Abstract
Since the 1980s, International Relations (IR) scholars have emphasised the ‘geoepistemological’ dynamics underpinning the global structuration of discipline diversity. By focusing mainly on the study of ‘American’ and ‘non-Western’ IR, this debate has given little attention to the voices, perspectives, and practices of those scholars who study IR in Europe. This article aims reflexively to question the identity dynamics of the marginalisation of European cases in the debate about diversity and hegemony in International Relations. Using anthropological and sociological tools, such as the idea of ‘misery of position’ developed by Pierre Bourdieu, it explores the postcolonial and eurocentric narratives that can explain this situation, while also putting forward why assuming a balanced ethnocentric stance would provide a more appropriate relational model to promote pluralism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
