesderivesfromontologicalhierarchiesdrawninracialized

terms.ThisimpliesamonologuewhereWestnotonlyspeakstotherest,withlittle

dialogicalexchange,butdefinestheparametersoftheworldwithinwhichtheysilently

move.Butifthisweretochange,whoisthesubjecttobeengaged?Aconceptof‘global

conversations’raisesthequestionofwhospeaks.

WhenSpivak(1988)asks,‘canthesubalternspeak?’herintentionistocritique

thosewhoclaimtospeakforthevoiceless,thesubaltern.Whilerecognizingthe

continuingimportanceofSpivak’squestion,Acharya(2014:652)statesthatthereare

examplesofthe‘sub-altern’speaking,aswellasresistingandacting,andthatGlobalIR

wouldopenacentralspaceforperspectivesfromthisposition.However,toinvokethe

‘global’,aswillbeargued,doesnotinitselfbringanequalizationofthediscursive

practiceswithinthediscipline,norofthepracticesthatareitssubjectmatter.

Subjectivitybecomescrucialinthisinstanceasitdoesinanyunderstandingof

conversationordialogue.Whilepointingtothepotentialformorevoices,including

9

voicesofresistance,thereisadangerthatcultureorregion,intheprocess,istreatedas

thepropertyofdiscreteculturalidentities,andrepresentativesoftheseculturesasthe

bearersoftheseproperties.

Theanswerdoesnotlieinshiftingtoanemphasisonindividuals.Inahighly

mobileglobalcontext,itisdifficulttothinkofeitherindividualsorstatesascontainers

ofculture.Globalmobilityandmigrationmeanthatanyoneindividualmaybethe

productofmultiplecultures,whetherhistoricallyorinthepresent.Theglobalcontextis

repletewithmultipleandintersectingculturalmanifestationsthatareapparentin

practicesfromtheSaudiwhoprayskneelingtowardMeccabeforeboardinganairplane

totheincorporationofTaiChiorYogainthehealingofPTSDintheUSmilitaryorin

Brazilianprisons.Thepointisthatpracticesoriginatingindifferentculturesfind

expressionin‘modern’society.AsShilliam(2015:13)notes,evenbeneaththewounds

ofcoloniality,whichhastriedbutneverentirelysucceededinseparatingpeoplesfrom

theirpasts,thereissomethingtoberetrieved.Culturalreferences,asrealmsof

meaning,knowledge,andaffect,aremobilizedinencounterswithothersandtheworld,

informidentitiesandpracticesofidentification,andcanexpresssolidarityoradversity.

Engagingwiththepracticesofanotherculturecanbeanactofresistanceand

dangerous,whichisasubjecttowhichwewilllaterreturn.Thecentralpointhereis

thatcultureisneitherstaticnorcontained.Culturecannotbepossessedorowned,butis

anongoingandchangingperformanceinrelationtoothers.1Discursivepracticesare

imbuedwiththenotsoeasilycapturedaspectoflivedexperience,namelytheemotional

livesofparticipantsinconversation;andparticularwordsandformsofexpressionthat

1SeeKwameAnthonyAppiah,‘MistakenIdentities’,ReithLectures,BBCRadio4,November2016,forapowerfuldiscussionofthemultiplicityofidentitieswithincultures.Onthepoliticsofculturalidentificationasthebasisofsolidarityaswellasvilification,seeGilroy(2004)andJabri(2007;2013).

10

changeastheytravel.Patternsofspeechandsilenceareemotional,embodied,and

boundupinhistoricalpatternsthatformthebackdropofconversation,whichraisesan

importantquestionofhowassumptionsofrace,cultureorgenderbecomeboundupin

thepowerdynamicsofspeech.

Cultureismoreoftenaproductofnarrationthanacontainerofproperties.One

mightspeakofculturalpractices,whichhavetheirhistoricaloriginsinparticularplaces,

butthistooissomewhatmurky.IfBuddhism,forinstance,istakenasapractice,its

originswouldgobacktotheBuddhainIndia,butthatwhichisreferredtoasBuddhist

practice,canbequitedifferentinthecontextofTibet,ThailandorChina,giventhatthis

philosophytravelledalongtheSilkRoads,mergingwithotherpractices,relatedfor

instancetoDaoisminthecontextofthelatter.Or,asJohnHobson(2004)hasexplored,

arangeoftechnologiesandpracticeswerefirstdiscoveredoutsidetheWestbefore

travellingthere,afterwhichtheyacquirednewownership.Theproblemofhowone

studiesculture,andhowitchangesasittravelsandmergeswithothercultures,is

complex.Itsuggeststhechallengeofbringingcultureinandwhatitmeanstospeak

fromapositionoutsidetheexistingacademicdiscourseofIR.

TheGlobalIRliteraturebeginswithanimportantcritiquethatthinkingaboutthe

Internationalhasbeenheavilyframedinoneculturallocation.Thelatterisbasedona

languageandassumptionsthathaveoftenmarginalizedinsightsfromothercornersof

theworldororientalizedthemasromanticizedfolklore,which,itisoftenassumed,we

candismissbeforelooking.Inthisrespect,abodyofliteraturethathasconstitutedIR,

andwhichclaimstosaysomethingabouthowtheworldworksisverymuchanethno-

centricdiscourse(seee.g.Booth[1979]2014),whichislimitedbyitsindebtednesstoa

particularnotionofscienceandassumptionsofuniversality.Theseassumptionsrelyon

averycontainedunderstandingofhistory,whichusuallybeginsinEuropein1648.The

11

ideathattheunitaryapproachtoscience,developedinonecorneroftheworld,is

uniquelycapableofcapturing‘truth,’therebymakingotherapproachesinferior–for

instance,reflectivist,interpretivist–hasitsrootsinawayofthinkingthatcannotbe

saidtocelebratediversity.

Theproblemlieslesswithscienceitselfthananapproachtosciencethatrelies

onparticularmetaphysicalassumptionsthatequateitwiththeonlyapproachtotruth,

orthatfailstorecognizethehistoricalcontributionsofothercultures.Forexample,in

thetenthtoeleventhcenturyIslamicworld,weseeconversationsfocusingonthetheme

ofscienceandreligiousbelief,arelationshipthatpreoccupiedthethenAsianand

Easternworlds,andonethatemergesandre-emergesuptothepresent.Aspecific

conversationofinterestinthiscontexthasbeenrevealedinthecorrespondence

betweenIbnSina(980-1037)andal-Biruni(973-1048),incentralAsia,which

anticipatedevolutionarygeologyandwasconcernedatthesametimewithhowtheir

scientificdeliberationsrelatedtomattersoffaith(Starr2013:296-302).Onemightalso

explorethethoughtoftheArabScholarIbnKhaldun,whocreatedadynamicmodelof

economicdevelopment,articulatingideasthatweresimilartothoseofAdamSmith,yet

precededhimbyhundredsofyears(Olah2017).2Further,whileuniversalconceptsof

dignityandrightsareoftenidentifiedwithWesternthought,onemightexplorethe

originsoftheconceptof‘dignityofpersons’withtheHaitianandanti-colonial

revolutions,whichhavebeenconsideredtobeinsignificantpolitically(Grovugui2001:

437).3

2WesternscientistshaveengagedinarichdialoguewiththeDalaiLamaregardingsharedanddifferingassumptionsofthesetwotraditionsofinquiry,i.e.WesternscienceandBuddhism.3The‘dignityofpersons’inthiscontextincludedtherighttonotbesomeoneelse’sproperty,notbeflogged,notbedeniedafamilyortherighttotestifyincourt,nottoberaped,murderedorsold.

12

Whilemostsocialscientistsprobablyembracetheimportanceofmulti-

culturalism,theresistancetodiversitybeyondWesternacademicpractice,orthe

tendencytomarginalizeornotevenconsiderscholarshipthathasemergedfromother

cornersoftheworld,orduringdifferenthistoricaleras,reinforcesaWest/non-West

binary.GlobalIRseekstotranscendthisdistinction,howeverthedangerof

reconstitutingthediscussionaroundculturesorregionsreliesimplicitlyonan

individualistontologybywhichpartsexistinseparationfromotherparts,andwhere

differencebecomesamatteroflogicalcontradictionandhierarchy.Inthisrespect,we

wishtopushbeyondHellmanandValbjorn’s(2017)callto‘recalibrate’the‘inter’in

internationalrelations,aspartofashiftfrominteractionto‘intra-action’.

Inter-andIntra-action

Thesignificanceofthisontology,anditsrelevanceforthinkingabouttheglobal,

isperhapsbestunderstoodintermsofKarenBarad’s(2007)conceptof‘intra-action’,

whichbeginswiththe‘cuts’bywhichdifferenceisdefinedwithinwholes.Intra-actionis

differentthaninteraction.Theengagementbetweenseparatecultures,eachassumedto

haveanintrinsicidentity,wouldbean‘interaction,’inwhichseparatenessisthepointof

departure.DerDerian’s(1987)discussionofmoderndiplomacyisconsistentwiththis

conceptinsofarastheestrangementbetweenseparatestatesisthebasisfordiplomacy

betweenthem.

‘Intra-action,’bycontrast,beginswiththewholeandexaminestheprocessesby

whichboundariesofdifferenceandwiththemculturesareproducedwithin.Thisisnot

todenythattheinteractionbetweenstatesorregions,ortheinteractionbetweenWest

andnon-West,areanimportantpartofthisboundary-makingprocessbutratherto

resituatetheprocessandhowithappensfromtheperspectiveofthewhole,which

wouldnecessarilyrequireashiftawayfromanemphasisonuniversalisingdiscourses

13

identifiedwiththeWesttoanexaminationof,forinstance,thehistoricityofnarrative

erasuresofraceandtheconstitutionofboundariesbetweentheassumedhumanand

sub-human(seeGrovogui2001;Gani2017;Ndlovu-Gatsheni2018).Barademphasizes

theimportanceofattentiontodetail,whichsuggeststheneedtolookmorecloselyat

theboundary-markingprocessesthemselves,andatthecomplexity,and,wewouldadd,

theirroleinreproducingstates,theWest/non-Westdistinctionorneo-colonial

relationsofpower.OnemightalternativelydrawonthesymbolismoftheancientSilk

Roads,ortheconstructionoftheirmodernequivalent,tothinkaboutwhatitmeansto

saythatculturesengagealongit(seeLinget.al.2018).

Barad’sintra-actionresonateswiththetheoryofrelationalityarticulatedbyQin

Yaqing(2016),4whichhighlightsthecontrastbetweentheontologicalindividualism

anditsemphasisonrationality,sharedbythemainsystemictheoriesofIR,i.e.

structuralrealism,neo-liberalinstitutionalismandstructuralconstructivism,ontheone

hand,andarelationalontology,ontheother.5Arelationalmetaphysicsischaracterized

byfluidityandmovementincontinuouslychangingeventsandrelationsratherthan

discreteobjectsandentities,where‘overlappingrelationalcircleslinkpeoplethrough

relationshipsbasedonsocialdifference’(Qin2016:35).Theself,farfrompossessingan

absoluteandindependentidentity,isentangledinrelationstoothers,whichare

continuouslyconstructedandreconstructed.Identityandspeecharefundamentally

linkedtocontext,wherethemeaningofanyonecannotbedetachedfromthewhole.

4ArelationalontologywasfirstexploredinIRin1999inaseminalarticlebyJacksonandNexon(1999)whichfocusedprimarilyonAmericandebates,anddidnotextendtonon-Westernthought.5WhileQin’stheoryofrelationalitybuildsonConfucianism,asimilarontologyisevidentinBuddhismandDaoism,aswellasBaradandWendt’squantumargument(Barad2007;Wendt2015;Fierke2017),orfeministtheoriessuchastheGlobalEthicofCare(Robinson2016),andcanbeseeninrecentdevelopmentsinethicalsecuritystudies(NymanandBurke2016).

14

Rationality,farfromemanatingfromanindividualmindisboundupinrelationto

specificothers.Theserelationsarecontinuouslyinmotionwhichhighlightsthe

importanceofprocess,andanopenbecoming,ratherthanthereasoningofafixed

entity.Qin’sanalogytoripplesinalakeplacestheactoratthe‘centerofconcentricand

overlappingrelationalcircles,eachripplesignifyingadegreeofintimacyandnoclear

boundariesexistingbetweentheripples’(Qin2016:37)

Beginningwithaconceptof‘global,’ratherthan‘cultural,’movesusawayfrom

thinkingintermsoftheinter-actionbetweenaprioripartsascontainersofculture,and

towardsamorerelationalontologyofentanglementwherepartsarecontinuously

definedandredefinedwithinaglobalspacethatiscontinuouslyinflux,whereidentities

andrelationshipstransversespaceandtime(seeFierke2018).Thesubjectisnever

static,nordoesshespeakfromanArchimedeanpointinspacebutalwaysinrelationto

others.Theinteraction/intra-actioncontrastformsabackdropforthinkingaboutthe

meaningandneedforglobalconversationsandhowthisbuildsonandcanbe

distinguishedfromdialogue,negotiationorothermodesthataremoredevelopedinthe

literature.

Arelationalepistemologyofconversation

Thecallforapluralizationofthedisciplineiscapturedinworksthatadvocatea

‘comparative’anda‘dialogical’perspective.6Thelatterassumesthepotentialfor

dialogueacrossdifference.The‘comparativetradition’,asShilliam(2011:3)highlights,

6See,forexample,Dallmayr(2004).Thefieldofcomparativephilosophy,andspecificallycomparativepoliticaltheory,isdedicatedtoinvestigatingthedifferencesaswellascontinuitiesbetweendifferentphilosophicaltraditionsofepistemologyandethics.See,forexample,LarsonandDeutsch(1988).The‘comparative’approachinIRisdevotedtoculturallyspecificinterpretationsofcategories;forexample,on‘modernity’,seeShilliam(2011),and‘war’,‘peace’,‘power’,andethicsinChanetal(2001).Foracomparativeperspectiveontheethicsofwar,in‘secular’and‘religious’perspectives,SeeNardin(1996).

15

isonethatconcerns‘engagingwith–ratherthanignoring–non-Westernpolitical

thoughtinamannerthatisnotbeholdentocolonialideologiesthatdrainthenon-

Westernworldofallsignificantcontentforthestudyofmodernitywhichisnow,and

perhapswasalways,integrallyglobal.’Theeffortto‘provincialise’IR(Chakrabarty

2000),assumesacomparativeandadialogicalperspectivethatdoesnotsubsumenon-

Westerndiscourses,norrenderthemamenabletothediscipline’sepistemologicaland

ontologicallimits.7The‘comparativetradition’movesusawayfromthepitfall

highlightedbyChakrabarty,wherebythe‘empiricaldomain’(thatof‘other’cultures’)is

consideredsubordinatetouniversalizing‘theory’thatisseenastheremitofthe

Westernacademy.However,asemphasizedinourargument,whatisconsideredtobe

‘knowledge’oftheworld,itsepistemologicalframing,isitselfconstitutedbycontingent

andrelationalstructuresanddynamicsthatinformbeingintheworld.Asindicated

above,definitionsofwhatisconsideredrelevantorevenlegitimaterestonhierarchies,

dominatedbytheWest.Ourfocusonglobalconversations,revealstheseassumed

hierarchies,asdiscussedinthenextsection,butgoesbeyondbothcritiqueandpre-

inscribedversionsofdialogue.

Whileexistingmodelsof‘dialogue’assumerulesandnormsofvalid

communicativepractice,theyareoftensoabstractedfromlivedexperiencethattheir

candidacyforglobalconversationisquestionable.Theconceptof‘dialogue’isitself

contested,(see,e.g.Valbjorn2017),butthepointhereistomovebeyondprescriptions

ofwhatconstitutes‘ideal-typicaldialogue’,towardsarecognitionofconversations

7Themainstream,asSabaratnam(2011:782)highlights,‘hasbeenslowtopickuptheemergenceofamovementinthedisciplinethatextendsdialogueitselfasacriticalstrategyforthinkingabouttheworld.’Shesuggestsvarious‘decolonising’movesthatwouldopenaEurocentricIRto‘conversation’aboutworldpolitics.SeealsoHutchings(2011)onthepoliticsofthewestern/non-westerndichotomyanditsimplicationsforthinkingabout‘dialogue’inInternationalrelations.PinarBilgin(2014),writingfromtheperspectiveofcriticalsecuritystudies,suggestsaconceptualisationof‘civilisationaldialogue’intermsof‘co-constitution’.

16

(plural)asopen-endedrelationalwholes,theconstitutionofwhichmightberevealed

throughthemethodwepresent.Habermasiandiscourseethics,whichseeksagreement

basedonassumeduniversalrulesofvalidity(Habermas1992)isoneideal-typical

modelandanexampleofwhatwewishtomoveawayfrom.Habermasrecognises,in

responsetocritics,thatparticipantsindialoguecomewith‘hermeneuticstarting

points’,albeitonesthatcouldbeputasideasparticipantsmovebeyondtheseintheir

‘rational’efforttoreachnormativeagreement.8This‘puttingaside’failstoacknowledge

therichanddiversesourcesofknowledge,reflection,andawarenessthatmightbe

mobilisedinarelationalunderstandingofconversation.EdwardSaid(1993:336)

remindsusofthe‘silences’thatpermeatesomestrandsofcriticaltheory.Ashestates,

‘wehavetoday’sleadingFrankfurttheorist,JurgenHabermas,explaining…thatthe

silenceisdeliberateabstention:no,hesays,wehavenothingtosayto“anti-imperialist

andanti-capitaliststrugglesintheThirdWorld”,evenif,headds,“Iamawareofthefact

thatthisisaeuro-centricallylimitedpointofview.”’Saidwantstohighlighttheinternal

contradictionofthisadmission.Aconversationheredoesnotseempossible.

Amethodofglobalconversationsdrawsattentiontopracticesoflanguageuse,

interpretation,andthemobilisationofsituatedknowledgesasnotonlyphilosophical,

butcrucially‘anthropological’(Latour:1993),orsociological(Hamati-Ataya:2018).9It

suggestsliberatingepistemologyfromprescribededictsthatclaimtheuniversalityof

validityandcriteriaofjudgement,aswellasfrom‘standpoint’epistemology,wherethe

8Inresponsetocritiquesofhisuniversalistassumptions,Habermas(1998)introducedaradicalshiftinhisarticulationofdiscourseethics,increasinglystressing‘lifeworldcontexts’asimplicatedinthepotentialityof‘agreement’.9WhereLatour(1993)suggestsan‘ethnology’ofknowledgeproduction,Hamati-Ataya’s(2018)sociologicalapproachdirectsattentiontothemutuallyconstitutiverelationshipbetweenknowledgeandwidersocialdynamicsofproductionandreproduction.

17

subjectinvokedissomehowpredeterminedingender,class,orculturalterms.10

Ndlovu-Gatsheni(2018:3),writingintheAfricancontext,speaksof‘epistemicfreedom,’

orthe‘righttothink,theorize,interprettheworld,developownmethodologiesand

writefromwhereoneislocatedandunencumberedbyEuro-centrism.’

Inseekingwhathereferstoasa‘cross-culturalorientation’,FredDallmayer

(2004)highlightshermeneuticsandphenomenologyasdistinctlydialogical.Asshown

bypoliticaltheorist,HwaYolJung(2002),thehermeneuticandphenomenological

traditionsmightbeengagedinconversationwith,forinstance,theLatinAmerican

EnriqueDusselortheVietnamesephilosopher,ThichNhatHanh,totheendof

unravellingwhata‘relationalontology’mightmeaninapoliticaltheoryandhowthese

informpracticesofknowledgeproductionandrelationalitythatareclosertolivedand

embodiedexperience.Particularmodesofconversationorconversationalstylecannot

beprivilegedoverothers,norisitpossible,inarelationalmodelofconversation,to

advocatewhatIrisMarionYoung(1996:124)hasreferredtoas‘dispassionateand

disembodied’speech.Articulationsofknowledge,theiridiomandstyle,areas

significantasthecontingenciesofexperienceandtherichfabricfromwhichandwithin

whichframeworksofknowledgeandunderstandingemerge.

Toinvokeidiomandstyleinourunderstandingofconversationistosuggesta

moveawayfromtheboundarybetweenpractical/moralreasoningandaestheticsthat

Habermasdefinesastheconditionforuniversality.Ifanything,suchaboundary

imposeslimitsonconversationsthatareimbuedwithexperienceandcontextandhence

withcreativepotentialities.TherearestylesofconversationandwhatChristopher

10Standpointepistemologyisconventionallyassociatedwith‘standpointfeminism’(Hartstock1987),thoughthetermwasusedbyGeorgLukacs(1967[2000])inrelationtothe‘standpointoftheproletariat’.Onthepotentialof‘stretchingbeyond’situatedknowledge,seeKurki(2015).

18

Norrisreferstoasthe‘expressivesurplus’oflanguage.11Thesecannotbetamedbya

priorirulesofcommunication,butemergeinunfixedandunpredictableforms(see

Norris1996:100),raisingthequestionofhowsuchsurplusmightbecapturedacross

differentlanguages.GayatrySpivak(2000:15)writesoftranslationas‘necessarybut

impossible’;necessaryinthesensethatweseeksomekindofgeneralityin

communicationacrossdifference,andyetimpossibleinthatcapturingtheother’sidiom

mustalwaysremaina‘conscientiousapproximation’.Thespecificityofidiomholdsany

effortattranslationtoaccount.Tocaptureidiomistorevealsomethingofthelived

contextfromwhichandwithinwhichithasmeaning;aliteraltranslationofRumi’s

poetry,forexample,wouldmisstheidiomaticexpressionsthatderivefromasenseof

place,backgroundtexts,orevensocialmannerisms.12

AsSpivakhighlights,Englishisalwaysassumedtobethegeneralizablesemiotic

ofthepublic,whileidiomistheparticularorthehistoricallyprivate,andthistoher,as

thewriterwhotranslates,constitutesthepoliticalviolencethatisthepotentialityof

translation,butalsoitsmomentofethicalresponsibility:‘Nospeechisspeechifitisnot

heard.Itisthisactofhearing-to-respondthatmaybecalledtheimperativetotranslate’

(Spivak2000:22).Spivakreflectson‘translation’andclaimsthatspeechisalwaysco-

presentwithhearing.Yetthelatterisneverinapositiontofinallydetermineorfixin

meaningthatwhichisarticulatedinconversation.Conversationisthusconstitutedin

language,anddependsontheverypotentialityoflanguage,butsuchpotentialitycannot

begovernedbyuniversalrules.AsSpivaksuggestsinherengagementwiththequestion

11‘Expressivesurplus’oflanguage(Norris1996)pointstotheideathatwords/conceptsareneversimplycontiguouswithareality;theexcesscanbefoundinwhatisunsaidorevenexpressedinstylesandidiomsnoteasilyreducedtoformulaicrulesofcommunication.12TherearemultipletranslationsofJalaluddinRumi,thethirteenthcenturyPersianpoet.However,mostaredeemedtohaveextractedreferencesfromtheKoraninhispoetry.SeeRozinaAli(2017)‘TheErasureofIslamfromthePoetryofRumi’,TheNewYorker,January5,2017.

19

oftranslation,thechallengeisto‘hear’theparticularityoftheidiombygivingit

priority;placingitbeforethe‘generality’ofsemioticrules.13Suchreversalhasthe

consequencenotjustofplacingtheuncertaintyofmeaning(DerridainBernstein2008:

580)centre-stageinconversation,butwouldconstituteanacknowledgementofthe

situatedandlivedaspectofconversation,itsworldlyreferencepoints.

Aconversationneitherrequiresconsensus,nordoesitdispensewithopposing

pointsofview.Onemeaningoftheroot‘converse’asanounoradjectivepointstothe

roleofopposites.So,forinstance,aclaimthat‘ifcultureisproperlyglobal,thenthe

converseisalsotrue:theglobalisproperlycultural,’drawsontherootconverseto

pointtowardanopposition.Orasanadjective,’theonlymodeofchangewillbetheslow

processofgrowthandtheconverseprocessofdecay,againpointstoanopposition.14If

onelookstotheoriginsoftheterm(‘toliveamong,befamiliar’inlatemiddleEnglish,or

tokeepcompany,intheOldFrenchconverser),theemphasisshiftstobeingapartof

eachother,similartotheintra-action,wherethatwhichdivides,andconstructs

opposites,happenswithinrelationsofpartstoawhole.Theintentionisneitherto

eliminatedifference,asdifferenceisnecessaryforaninterestingconversation;norisit

toachieveunity.Theintentionisrathertoplacetherelationaldynamicwithinawhole

wherethepartsdonotexistintotalisolationandalienation,andtheconversationis

ongoing.

Wittgenstein(1958)speaksofthedifficultyoffindingone’sfeetinanother

culture,whereonedoesnotspeakthelanguage,apointthatisillustratedbyClifford

Geertz’s(1973)famousexampleoftheBalinesecockfight.Howwouldweasoutside

13SpivakusesDerrida’sdeconstructivemethod(1981)whichrejectsthehierarchicaldichotomiesofwesternmetaphysics–theuniversalandthecontingent,reasonandemotion–butalsoenactstheirreversal.14en.oxfordictionaries.com

20

observersbegintomakesenseofthispracticeintheabsenceofsomeknowledgeofthe

culturalrulesbywhichitsmeaningisconstituted?Theexamplepointstothedifficulty

ofconversingwithsomeonewhospeaksadifferentlanguageandcomesfromavery

differentculture.Youcanactivelywavehandsatanother,pointingtoobjects,miming

subjects,buttheconversationwillbelimited.But,ofcourse,attheinternationallevel

weallspeakEnglishandanyIRscholarisfamiliarwiththecategoriesofIRinEnglish,

soproblemsolved!Problemreproduced,morelikely.WhileBritishcolonizers,among

others,oftenlegislatedagainsttheuseoflocallanguages,notleastinIrelandand

Scotland,thiswasnotfirstandforemostaboutmakingsocietyfunctionmoresmoothly.

Itwasaboutmakingsocietyfunctionaccordingtoasetofexternallyimposedrules,

whichreinforcedthepoweroftheimposingpartyonthatsociety.Inthisrespect,the

languagewithinwhichaglobalconversationtakesplaceisacontainerofpowerinitself,

whichbothmakestheconversationpossiblewhilecommunicatingwhoisincharge.

Hierarchiesareembeddedinlanguageitself,includingthekindsofassumptionsthatare

made,priortoanykindofopinion(see,e.g.Said1978onOrientalism),whichshape

notionsofentitlementandwhocanspeak,whoisheard,andwhoissilenced.

QuestionsofentitlementtospeakarisenotonlyfrompositioninginFirstWorld

orThird,butalsoconstitutethepositionofauthorities,andnotleastacademicexperts,

visavisothers,whichmaystartwiththeauthorityoftheWestern‘scientist’visavis

non-Westernscholars,butextendsfurthertothe‘scientist’visavisthe‘shaman’or

‘Buddhistmonk’.TowhatextentaretheassumptionsofWesternsciencesoengrained,

evenamongcriticalscholars,thattalkingtoothertraditionsofthoughtorevenengaging

withacademicsoutsidetheUSandUK,isproblematic,givenassumptionsregardingthe

superiorityofWesterninstitutionsandthescientificmethod?

21

Emotionalobstaclesalongtheway

Arguably,muchoftheworkneededforamoreequalconversationtobepossible

isofanemotionalnatureforitisnotmerelythatassumptionsembeddedinlanguage

oftenformhierarchiesofonekindorother,butthatthesehavebeenhistorically

embodied,shapingaglobalemotionallandscape.15Alongthislandscape,thosewho

speakdosofromthemountaintop,whilethosewhoarenotheardhavebeenpushed

intothevalley,whichisnotmerelyafunctionofWestandnon-Westbutraceand

genderaswell.Themainpointisthathierarchicalpatternsofspeechareinseparable

fromandenablehistoricalpracticeswhichhavemadesomebodies,morethanothers,

susceptibletoexclusion,violence,bondageordislocation.Thememoriesofthese

experiencespersist,asdothepractices,andareembodiedaswell.Inthisrespect,a

‘conversation,’whileamongthemostfundamentalorprimordialformsofintra-action,

ismorethanjusttheexchangeoflanguage.AsKatz(2012:27)notes,livedexperienceis

athree-dimensionalrealityand‘Ifwearetounderstandtheriseandfallofemotionsin

sociallife,weneedtokeepthemovinglineofintertwiningbetweenselfandother(or

world)atthecentreofourinvestigation.’ThisreturnsustoBarad’s(2007)pointabout

intra-action,thatis,thatthe‘cut’bywhichdifferenceisproducedrepresentsnota

completeseparationbutanintertwining,anentanglement,whichismaterialaswellas

discursive.

Withinthisthree-dimensionalreality,embodiment,emotionsandspeechareall

relatedareas,which,inthecaseofconversation,willbepartofarelationalintra-action.

Forinstance,howonereactsemotionallytowhatissaidregistersintheaffectofthe

15Thisneitherdoesawaywithrationalitynordoesitprioritizeit.TheworkoftheneurologistDamasio(1994)suggests,emotionandrationalitycannotbeneatlyseparated,asisoftenassumed.

22

body.Howonecommunicates,howthebodyisheldorhowtheotherisembracedor

notareshapedbyculture.Aninterestingprogramme(GoingInternational1983),used

inthecross-culturaltrainingofdiplomatsandbusinessmenandwomeninthe1980s,

demonstratesvariousformsofembodiedcommunicationthatcanthrowacross-

culturalconversationoffbalance,fromtheWesternbusinessmanwhoinameetingwith

Arabcounterparts,displaysthesolesofhisshoeswhilesittingonthefloor,tothe

Americanmanager,who,inthecollegialenvironmentofJapanesebusinessculture,

elevatesasingleworkerbutcannotthenunderstandwhytheteamthereafterbecame

lessproductive.Bothareemotionalencountersthatshapethepotentialfor

conversation.Themainpointregardstheimportanceofsensitivitytoandrespectfor

culturaldifferenceandofmakinganefforttoacquireknowledgeofbasicprinciplesof

socialinteractionwithinaculturethatisnotone’sown.

Buttheproblemgoesmuchdeeperifoneconsidersthedaytodayintra-actions

thathaveshapedthe‘cuts’bywhichentiresocietiesaredefined.Onethinkshereof

commentsbyAfrican-AmericanresidentsofCharlottesville,Virginia,intheaftermathof

thehighlyvisibledisplayofwhitemalepowerinAugust2017.ResidentsofBlack

Charlottesvillesaidtheyhad‘seenitallbefore’(Newkirk2017).Theactivitiesofwhite

supremacistswereareflectionofattitudesthatcontinuedtoimpactontheday-to-day

experienceformanyinacountrythathasnotreconciledwithitshistoryofslavery.The

exampleraisesaquestionabouttheemotionalimpactoftheeverydaybullyingof

particulargroupsofpeopleoveralong-historicalperiod.Ortheimpactnotonlyon

bodilyhealth,butonsocialcommunication,ofcontinuouslybeingloweredandhowthis

canlimitthepotentialsofacategoryofpeoplelongbeyondanyformalinstitutionsof

slavery,orotherinstitutionalformsthatdenyautonomyhaveended.

23

Abrilliantexample,exploredinsomedepthbySarahAhmed(2004:53),comes

fromtheAfrican-AmericanfeministAudreLorde,whoprovidesanaccountofher

encounterasachildwithawhitewomanonatraintoHarlem.Duringtheencounterthe

whitewomanstaresattheblackchildand,ashergazedropsdowntothespace

betweenthem,thechild’sgazealsofollows,whilethewomanpullshercoatcloserto

her.Thechild,wonderingaboutthesourceofthisresponse,imaginesacockroachinthe

spaceseparatingthem,asthehorrorcommunicatedbythewomansuggestsaverybad

presence.Sothechildtoopullshersnowsuitcloser,butthenrealizesthatthereis

nothingthereandthatitissheratherthananythingontheseatthatthewomandoesn’t

wanttotouch.Thechildisconfusedanddoesn’tunderstandthewomen’sflared

nostrils,orherhate,butneverforgetsit.

InAhmed’s(2004:54)argumentthewhitewoman’srefusaltotouchtheblack

childdoesnotsimplystandfortheexpulsionofblacknessfromwhitesocialspacebut

actuallyre-formsthatsocialspacebyre-formingtheapartnessofthewhitebody.As

suchtheskinregistersthethreatposedbythebodiesofotherstobodilyandsocial

integrity,andcomestobefeltasaborderthroughtheviolenceoftheimpressionofone

surfaceuponanother(Ahmed2004:56).Inthisrespect,emotionsarenotpurely

psychologicaldispositionsbutinvolveaninvestmentinsocialnorms,raisingaquestion

ofhowsubjectsandothersbecomeinvestedwiththesenormsandhowtheycometobe

experiencedasbothmeaningfulandnatural,therebyshapingthespaceofintra-action.

Itisnotonlythattheblackbody,inLorde’sstory,ispulleddowntothewhitewoman’s

gaze;itisalsotransformedintoanobjectofitsowngaze.AsAhmed(2004:59)states,

‘thehatedbodybecomeshated,notjustfortheonewhohates,butfortheonewhois

hated.Shecomestorecognizeherselfastheobjectofthewoman’shate.’Thehate

becomes,sotospeak,‘sealed’intotheskin,therebyassumingthecharacterofthe

24

negative.Asthesignsarerepeatedinintra-actionafterintra-action,theybecomethe

effectsofhistoriesthatremainopen.

Asthehateissealedintotheskinitmaytakelessthanconsciousform.Thisgoes

beyondthequestionofwhetheronecaneverbe‘heard’bytheother,totheabilityto

speakatall.Damascio(2000)makesadistinctionbetweenemotionthatisunconscious

andpresentatalltimesandfeelingsthatrepresentanawarenessandconscious

understandingofemotionstates.Thedistinctionforhimisfundamentalasitisonly

whenanindividualcomestofeelafeelingthatemotionbeginstoemergeintoconscious

awareness.CatherineTheodosius(2012:78-83)recountsthecaseofanaidwhois

bulliedatwork.Sheexperiencesemotionsinresponsebutsuppressesthembecauseit

wouldbeinappropriatetoexpressthem.Asaresult,thebodyundergoesaphysiological

change.Sheattemptstocoveroverthefeelingsbuttheyarevisibleinthewaythatshe

carriesherself,thecreasesinherface,andthenon-verbalcommunicationprocessesin

herbody,allofwhichprovideevidencetothenursesthattheiractionhasbeeneffective.

Anawarenessofunacknowledgedshameduetothebullying,alsoisn’trecognizedas

suchbutratherasfeelingunwell.Tomanageandmakesenseofherfeelings,theaid

stokesandsuccessfullyinducesanger,whilealsohavingtosuppressthatanger.

Nonetheless,theminutephysiologicalchangesproducedbytheunconsciousareon

display,sotooarethe‘hidden’feelingsofshameandanger.Theaidthenactively

embodieshersubordinateplaceamonghercolleagues,simultaneouslyinducing,

expressingandsuppressingemotion.Althoughsheisnotentirelycognizantofher

emotionalstate,herangerhasaphysicalexpression,whichisactedoutalongwith

unacknowledgedfeelingsofshame,bothofwhichbecomecentraltothesocialintra-

action.Astheaidbecomesincreasinglyunabletomanagetheemotions,sheexperiences

anoutburstofanger,andfeelsdifferent.Theoutburstistriggeredbyadiscussionabout

25

thepeoplewhohavebeenbullyingher,bywhichshemakesaconsciousconnection

betweenthebullyingandherbeliefinhernursingabilitiesandtheshameanddistress

thiselicitedinher.Whileshehaddoubtedherself,shemakesanarrativelinkthat

allowshertoacknowledgetheimpactofthebullying,therebymakingsenseofthe

feelingsthisproduced.

Thepointofrecountingthisoneincidentinsomedetail,istoraiseaquestion

abouttheimpactofanongoingexperiencebyentirepopulationsofbeingbullied,

whetherinthecontextofcolonialism,slavery,orotherstructuralformsofviolence,and

itspotentialimpactontheabilitytospeakandsubsequentbehaviournotonly

historicallybutonsuccessivegenerations.Theliteratureonhistoricaltraumahas

highlightedthenegativehealthconsequencesonsuccessivegenerationsof,forinstance,

NativeAmericans,aswellasthepersistenceofstructuralviolenceagainstthese

communities(e.g.BraveHeart2000;Gone2013;Maxwell2014;Prussing2014).

Conversationrequiresacknowledgementofthesedynamicsandsomeattemptto

addressthem,alongwiththestructuralviolence

Understandingtheworkingsofaffectinthepersonalexperienceandinthe

constructionofdistinctionsshedslightonthequestionofwhetherthesubalterncan

speak,orforthinkingaboutthesignificanceofsilenceinaconversation.Thelattercan

refertobeingsilenced,tonotbeingallowedtospeakoruseone’svoicewithoutsevere

consequences,ornotbeingheardoracknowledged.Butsilencemayalsobedeliberate,

adecisionnottoengageoranactofresistance.SeinFein,asaRepublicanpoliticalparty

inNorthernIreland,participatesintheelectionsforWestminsterbutdoesnotsend

electedofficialstoWestminstertospeak,anactthatcommunicatestheirultimate

identificationwiththeRepublicofIrelandratherthantheU.K.Remainingsilentmight

26

thusbeadeliberateandconsciousactofdefiance,butitmayalsobeaconsequenceof

force;imposedexternallyorasaproductof‘internal’orevenprivateacknowledgedor

unacknowledgeddynamicsrelatedtohistorictrauma.Astheaboveindicates,both

aspectsofsilenceareevidentlyalso‘of‘conversation,inthatbothinvokeformsof

communication.Emotionality,likeidiomandstyle,areasmuchaspectsofconversation

asarewordsandmodesofexpression.Allareinturnarticulationsofsubjectivity,

providingcluestotheformthatsucharticulationtakes,andhowthisrelatesnotonlyto

theembodiedsubjectbuthistoricalrelationsofpoweranddomination.

ARelationalEthosandMethod

Whatemergesfromourdiscussionsofarisacommitmenttorelationalityas

constitutiveoftheglobal,evenwhenonthesurfaceitappearstoconstituteseparation.

Itfurtherrecognizesthedamagethathasbeendonebytheprevailingontologyof

separationandwithit,epistemologicalassumptionsregardinguniversaltruth,

associatedwithaparticularpartoftheworld.WhatShilliam(2015:13)referstoas

‘deeprelations’wouldseektorepaircolonialwoundsandbindtogetherpeople’slands

andpasts,andnotleastthe‘manifestandspiritualdomains,’whichincludes

‘sophisticatedpracticesofrelating–andvaluingrelations–thatarefirmlyembeddedin

particularlocalesandpeopleyetatthesametimeproffergeneralprinciplesof

engagement,withoutlayingclaimtoabstracteduniversals.’Suchacommitment

suggestsanethosof‘epistemologicalcompassion’andamethodologythatenablesa

turningoftheepistemologicalgazetowardsthecreativepotentialityofwhatwereferto

asglobalconversations.TheethosthatunderpinsourconceptisbestcapturedbyLing

(2018)whenshestatesthatepistemologicalcompassion‘embracesa“thousand”ways

ofknowingandbeingbutstillaffirmsourworld-of-worldsasatotality.’However,this

27

‘world-of-worlds’,wesuggest,isitselfconstitutiveofglobalconversationandis

reproducedandconstitutedinturnbysuchconversationsastheseoccurinsituated

practices.Thereishereatrianglewhereineachelementisconstitutivelyrelatednotjust

totheotherelementsbuttothewhole;arelationalethosthatrecognisesdifferencein

theconstitutionofbeing,amethodologythatturnsthegazetoinstancesofglobal

conversationandtheirgenerativepotentiality,andaconstitutiverelational

ontology/epistemologythatbothrenderglobalconversationspossibleandis

constitutiveofthetotalitythatisour‘world-of-worlds’.

Thethreelegsofthetriangleareasfollows:Globalconversationsrequirea

normativeethosof‘deeprelations’or‘epistemiccompassion,’assuggestedabove.

Conversationsaren’twonandlostbutinvolveamoreopen-endedexchangethatis

receptivetodifferenceandbywhichdifferenceiscontinuouslytransformed,which

linkstothesecondleg,highlightingthatconversationsareconstitutiveofdifference.Far

fromastaticexchangebetweenaprioriidentities,conversationshapesandreshapes

differenceandbeingalongtheway.Inthisrespect,ashiftfromthefocusoninter-

relationstointra-relationsisimportant.Finally,differenceisconstitutedwithin

relationshipsandbelongstoarelationalwhole,whichinthiscaseisglobal.Thethree

pointsareinterlinkedinsofarasthenormativeisitselfconstitutiveofpracticesfrom

whichdifferentformsofglobalrelationalitythenemerge.

Thereisamultiplicityofsiteswhereconversationstakeplaceandtheresearch

agendaweareadvocatingwouldseektouncovertheextenttowhichsuchsitesimpact

ontheformthatconversationtakes,thetermsofintelligibility,aswellasexpressionsof

emotionandembodiment.Thereis,forexample,adifferencebetweenaconversationon

socialmediaasopposedtostealingaconversationinaUNcorridororsittingina

meetingroominDubaiorParis.Theseinturndifferfromtheintellectualand

28

pedagogicalconversationsthatemergefromacomparativeanddialogicalapproachto

systemsofknowledge.Havingexploredanumberofobstaclestoaglobalconversation,

wewanttofocusonhowitmightbepossibletomovebeyondtheseobstacles,tomove

fromtheemotionalrecognitionofdifference,forinstanceinresponsestoracism,toits

excavation,forthisiswhatwouldberequiredof‘deeprelations’.Whatmakesglobal

conversationsdifferentthanwhatcosmopolitanelites,andnotleastacademics,already

do,flyingaroundtheworldtoconferencesandmeetingsindifferentlocalspaces?What

aretheimplicationsforfurtherresearch?

Thefirstcomponentofaresearchprogrammeregardstheconstructionof

conversationsaroundconceptualconcernsattheheartofglobalpoliticsfromarangeof

disciplinary,geographicalandculturalperspectives.Inthisrespect,global

conversations,asbothaconceptandamethod,involvesrevisitingtheuniversalising

assumptionsofinternationalrelationsinordertobegintoengagewithconceptual

systemsthathaveemergedinothertimesandplaces.Thishasalreadybeenmanifested

inaworkshopinTaiwanaspartoftheWorldInternationalStudiesConference

(2017),16whichbroughtscholarsfromarangeofdifferentgeographical,culturaland

academicperspectivestogethertodiscusstheconceptofglobalconversations,which

wasanimportantimpetusforthisarticle.Afurtherexamplewaspublishedinaspecial

issueofGlobalConstitutionalism(2017),whichexaminedthemeaningof‘independence’

inanentangledworld,againstthebackdropoftheScottishIndependenceReferendum,

butincludingperspectivesfromCatalonia,Kosovo,Colombia,andfourstrugglesfor

independencewithinChina.Alloftheseclaimstoindependencetakeplacewithina

globallegalinfra-structure,butareinformedbymorehistoricallyandculturallyspecific

16AfurthermanifestationwasasectioninthecontextoftheEuropeanInternationalStudiesConferenceinSicilyin2016,titledGlobalConversations,whichincludedarangeofpanels.

29

assumptionsandcircumstances.17Thecentralpointoftheconversationinthisformatis

tobeginarethinkingprocessthatismoreinclusiveandisenrichedbyamultiplicityof

historicalexperiencesandknowledgesystems,manyofwhichhavelongbeenburied.

Asecondcrucialcomponentofaresearchprogrammewouldinvolvethe

mappingofconversationsthataremanifestasintra-actionsinasharedglobalspace,to

explorehowintra-actionsworkontologicallyintheconstructionofdifferenceandthe

epistemologicalsignificanceforhowtheyarestudied.Themappingmightbemore

thematic,e.g.relatingtoconflict,violence,humansecurity,climatechange.An

illustrativeexamplepointstotheongoingconversationbetweenIndianandSwiss

scientists,aswellaslocalcommunities,ontheproblemofmeltingglaciers(inthe

HimalayasandtheAlps).18Themappingwouldallowustoseehowlocalknowledgeand

applicationsinNepal,forinstance,aremobilisedinconversationwith‘science’to

alleviateasharedglobalproblem.Further,aprojectledbyLilyLing(2018),beforeher

tragicdeath,soughttoexploretherelationshipbetweenthehistoricalSilkRoadethos,

andtheemerginglocalpracticesalongthisancientrouteinthecontextoftheChinese

‘OneBelt,OneRoadPolicy.’

Thethirdcomponentofourresearchprogramme,an‘ethnology’ofglobal

conversations,emergesfromthemappingofassemblagesofconversations,andreveals

theembodiedrelationalitiesthatareinter-andintra-subjective,andinrelationto

milieuthatincludeplaces,architectures,andobjects.19Themappingmightinvolvesites

17ThisgrewoutofaworkshopheldattheUniversityofSt.Andrews,whichincludedamuchbroaderglobalanddisciplinaryrepresentation.18SeeBBCWorldService,‘Glaciers:LivingontheEdge’,TheCompass,broadcast22ndApril2018.19SeeLatour(1987)forhisethnologiesof‘scienceinaction’asamodelofwhatweareadvocatinghere.

30

ofobservation,fromtheimpactofraceandgenderonpatternsofvaluation,speech,

silencing,listening,interruptionordestabilizinginterventions,inthespaceofmeetings

ofdifferentkinds,tohowthespatialarrangementofprivateandpublicspacesimpact

ontheexpressionofemotion,howpeopleinteractandconversewiththeir

environment,tothemulti-perspectivityofdifferent‘cuts’(e.g.SovietRussiaasthe

friendofIndia,ortheenemyoftheU.S.),fromtheintra-statetotheindividual.These

mightbringinsightintotheglobalprocessesandpatternsbywhichtheinternational

andlocalbecomeinterwoven.

Thesevariousapproachesmightrevealthepowerdynamicsbetweenspeakers

andhearers,theembodiedandemotionaldynamics,thecorporealmanifestationsof

inclusionandexclusion,andthespatialandtemporalaspectsofconversation.Inthis

respect,theobjectofexcavationisboththesubjectofconversationandthemeansby

whichpatternsofpowerthatstandinthewayofthelattermightbegintobebroken

down.Theretrievalofmultipleknowledgesystems,historicallyandtheircontinuing

impactonthepresent,mightprovidepointsofreflectiononwhatweassumeandwho

weare.Therelationshipbetweenspeechandbodilycomportmentisconstitutiveofthe

formthatconversationtakesandthesubtleexclusionsmanifestintheplayofpower;

thedirectionofthegaze,thelookingawayortheturningofthebackagainstan‘other’;

actionsofteninformedbydiscriminationsrelatingtogenderandrace.Formisalso

expressedthroughtherulesoflanguageuse,assumptionsaboutwhatconstitutesa

‘universal’language,howitsrulesrelatetotheparticularitiesofdistinctlanguages,their

idiomsandstyles.

Thearts,includingfilm,literature,photography,andthefineartsarealso

locationsofglobalconversation.Allgenresofaestheticpracticeevoketheinter-

31

textualitythatbearswitnesstotheproductionofsomethingnewthatemergesfrom

systemsofknowledge,referencepoints,andformsofexpressionmobilisedin

particularwork.Globalconversationsareatoncetextualandvisualandmanyworlds

canbebroughtintotheone,revealingbothtensionsandpotentialities.Anexample

mightbetheworkofthePalestinianartist,MonaHatoum,MeasuresofDistance,where

thethemesofexile,thebody,subjectivity,language(EnglishandArabic)andgenderare

allpresentinthepluralconversationstakingplaceinthisvideoinstallation(Jabri:

1999).Alternatively,theUgandanovelist,YaaGyasi’sHomeGoing(2016)bringsworlds

intoconversation,tracingtheexperienceoftwoAfricansisters,onesoldintoslavery

andtheothermarriedofftoaslavetrader,andthereverberationofthisseparation

acrossgenerations.

Afurthercomponentregardstheimplicationsofashiftfromanindividualisttoa

relationalontologyforunderstandingstrategiesthatmightcontributetothe

transformationofpowerhierarchiesthatlimitconversation.Fromthisperspective,

greaterconsciousnessofthepast,andpriorframingsofwhocanandcannotspeak,

providesthepointofdepartureforlisteningandlearninghowtoengageinnewways.

Oneimportanthistoricalexampleisthatofnonviolentstrategy,whichhasbeenclosely

boundupinpracticesofresistance.Gandhi’sSatyagraha,whichrestsonarelational

ontology(Chacko2016),assumesthatnonviolentstrategyhasthepotentialto

transformratherthandestroyrelationshipsbetweenselfandother,placingthemona

moreequalplayingfield.Speakingfromapositionthatrecognizesone’sdignityasa

sentientbeingisitselfanactofnonviolentresistance,atleastinacontextwherethis

possibilityhasbeendenied,andassuchislikelytoinviteanaggressiveorviolent

reaction.Butthehope,whetherlookingatGandhioranynumberotherexamplesacross

theglobe,istocreatetheconditionsforaconversationtoreplaceamonologueof

32

hierarchicalviolence,whichoftenholdstheboundariesofdifferenceinplace.Violence

isanintra-actionthatsealsaboundaryofhateandseparation,andthusreinforcesan

individualontologywhichbecomesself-reproducing.

Fromthisperspective,startingaconversationcanbeanonviolentassertionof

identitywithindifferencethatisalsoanactofresistancewhichtransformsthe

boundariesofselfandother.Thecontextofconversationhighlightsnonviolenceasa

communicativestrategythatdeliberatelybringsdifferenceintoaconfrontationwith

power,totheendofexposingthestructuralviolencethatconfinesthespacefor

speakingfreely(Steger2006)andbringingcontrastingontologiesintoconversation.At

theintra-statelevel,onecanseethejuxtapositionofindividualistandrelational

ontologiesinformercolonialstatesthathavebeensocializedintotheWestphalian

traditionofdiplomacy,whilealsobeinginformedbyancienttraditionsthataremore

indigenous,asnotedbyDatta-Ray(2015)inhisanalysisoftheinfluenceofthe

Makharabata(andGandhi)oncontemporaryIndianforeignpolicy,oroftheConfucian

traditionofTianxia(‘allunderheaven’)onChinesepolicy(Wang2017)orDaoismon

Chinesemilitarystrategy(Sawyer2008);ortheimpactofUbuntuon,amongothers,the

SouthAfricanTruthandReconciliationCommission(Norval1998;Mkhwanazi2017).

Ubuntusuggeststhepotentialthatwebecomemorehumaninrecognizingthe

humanityofothers,which,asNgcoya(2015)notes,providesapointofdeparturefora

moreemancipatorycosmopolitanism.Whileconventionalcosmopolitanconceptionsof

IRhaveahardtimeengagingwithworldviewsandconceptionsofindigenouspeoples,

thelattercomeintofocus,heargues,withamoreemancipatorycosmopolitism‘from

below,’whichrebalancesbyaccountingforthediversityofsocialandculturalforcesina

globalizingworld.Whilethisontologicalconversationsuggestsyetanothereither/or

33

choice,ithighlightsadifferentapproachtodifferencewhichpushesbeyondpost-

structuralistdebatesonthetopic.Whilesharingafamilyresemblanceindestabilizing

theidentity/differencerelationshipashierarchy,aconversationwith,forinstance,a

Daoistunderstandingofdifferencemightbringthefurtherinsightthatopposites,like

yinandyang,arealwaysmutuallyimplicated.L.H.M.Ling(2013)appliesaDaoist

approachtoidentityanddifferencetoanexaminationoftherelationshipbetweenthe

U.S.andChina.TheChinathreatthesispresentsChinainmutuallyexclusiveterms,asa

potentialregionalorglobalhegemonthatseekstoreplacetheU.S.inthisrole.Ling

arguesinsteadthatitisimportanttoseeu.s.inChinaandchinainU.S.Bythisshemeans

anattentivenesstothemultitudeofdifferentwaysinwhichthebeingandhistoryof

oppositesintersectratherthanbeingnecessarilyatoddsandmutuallyexclusive.20

Conclusions

Amulti-perspectivalconversationsuggeststhatoneengageswithanOtherfrom

apositioninsocialandglobalspace,whereone’sperspectiveisshapedbytheir

positionality.Thisdiffersfromeitherdialogue,whichseeksuniversalagreement,or

negotiationthatseekstodivideupthepie,oranargumentthatiswonorlost.Theoften-

heardchargeofrelativismrestsontheassumptionofasingulartruth,andthusa

competitionandhierarchybetweendifferentperspectives.Aconversationbydefinition

assumesinsteadthatparticipants,preciselybecausetheyaredifferentaddsomething

uniqueandthatbothmay,throughtheprocess,betransformed.Theemphasisison

processratherthanoutcomes,andonrespectfordifferenceratherthansharedrulesof

20E.g.,whileWesterntechnologicalandmilitarysuperioritywasdependentondiscoveriesfromtheEast,China’smodernizationhasreliedonideasandtechnologiesfromtheWest.TheU.S.hadapresenceinChinaduringthe‘CenturyofHumiliation’butalsocontainslargenumbersofChineseimmigrants.Inbothpopulationstherearescholarssearchingforanewwaytoorganizeglobalpolitics.

34

agreementandconsensus.Aconversationisongoingandcontinuouslyshiftsand

changesastheparticipantslearnandbecomequalitativelydifferentastheir

relationalityistransformedthroughtheprocess.

Boththeviewthatothertraditionshavenothingtoofferthathasn’tbeen

capturedbyWesternscholars,21orthatthispotentialopensuparelativistcanof

worms–which,itmightfurtherbesaid,detractsfromrealscience-havetheeffectof

silencingothersbeforewehaveevenbotheredtolistenorengagewiththem.Inthis

respect,theresistanceofthosewhoclawtheirwayoutofcenturiesofsedimented

silence,needstobemetbyaseriousreflexivityonthepartofWesternscholars

regardingasenseofentitlement,giventheirpositionalityinthe‘West.’MuchasWendt

(2015)hasarguedthatashiftfromaNewtoniantoaQuantumframeworkpotentially

opensupspacesfordealingwithseeminglyintractableproblems,engagementwith

non-Westerntraditionspotentiallyprovidesamorehumanfacetowhatthisalternative

anglemightlooklike.Aconversationcanstartanywhere.Animportantrealization

alongthewayisthatdifferenceisneitherfixedinspace,norbyessencehierarchical.

HeretheDaoisttradition,orthatofquantumphysics,22hassomethingtocontribute,in

sofarasbothconceiveofdifferenceasmutuallyinclusiveratherthanmutually

exclusive.Thiscanbeseenalternativelyintheparticlethatbecomesawaveorawavea

particle,orintheDaoistsymbolbywhichyiniscontainedinyangandyanginyin

(Wang2012).Aconversationcreatesthepotentialtoseetheselfintheotheraswellas

theotherintheself.

21HungJenWang(2013)notesexamplesofWesternexpertsonChina,whohavesaidtoChinesetheoriststhatWesterntheoriescanalreadyaccountfortheconcernstheyraise.22ThisisareferencetoNielsBohr’sconceptofcomplementaritywhichheidentifiesassharingafamilyresemblancewiththeDaoistyinandyang,asnotablefromhisincorporationoftheDaoistsymbolinhisfamilycoatofarms(seeFierke2019).

35

Thepointinthecontextofthisargument–andtheconversationitself-isto

begintorethinkhowcontemporarydivisionsinglobalspace,andindeedthe

fragmentationofglobalspace,haveplacedconstraintsonwhoweare,whowetalkto,

wherewefight,whoisout,andwhoisin,buttoalsohighlightthatnoneofthisisfixed

orcertainalthoughmuchofitisinneedofhealingorjustice.Theverysamemodern

warfarethathashistoricallywipedoutindigenouspopulations,fromtheSamuraito

NativeAmericans,tothescrambleforAfricaandthefragmentationoftheMiddleEast,

continuesnowtoproducemoredeath,ofthepopulationstargetedandsomeofthose

involvedininterventionistwarfare.Thedisproportionalityofnumbersaffectedmay

silence,butitmayatthesametimeprovokeconversation,anintra-actionofandwith

thoseaffected.

Wehavesuggestedglobalconversationsasbothconceptandmethod.

Conceptually,therelationalunderstandingweprovidetakesuswellbeyond

universalisingandformalassumptionsthatpersistinperspectivesthatfocuson

‘dialogue’.Spivak’sprioritisingof‘idiom’,ashighlightedearlier,provokesa

conceptualisationofglobalconversationsthatisalwaysrelationalandinprocess.A

methodofglobalconversationsmustalsobepremisedonwhatwerefertoasa

relationalepistemology,sothat,forexample,aresearchprogrammebasedonthe

mappingofglobalconversationsisenabledbyNdlovu-Gatsheni’s‘epistemicfreedom’or

Ling’s‘thousand’waysofknowing.Bothconceptandmethodarepremisedona

relationalontologyoftheglobal,whichwesuggest,hasprofoundimplicationsforhow

wethinkoftheconstitutionoftheglobalasalwaysinprocess.Thisprocessmay

frequentlyconstructdeepdivisionsofseparationandviolence,asinthe‘clashof

civilizations,’but,farfromsuggestingthatindividualontologyisintrinsic,only

reinforcesthepointthatrelationalitytakesdifferentforms,negativeaswellaspositive.

36

Thepointofconversationistointroducethepossibilityofagency,bothinthinking

differentlyaboutdifferenceandengagingwith‘others,’therebyreshapingadifferent

kindofglobalspacethatrestsonthedignityofalllife,humanandotherwise.

Acknowledgements

Theauthorswouldliketothanktheparticipantsintheworkshop,GlobalConversations:Re-

imaginingtheInternational,heldattheWorldInternationalStudiesAssociationConferencein

Taipei,Taiwanin2017,includingPinarBilgin,ZeynepGulsahCapan,DiogoDario, Ananya

Sharma,Chi-yuShih,Kosuke Shimizu and Karen Smith. We would further like to thank Ahmed

Abozaid, Claudia Aradau, Mervyn Frost and Chaeyoung Yong for comments on a draft of this text.

Bibliography

Acharya,Amitav.2011.“DialogueandDiscovery:InSearchofInternationalRelationsTheories

BeyondtheWest.”Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies39(3):619-637.

Acharya.Amitav.2014.“GlobalInternationalRelations(IR)andRegionalWorlds:ANewAgenda

forInternationalStudies.”InternationalStudiesQuarterly58(4):647-659.

Acharya,AmitavandBarryBuzan.2007.“Whyistherenonon-Westerninternationalrelations

theory?Anintroduction.”InternationalRelationsoftheAsiaPacific,7(3):2-26.

Acharya,AmitavandBarryBuzan.2009.Non-WesternIRTheory:PerspectivesonandBeyond

Asia.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Acharya,AmitavandBarryBuzan,eds.2010.Non-WesternInternationalRelationsTheory:

PerspectivesonandBeyondAsia.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Ahmed,Sarah.2004.TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Ali,Rozina.2017.“TheErasureofIslamfromthePoetryofRumi.”TheNewYorker.

Barad,Karen.2007.MeetingtheUniverseHalfWay:QuantumPhysicsandtheEntanglementof

MatterandMeaning.Duke,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Barkawi,TarakandMarkLaffey.2006.‘ThePostcolonialMomentinSecurityStudies,’Reviewof

InternationalStudies32(2):329-352.

Bernstein,RichardJ.2008.“TheConversationthatNeverHappened(Gadamer/Derrida).”The

ReviewofMetaphysics61(3):577-603.

Bhabha,Homi.1994.TheLocationofCulture.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Bilgin,Pinar.2014.“DialogueofCivilisations:ACriticalSecurityStudiesPerspective.”

Perceptions:JournalofInternationalAffairs.XIX(1):9-24.

37

Bohr,Niels.[1961]2010.AtomicPhysicsandHumanKnowledge.NewYork:Dover.

Booth,Ken.[1979]2014.StrategyandEthnocentrism.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

BraveHeart,MariaYellowHorse.2000.“Wakiksuyapi:CarryingtheHistoricalTraumaofthe

Lakota”TulaneStudiesinSocialWelfare,pp.245-265,accessedon24April2019,at

http://discoveringourstory.wisdomoftheelders.org/ht_and_grief/Wakiksuyapi-HT.pdf

Callahan,William.2008.“Chinesevisionsofworldorder:Post-hegemonicoranewhegemony?”

InternationalStudiesReview10(4):749-761.

Chacko,P.2016.“TheDecolonialOption:TheEthicsofSelf-Securing.”EditedbyJonnaNyman

andAnthonyBurke,189-200.EthicalSecurityStudies.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Chakrabarty,Dipesh.2000.ProvincialisingEurope:PostcolonialThoughtandHistorical

Difference.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Chan,Stephen,P.Mandaville,andR.Bleikereds.2001.TheZenofInternationalRelations.

London:PalgraveMacmillan.

Dallmayr,Fred.2004.“BeyondMonologue:ForaComparativePoliticalTheory.”Perspectiveson

Politics2(2):249-257.

Damasio,Antonio.2000.TheFeelingofWhatHappens:Body,EmotionandtheMakingof

Consciousness.London:Vintage.

Damasio,Antonio.1994.Descartes’Error:Emotion,ReasonandtheHumanBrain.NewYork:

PutnamPublishing.

Datta-Ray,DeepK.2015.TheMakingofIndianDiplomacy:ACritiqueofEurocentrism.Oxfordand

NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Davidson,RichardandAnneHarringtoneds.2002.VisionsofCompassion:WesternScientistsand

TibetanBuddhistsExamineHumanNature.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

DerDerian,James.1987.OnDiplomacy:AGenealogyofWesternEstrangement.Oxford:Wiley-

Blackwell.

Derrida,Jacques.1981.Dissemination,transBarbaraJohnson.Chicago,Ill:UniversityofChicago

Press.

Diez,ThomasandJillSteans.2005.“AUsefulDialogue?HabermasandInternationalRelations.”

ReviewofInternationalStudies31:127-140.

Dussel,Enrique.1993.EurocentrismandModernity(IntroductiontotheFrankfurtLectures).

Boundary220(3):65-76.

Eun,Yong-Soo.2018.“OpeningtheDebateover‘Non-Western’InternationalRelations.”Politics,

onlineedition,1-14.

Eun,Yong-Soo.2016.PluralismandEngagementintheDisciplineofInternationalRelations

(Singapore:Palgrave).

38

Fierke,K.M.2019.“ContrarysuntComplementa:GlobalEntanglementandtheConstitutionof

Difference.”InternationalStudiesReview21(1):146-169.

Fierke,K.M.2017.“ConsciousnessattheInterface:Wendt,EasternWisdomandtheEthicsof

Intra-action.”CriticalReview29(2):141-169.

Gani,Jasmine.2017.“TheErasureofRace:CosmopolitanismandtheIllusionofKantian

Hospitality,”Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies45(3):425-446.

Garfinkel,Harold.[1967]1984.StudiesinEthnomethodology.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Geertz,Clifford.1973.“NotesonaBalineseCockfight.”inTheInterpretationofCultures.New

York:BasicBooks.

Gilroy,Paul.2004.AfterEmpire:MelancholiaorConvivialCulture.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge.

GoingInternational.1983.ManagingtheOverseasAssignment.GoingInternationalSeries.San

Francisco:CopelandGriggProductions.www.griggs.com/videos/giser.shtml

Gone,JosephP.2013.“RedressingFirstNationsHistoricaltrauma:TheorizingMechanismsfor

IndigenousCultureasMentalHealthTreatment.”TransculturalPsychiatry50(5):683-706.

Grovogui,Siba.2001.“CometoAfrica:AHermeneuticsofRaceinInternationalTheory.”

Alternatives:Global,Local,Political26(4):426-448.

Gyasi,Yaa.2016.Homegoing.PenguinBooks.

Habermas,Jurgen.1992.MoralConsciousnessandCommunicativeAction,trans,Christian

LenhardtandShieryWeberNicholson.Cambridge:Cambridge:PolityPress.

Habermas,Jurgen.1998.TheInclusionoftheOther:StudiesinPoliticalTheory.Cambridge,Mass:

TheMITPress.

Hamati-Ataya,Inanna.2018.“TheSociologyofKnowledgeasPostphilosophicalEpistemology:

OutofIR’s‘SociallyConstructed’Idealism.InternationalStudiesReview20(1):3-29.

Hartstock,Nancy.1987.“TheFeministStandpoint:DevelopingtheGroundforaSpecifically

HistoricalMaterialism.”InFeminismandMethodology,editedbySandraHarding,157-180.

MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversityPress.

Hellmann,GuntherandMortonValbjorn.2017.“ProblematizingGlobalChallenges:

Recalibratingthe‘Inter’inIRTheory.”Forum,InternationalStudiesReview19(2):279-309.

Hobson,John.2004.TheEasternOriginsofWesternCivilisation.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Hunt,Alaneds.2012.EmotionsMatter:ARelationalApproachtoEmotions.Toronto:University

ofTorontoPress.

Hutchings,Kimberly.2011.“DialogueBetweenWhom?TheRoleoftheWest/Non-West

DistinctioninPromotingDialogueinIR.”Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies39(3):

639-647.

39

Inatayutallah,NaeemandDavidBlaney.2004.InternationalRelationsandtheProblemof

Difference.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Jabri,Vivienne.2013.ThePostcolonialSubject:ClaimingPolitics/GoverningOtherinLate

Modernity.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Jabri,Vivienne.2007.“Solidarityandspheresofculture:Thecosmopolitanandthe

postcolonial.”ReviewofInternationalStudies33(4):715-728.

Jabri,Vivienne.1999.“ExplorationsofDifferenceinNormativeInternationalRelations.”In

Women,CultureandInternationalRelations,editedbyVivienneJabriandEleanorO’Gorman,39-

60.Publishers:Boulder,Co:LynneRienner.

Jackson,PatrickThaddeusandDanielH.Nexon.1999.“RelationsBeforeStates:Substance,

Process,andtheStudyofWorldPolitics.”EuropeanJournalofInternationalRelations5(3):291–

332.

Jackson,PatrickThaddeus.2011.TheConductofInquiryinInternationalRelations.Londonand

NewYork:Routledge.

Jung,HwaYol.2002.ComparativePoliticalCultureintheAgeofGlobalisation:AnIntroductory

Anthology.Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks.

Katz,Jack.2012.“EmotionsCrucible.”InEmotionsMatter:ARelationalApproachtoEmotion,

editedbySpencer,Dale,KevinWalbyandAlanHynt,15-39.Toronto:UniversityofToronto

Press.

Kurki,Milja.2015.“StretchingSituatedKnowledge:FromStandpointEpistemologyto

CosmologyandBackAgain.”Millennium:JournalofInternationalStudies43(3):779-797.

Larson,GeraldJamesandEliotDeutscheds.1988.InterpretingAcrossBoundaries:NewEssaysin

ComparativePhilosophy.Princeton.NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Latour,Bruno.1987.ScienceinAction.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.

Latour,Bruno.1993.WeHaveNeverBeenModern,trans.CatherinePorter.Cambridge,Mass:

HarvardUniversityPress.

Lepore,Jill.2018.TheseTruths:AHistoryoftheUnitedStates.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.

Ling,LilyH.M.andAlanChong2018.‘TheSilkRoads:GlobaizationbeforeNeo-Liberalization:

IntroductiontotheSpecialIssue,’AsianJournalofComparativePolitics3(3):189-193.

Ling,LilyH.M.2018.‘Three-ness:Healingworldpoliticswithepistemiccompassion’Politics.1-

15.

Ling,L.H.M.2013a.TheDaoofWorldPolitics.TowardsaPost-WestphalianWorldistInternational

Relations.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Ling,LilyH.M.2013b.“WorldsBeyondWestphalia:DaoistDialecticsandtheChinaThreat”.

ReviewofInternationalStudies39(3):549-568.

Lukacs,Gyorgy.(1967)2000.HistoryandClassConsciousness.Cambridge,Mass:MITPress.

40

Mallavarapu.,Siddhart2009.“DevelopmentofInternationalRelationsTheoryinIndia:

Traditions,ContemporaryPerspectivesandTrajectories.”InternationalStudies46,1-2.

Maxwell,Krista.2014.“Historicizinghistoricaltraumatheory:TroublingtheTrans-generational

TransmissionParadigm.”TransculturalPsychiatry5(3):407-435.

Mkhwanazi,EzekielS.N.2017.“ConsciencismasanexpressionofUbuntu.”InDisentangling

Consciencism:EssaysonKwameNkrumah’sPhilosoph,editedbyMartinOdeiAjei,Lexington

Books,pp.261-278..

Nardin,Terryed.1996.TheEthicsofWarandPeace:ReligiousandSecularPerspectives.

Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni,SabeloJ.2018.EpistemicFreedominAfrica:Deprovincializationand

Decolonization.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Newkirk,VannR.2017.“BlackCharlottesvillehasSeenthisallBefore.”TheAtlantic,18August,

accessedon28February2018,at

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/black-community-charlottesville-

response/537285/

Norris,Christopher.1996.ReclaimingTruth:ContributiontoaCritiqueofCulturalRelativism.

NewYork:LawrenceandWishart.

Norval,Aletta.1998.“Memory,Identityandthe(ImpossibilityofReconciliation:TheWorkof

theTruthandReconciliationCommissioninSouthAfrica.”Constellations,5,

http://center.theparentscircle.org/images/48db7e0e1d2242aa910592912b5b6203.pdf

Ngcoya,Mvuselelo.2015.“Ubuntu:TowardanEmancipatoryCosmopolitanism?”International

PoliticalSociology9:248-262.

Nyman,JonnaandAnthonyBurkeeds.2016.EthicalSecurityStudies.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge.

Olah,Daniel.2017.‘TheAmazingArabScholarwhoBeatAdamSmithbyaMillennium,’

Evonomics,accessedon2January2019atwww.evonomics.com.

Prussing,Erica.2014.“HistoricalTrauma:PoliticsofaConceptualFramework.“Transcultural

Psychiatry51(3):436-458.

Qin,Yaqing.2016.“ARelationalTheoryofWorldPolitics.”InternationalStudiesReview.18(1):

33-47.

Qin,Yaqing.2007.“WhyistherenoChineseinternationalrelationstheory?”International

RelationsoftheAsiaPacific7(3):313-340.

Sabaratram,Meera.2011.“IRinDialogue…butcanwechangethesubject?Atypologyof

decolonisingstrategiesforthestudyofworldpolitics.”Millennium:JournalofInternational

Studies39(3):781-803.

Said,Edward.1978.Orientalism.PantheonBooks.

41

Said,Edward.1993.CultureandImperialism.London:ChattoandWindus.

Sawyer,Ralphed.2008.TheSevenMilitaryClassicsofAncientChina.NewYork:BasicBooks.

GiorgioShani.2008.‘TowardaPost-WesternIR:TheUmma,KhalsaPanth,andCritical

InternationalRelationsTheory,’InternationalStudiesReview10(4):722-734.

Shilliam,Robbie.2015.TheBlackPacific:Anti-ColonialStrugglesandOceanicConnections.London:Bloomsbury.

Shilliam,Robbie.2011.“Non-WesternThoughtandInternationalRelations.”InInternational

RelationsandNon-WesternThought,editedbyRobbieShilliam,1-11.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge.

SongXinning.2001.“BuildingInternationalRelationsTheorywithChineseCharacteristics.”

JournalofContemporaryChina,10(26):61-74.

Spivak,GayatryChakravorty.1988.“CantheSubalternSpeak?”InMarxismandthe

InterpretationofCulture,editedbyCaryNelsonandLawrenceGrossberg.London:Macmillan.

Spivak,GayatryChakravorty.2000.“TranslationasCulture.”Parallax,6(1):13-24.

Starr,S.Frederick.2013.LostEnlightenment:CentralAsia’sGoldenAgefromtheArabConquestto

Tamerlane.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Steger,ManfredB.2006.SearchingforSatyathroughAhimsa:Gandhi’sChallengetoWestern

DiscoursesofPower.Constellations,13(3):332-353.

Theodosius,Catherine.2012.“’FeelingaFeeling’inEmotionManagement,”InEmotionsMatter:

ARelationalApproachtoEmotions,editedbySpencer,Dale,KevinWalbyandAlanHunt,63-85.

Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Tickner,ArleneandOleWaevereds.2009.InternationalRelationsScholarshipAroundtheWorld

LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Valbjorn,Morten.2017.‘Dialogues:OnthePurpose,ProcedureandProductofDialoguesin

Inter-NationalRelationsTheory,'InternationalStudiesReview,19(2):291-296.

WaThiongo,Ngugi.2012.IntheHouseoftheInterpreter.London:VintageBooks.

Wang,Hung-Jen.2013.TheRiseofChinaandChineseInternationalRelationsScholarship.

LexingtonBooks.

Wang,RobinR.2012.YinandYang.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wendt,Alexander.2015.QuantumMindandSocialScience.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity

Press.

Wiener,Antje.2018.ContestationandConstitutionofNormsinGlobalInternationalRelations.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wiener,Antje.2014.ATheoryofContestation.NewYork:Springer.

Wiener,Antje.2008.TheInvisibleConstitutionofPolitics:ContestedNormsandInternational

Encounters.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

42

Wittgenstein,Ludwig.1958.PhilosophicalInvestigations.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.

Young,IrisMarion.1996.“CommunicationandtheOther:BeyondDeliberativeDemocracy.”In

DemocracyandDifferenec:ContestingtheBoundariesofthePolitical,editedbySeylaBenhabib,

120-136.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.