Here is a short essay I wrote to summarise some of the arguments of the book: Diversity for and by whom? Knowledge production and the management of diversity in international relations, International Politics Reviews, 2021.
Book reviews of Western Dominance in International Relations?
- Lucie Béraud-Sudreau (2021) in Revue Française de Science Politique, 71(2), pp. 280-282, read here.
- Andre Sanches Siqueira Campos & Tullo Vigevani (2020) "O Domínio Ocidental e a Formação de Conceitos para uma Escola Brasileira de Relações Internacionais" in RITA - Revue Interdisciplinaire de Travaux sur les Amériques, 13 [online], read here.
- Hugo Arend (2020) in Contexto Internacional, 42(1), pp.109-201, read here
- Farai Chipato (2020) in Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 33(3), pp. 457-459, read here.
- Benjamin Chemouni (2018) in The Journal of Development Studies, 55(9), 2083-2084, read here.
Book Launch Podcast
From left to right: Barry Buzan (LSE), Katharine Millar (LSE), Jef Huysmans (Queen Mary University of London),
Audrey Alejandro (LSE), Alvina Hoffmann (Chair, King's College London).
To listen to the podcast of the book launch organised at LSE on January 21st, 2019, click here.
Book Summary
Since the 1970s, a 'critical' movement has been developing in the humanities and social sciences denouncing the existence of a 'Western dominance' over the worldwide production and circulation of knowledge. However, thirty years after the emergence of this promising agenda in International Relations (IR), this discipline has not experienced a major shift.
This volume offers a counter-intuitive and original contribution to the understanding of the global circulation of knowledge. In contrast with the literature, it argues that the internationalisation of social sciences in the designated 'Global South' is not conditioned by the existence of a presumably 'Western dominance'. Indeed, though discriminative practices such as Eurocentrism and gate-keeping practices exist, their existence does not lead to a unipolar structuration of IR internationalisation around ‘the West’. Based on these empirical results, this book reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social and political order. Paradoxically, the anti-Eurocentric critical discourses reproduce the very Eurocentrism they criticise. This book offers methodological support to address this paradox by demonstrating how one can use discourse analysis and reflexivity to produce innovative results and decenter oneself from the vision of the world one has been socialised into.
This work offers an insightful contribution to International Relations, Political Theory, Sociology and Qualitative Methodology. It will be useful to all students and scholars interested in critical theories, international political sociology, social sciences in Brazil and India, knowledge and discourse, Eurocentrism, as well as the future of reflexivity.
This volume offers a counter-intuitive and original contribution to the understanding of the global circulation of knowledge. In contrast with the literature, it argues that the internationalisation of social sciences in the designated 'Global South' is not conditioned by the existence of a presumably 'Western dominance'. Indeed, though discriminative practices such as Eurocentrism and gate-keeping practices exist, their existence does not lead to a unipolar structuration of IR internationalisation around ‘the West’. Based on these empirical results, this book reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social and political order. Paradoxically, the anti-Eurocentric critical discourses reproduce the very Eurocentrism they criticise. This book offers methodological support to address this paradox by demonstrating how one can use discourse analysis and reflexivity to produce innovative results and decenter oneself from the vision of the world one has been socialised into.
This work offers an insightful contribution to International Relations, Political Theory, Sociology and Qualitative Methodology. It will be useful to all students and scholars interested in critical theories, international political sociology, social sciences in Brazil and India, knowledge and discourse, Eurocentrism, as well as the future of reflexivity.
Chapter outline (excerpt taken from the book pp. 14-17)
1. Diversity
Is IR as diverse as the critical literature assumes it to be, and do such differences represent comparative disadvantages for the internationalisation of publications?
The first chapter questions the way ‘difference’ and ‘local specificities’ are addressed by the critical literature. It challenges the assumption that ‘scholars from the Global South’ are excluded because of their alleged ‘non-Western’ specificities. It investigates the existence of local specificities described by the critical literature, focusing on the contributions of India and Brazil to theoretical, thematic and demographic diversity of ‘Global IR’. It then examines the value attributed to these specificities by Indian and Brazilian scholars, and the consequences of demonstrating such specificities for internationalisation.
Two main conclusions can be drawn. First, in the case of IR in India and Brazil: (i) there is no theoretically specific production; (ii) thematic differences (focusing on national foreign policy and regional studies) exist but are experienced as national traditions rather than invested as a counter-hegemonic stance; (iii) the fact that very few people were working in IR before the 1990s explains the invisibility of national scholars at the international level. Second, the adoption of these criteria represents comparative advantages for the internationalisation of research.
The first chapter shows the lack of ‘anti-hegemonic’ engagement of Indian and Brazilian scholars and sheds lights on how the narrative of Western dominance essentialises ‘non-Western’ IR as inherently different.
2. Regarding Internationalisation
Do Indian and Brazilian IR scholars aim to publish in foreign IR journals?
The second chapter assesses the position of Indian and Brazilian scholars regarding the internationalisation of their publications. Thus, it questions the implicit consensus that ‘scholars from the Global South’ naturally aspire to publish abroad. First, it investigates the target audience and privileged publication formats for IR in these countries. Second, it draws up a socio-history of the field of IR in Brazil and India to account for the development of IR scholars’ profession in its relationship with the state and government through an inter-generational comparison.
These investigations demonstrate the existence of two models of professional engagement. In both countries, IR has been constructed as a foreign policy tool to support postcolonial states’ need for international expertise and their construction as international political subjects. However, publication strategies have drastically changed in Brazil since the 2000s. Since then, Brazilian scholars have started to prioritise internationalisation and have not encountered difficulties in doing so. During this same period, Indian scholars did not change in the same way. They remained in favour of non-peer-reviewed publications, which mainly address national and regional elites.
Chapter 2, therefore, demonstrates the plurality of IR professional practices and objectives around the globe. It exposes the assumption of a universal model of professionalisation and publication made by the narrative of Western dominance.
The second chapter assesses the position of Indian and Brazilian scholars regarding the internationalisation of their publications. Thus, it questions the implicit consensus that ‘scholars from the Global South’ naturally aspire to publish abroad. First, it investigates the target audience and privileged publication formats for IR in these countries. Second, it draws up a socio-history of the field of IR in Brazil and India to account for the development of IR scholars’ profession in its relationship with the state and government through an inter-generational comparison.
These investigations demonstrate the existence of two models of professional engagement. In both countries, IR has been constructed as a foreign policy tool to support postcolonial states’ need for international expertise and their construction as international political subjects. However, publication strategies have drastically changed in Brazil since the 2000s. Since then, Brazilian scholars have started to prioritise internationalisation and have not encountered difficulties in doing so. During this same period, Indian scholars did not change in the same way. They remained in favour of non-peer-reviewed publications, which mainly address national and regional elites.
Chapter 2, therefore, demonstrates the plurality of IR professional practices and objectives around the globe. It exposes the assumption of a universal model of professionalisation and publication made by the narrative of Western dominance.
3. The non-role of ‘the West’
What are the conditions determining the internationalisation of IR publications ?
The third chapter investigates the factors determining the internationalisation of IR research in Brazil and India. Thus, it questions the fact that the internationalisation of IR from ‘the Global South’ is prevented by ‘Western’ scholars. Contrary to the assumptions of the literature, the internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India is determined by variation within the national context: the robustness of the national publishing market, the criteria used for research evaluation and the extent to which they are important in career advancement, the relative incentives to produce policy-oriented research, and the nature of national scientific public policies (including the legal framework behind the organisation of universities, the funding allocated to each discipline and the availability of grants for internationalisation). This comparison shows that the current state of internationalisation of IR in Brazil, which is not occurring in India, directly results from a major transformation of these factors in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Chapter 3, therefore, reveals that the internationalisation of IR is multi-polar and that the narrative of Western dominance denies the agency of the 'Global South’ states, despite them being the main actors influencing scholars’ publishing strategies.
The third chapter investigates the factors determining the internationalisation of IR research in Brazil and India. Thus, it questions the fact that the internationalisation of IR from ‘the Global South’ is prevented by ‘Western’ scholars. Contrary to the assumptions of the literature, the internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India is determined by variation within the national context: the robustness of the national publishing market, the criteria used for research evaluation and the extent to which they are important in career advancement, the relative incentives to produce policy-oriented research, and the nature of national scientific public policies (including the legal framework behind the organisation of universities, the funding allocated to each discipline and the availability of grants for internationalisation). This comparison shows that the current state of internationalisation of IR in Brazil, which is not occurring in India, directly results from a major transformation of these factors in the late 1990s/early 2000s.
Chapter 3, therefore, reveals that the internationalisation of IR is multi-polar and that the narrative of Western dominance denies the agency of the 'Global South’ states, despite them being the main actors influencing scholars’ publishing strategies.
4. The national and the international
What is the relationship between ‘the national’ and ‘the international’ in regards to the internationalisation and diversification of IR ?
The fourth chapter deconstructs the implicit relationship between the commonly used categories of thought: ‘the national’ and ‘the international’. It offers a decentred account of IR in Brazil and India to show how processes identified as ‘international’ or ‘national’ interact and affect the relationship between the internationalisation and diversification of IR. First, it deconstructs the ‘national’ character of Indian and Brazilian IR traditions by exposing their international origin and sub-national diversity. Second, it shows that processes of diversification and professional engagement in IR’s national and international spaces are not only different but can also be contradictory. Finally, it explores the experiences and perceptions of Indian and Brazilian scholars regarding ‘the national’ and ‘the international’ to show that the value attributed to those objects by the narrative of Western dominance is not necessarily shared by the scholars the narrative aims to emancipate.
Chapter 4, therefore, demonstrates how the narrative of Western dominance reifies, merges and opposes ‘the national’ and ‘the international’ in a way that reproduces the Eurocentrism it denounces.
The fourth chapter deconstructs the implicit relationship between the commonly used categories of thought: ‘the national’ and ‘the international’. It offers a decentred account of IR in Brazil and India to show how processes identified as ‘international’ or ‘national’ interact and affect the relationship between the internationalisation and diversification of IR. First, it deconstructs the ‘national’ character of Indian and Brazilian IR traditions by exposing their international origin and sub-national diversity. Second, it shows that processes of diversification and professional engagement in IR’s national and international spaces are not only different but can also be contradictory. Finally, it explores the experiences and perceptions of Indian and Brazilian scholars regarding ‘the national’ and ‘the international’ to show that the value attributed to those objects by the narrative of Western dominance is not necessarily shared by the scholars the narrative aims to emancipate.
Chapter 4, therefore, demonstrates how the narrative of Western dominance reifies, merges and opposes ‘the national’ and ‘the international’ in a way that reproduces the Eurocentrism it denounces.
5. Discursive entanglements
What are the social effects of the narrative of Western dominance’s anti-Eurocentric Eurocentric discourse on the field of IR?
The first four chapters demonstrate that the narrative of Western dominance is Eurocentric according to the three dimensions of Eurocentrism identified in the Introduction. Chapter 5 exposes how the narrative of Western dominance is embedded in a discursive entanglement composed of three other discourses: social evolutionism, the technicisation of scientific knowledge, and the critical dichotomy between ‘dominant’ and 'dominated' social groups. Behind their apparent diversity and contradictions, these discourses naturalise the inevitability of the advent of a global academic order organised around a publication system that rather than benefiting the (vaguely defined) ‘West’ matches more precisely US and UK IR academia.
Chapter 5 shows how the narrative of Western dominance not only reproduces the Eurocentrism it critiques but also illustrates the emergence of a new form of Eurocentrism that I call postcolonial Eurocentrism. It also contributes to the normalisation of academic models by naturalising gate-keeping practices and identities that fall outside the critique’s scope.
The first four chapters demonstrate that the narrative of Western dominance is Eurocentric according to the three dimensions of Eurocentrism identified in the Introduction. Chapter 5 exposes how the narrative of Western dominance is embedded in a discursive entanglement composed of three other discourses: social evolutionism, the technicisation of scientific knowledge, and the critical dichotomy between ‘dominant’ and 'dominated' social groups. Behind their apparent diversity and contradictions, these discourses naturalise the inevitability of the advent of a global academic order organised around a publication system that rather than benefiting the (vaguely defined) ‘West’ matches more precisely US and UK IR academia.
Chapter 5 shows how the narrative of Western dominance not only reproduces the Eurocentrism it critiques but also illustrates the emergence of a new form of Eurocentrism that I call postcolonial Eurocentrism. It also contributes to the normalisation of academic models by naturalising gate-keeping practices and identities that fall outside the critique’s scope.
6. The Recursive Paradox
How did critical scholars exclude themselves from their object of inquiry, and what did I do to include myself back into the analysis?
Chapter 6 offers a reflexive account of three of the endeavours I undertook to produce an alternative discourse to the narrative of Western dominance. I argue that the core reason explaining the recursive paradox in which IR critical scholars find themselves is that they exclude themselves from their object of study. To face this issue, I first show how I theorised reflexivity to understand what its object is, and what the obstacles to including ourselves in our research are. Second, I show how the current conceptualisation of diversity (or lack thereof) prevents us from understanding the power relationships created through the circulation of knowledge and enables critical scholars to exclude themselves from their object of study. Finally, I describe some examples of how I adapted qualitative methods (research design and interviews) so as to include myself better into my object of analysis.
Chapter 6 offers a reflexive account of three of the endeavours I undertook to produce an alternative discourse to the narrative of Western dominance. I argue that the core reason explaining the recursive paradox in which IR critical scholars find themselves is that they exclude themselves from their object of study. To face this issue, I first show how I theorised reflexivity to understand what its object is, and what the obstacles to including ourselves in our research are. Second, I show how the current conceptualisation of diversity (or lack thereof) prevents us from understanding the power relationships created through the circulation of knowledge and enables critical scholars to exclude themselves from their object of study. Finally, I describe some examples of how I adapted qualitative methods (research design and interviews) so as to include myself better into my object of analysis.
Reading @AudreyAlejand's book like pic.twitter.com/327MT55ayv
— Alex (@StoffelAlex) May 8, 2020