Theorizing International Relations: Politics vs. Philosophy

Abstract

Decentering International Relations. By Meghana Nayak, Eric Selbin. London: Zed Books, 2010. 256 pp., $35.95 paperback (ISBN-13: 978-1-848-13238-2). International Relations Theory and Philosophy: Interpretive Dialogues. Edited by Cerwyn Moore, Chris Farrands. New York: Routledge, 2010. 240 pp., $140.00 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-0415462266). Scientific Realism and International Relations. Edited by Jonathan Joseph, Colin Wight. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 288 pp., $85.00 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-0230240063). Despite the major differences among the theoretical orientations of the contributors, these three books have in common similar political goals both in respect to the discipline and to the world at large. Speaking from the relative margins of International Relations (IR), all three books aim to rethink meta-theoretical issues related to the discipline in order to (ultimately) bring consequences of domination in the international system into better focus. In that sense, all three books could be thought of as part of a growing critique of mainstream epistemologies of IR theory as enablers of status quo and privilege within world politics. Each of the contributors to these three volumes would agree that philosophical debates are also political. However, that is where the similarities end. As inclined as the mainstream is to dismiss all critical approaches together as birds of a feather, there are some fundamental disagreements in that group as to what exactly is wrong with the traditional approaches in IR. There are also significant differences in how each of these books presents its agenda, and how tolerant each worldview contained in these volumes is of alternative critiques of the mainstream. In fact, the juxtaposition of these three books together raises very interesting questions about the best way to stage a theoretical critique of IR from the periphery. Therefore, in this review, I will attempt to engage with the politics of theorizing as well as the substance of each theoretical argument. The first book, Decentering International Relations , by Meghana Nayak and Eric Selbin, is most open about its political agenda vis-a-vis the discipline, as is clear from the title. Nayak and Selbin argue that IR as a field of study is centered around a geographical focus on the global North/West. This geographical focus leads the discipline to privilege certain projects …