1. Emily Judson 538445
Tutor: Madura Rasaratnam
Word Count: 1954
Question:3. Whatis at stake in the call to decolonize
‘IR’? What difference would it make, if any, to how
we make sense of the international theoretically?

2. One of the most hotly contested sites in post-colonial scholarship has been the Speech of the
colonised or “subaltern”. Sometimes it is treated as hidden but authentic; sometimes as
accessible only by academic interpretation (Spivak in Loomba 2005:195); sometimes “heard”
but processed via a different language (Laffey and Weldes 2008:560). “Hearing” subaltern
Speech is an integral part of decolonisation, however merely “adding” these narratives to the
current discipline is not equivalent to decolonising IR. This essay will argue that
decolonisation is not a fixed state of liberation, but a practice of resistance. To explore this
idea, I will first explain the idea of decolonisation as a practice. Secondly, I will argue that
what is at stake in the call to decolonize IR is a transformation of knowledge and subjectivity
as concepts. Finally, I will suggest that transforming our conceptualisation of knowledge and
subjectivity precipitates a parallel transformation of how we conceptualise the international.
What is Decolonisation?
It is neither possible nor desirable for me to clarify the exact bounds of colonialism; the
degree to which decolonisation is possible; and what decolonisation would entail.
Experiences of colonisation are more than the physical occupation of territory; colonisation is
also discursive, entailing asymmetrical relationships of knowledge and power. Due to the
overwhelmingly hybrid nature of human identities and practices (Slater 1998), the bounds of
colonisation are contestable and subject to perspectives of different collectives and
individuals. Although I understand that the definitions of colonization and decolonization are
problematic, for the purposes of this essay I take a definition of decolonisation as an
emancipatory project (Slater 2004 in Laffey and Weldes 2008:559) of people(s) and
knowledges. I conceptualise emancipation not as escaping power but of practices of
resistance to domination, and the “fleeting experiences of liberation” resulting from these

3. practices (Oksala 2005:209). Decolonisation is therefore context-specific and has a constant,
participatory nature. It is not a fixed state but a practice of questioning and resisting
exclusion at multiple levels.
Knowledge, Eurocentrism and Challenging Maps
In this essay I conceptualise knowledge and subjectivities as fluid; constantly constructed,
deconstructed and reaffirmed. Knowledge is also power; processes and practices enacted
though a multiplicity of mutually-constitutive but asymmetrical relations. Knowledge is
situated in temporal and spatial context, however it also connects different temporal and
spatial locales (Coronil 1996, Darby 2003). In contrast, knowledge is often conceptualised in
IR as cumulative, static and a-historical, providing definitive answers to defined social
problems such as inter-state war.
In a quest for fixity, mainstream IR mapping practices reveal a world of sovereign territorial
states, (sometimes also including other social-organisation entities such as inter-governmental
organisations,) as discrete entities surrounded by a “thin” international space. These maps
naturalize and preference certain territorial and social-organisational formations with the
effect of obscuring physical and discursive imperialism.
The organisation of territory into discrete, sovereign nation-states is based on the evolution of
social organisation of powerful European states from around the 17th century. Whilst the
origins of the state system are noted in IR, the historical and spatial context of their evolution
in Europe and their imperial imposition elsewhere is eclipsed. Instead the sovereign state is

4. presented as a neutral form of politico-territorial organisation. Europe is celebrated as the hub
and focus of history, where progress is internally-generated and “exported” to the blank
canvas of the Third World (Doty 1996 in Darby 2003:147). European enlightenment logo-
centrism and quest for objectivity form an integral part of exports named as progress and
truth. Consequentially, the mutual constitution of knowledge and subjectivities beyond the
borders delineated by this knowledge map are eclipsed. Links are severed between connected
peoples; the inter-related histories of spaces are concealed; and identities and knowledges are
tied to discrete territories (Coronil 1996:27). Mirroring the creation of the rational European
“Self”, a non-European “Other” is created and hierarchised as subordinate (Coronil 1996).
The Self/Other relationship can justify but also obscure acts of imperialism. For example,
making invisible or denying the presence of race in IR (Doty 1993, Krishna 2001) is in itself
an act of imperialism that continues asymmetrical power relations.
What I have described are only a few illustrations of the hidden but constitutive imperial
dynamics of dominant IR mapping practices. Merely “adding” colonised or subaltern
narratives as a variable to these maps is highly unlikely decolonise IR. To take one example,
the Critical Oral History Project set up to assess the Crisis de Octubre finally admitted Cuban
nationals to the project in 1989. This marked a significant step of acknowledging the
participation of Cuba in the crisis, rather than seeing Cuba as a passive locale. However, the
imperial dimension of the crisis; the context of US aggression in Latin America and the
Caribbean, has still not gained widespread recognition. The Cuban Missile Crisis retains its
US name in popular IR parlance, and the vast majority of scholarship devoted to its analysis
still emanates from within the dominant knowledge maps of IR. (Laffey and Weldes 2008).
“Addition” of narratives within the existing knowledge maps is not sufficient to decolonise
IR; a radical revision of the map itself is needed.

5. In all knowledge a degree of abstraction is necessary and our knowledge maps do not directly
mirror any fixed external reality (Krishna 2001, Coronil 1996). Whilst abstractions may
reveal or deconstruct; they simultaneously conceal by what they construct. All maps therefore
contain hidden practices of exclusion or “containment” (Krishna 2001). This is unavoidable
and not problematic in itself, so long as knowledge does not claim universality. However,
“fetishization of abstraction” (Krishna 2001:401) and denials of partiality in IR scholarship
are imbued with imperial power. Claims of objectivity; access to an ultimate reality, are
powerful tools for the devaluation or dismissal of the Other, thus maintaining and obscuring
imperial hierarchies. For example, whilst US possession of nuclear weapons is justified on
the basis of morality, competence and rationality (attributes of an adult male); states such as
Pakistan are portrayed as dangerous, incompetent and irrational (attributes of children or
women) and therefore unsuitable for nuclear responsibility (Gusterson 1999).
Taking account of mutual constitution is one way of challenging imperial knowledge maps.
Rather than picturing Europe as a discreet entity, post-colonial scholarship reveals a web of
asymmetrical but mutually-constitutive relations that blur the boundaries of “Europe”. From
this perspective, it is not possible to picture Europe without imperialism. For example, the
Atlantic slave trade had significant implications on European thought regarding medicine,
law and economics (Grandin 2014). Europe’s imperial encounters shaped the colonizer as
well as the colonized; European knowledge is not sui generis but intrinsically hybrid. In
addition to the movement of knowledge, Europe’s imperial encounters involved the
movement of people and the redefinition of spaces and identities. For example, to picture

6. today’s “brown” Britain without acknowledging its colonial history does not seem to make
sense (Barkawi and Brighton 2013).
A new international?
Transforming the concepts of knowledge and subjectivity significantly broadens how we can
think about the international. Firstly, the international cannot be conceptualised as a “thin”
space of specific relations between discrete territorial or social-organisational entities.
Instead, the international is “thick”, inseparable from biopower and from daily social life
(Darby 2003:144, Barkawi and Laffey 2002:119). Secondly, the international can be
conceptualised in different ways depending on the mapping practices of the knowledge-
producer. For example, the international may be located in the labour of “ordinary people”
(Enloe in Barkawi and Laffey 2002:119) maintaining an order which is also gendered.
Additionally the international may also be located in relations of capital and hierarchies of
race and class (Lazarus 2011). It is important to note that no knowledge map, including those
which currently dominate IR, are “wrong” in an absolute sense. However, all knowledge is
abstracted and partial, containing practices of exclusion (Krishna 2001).
Thirdly, a broadened concept of the international could be translated into IR scholarship
through a parallel broadening of the discipline and questioning of its practices of exclusion.
As a part of challenging of imperial knowledge hierarchies, the subordination of “lay
knowledge” or “culture” (Darby 2003:152) to professional knowledge must also be
challenged. Fourthly, subjectivity of international actors becomes complicated. Statements

7. such as “interest defined as power” (Morgenthau revised by Thompson 1993) become much
less clear when accounting for multidimensional power relations even within individuals. To
create a coherent view of “national interest” is more difficult still, particularly if nationality
itself is contested by the subject. Furthermore, it becomes harder to identify precisely which
subjects are colonizers or colonised, as elements of both may be present within the same
subject.
Finally, I return to idea of decolonisation as “letting the subaltern speak”, using the concepts
of knowledge, subjectivity and the international I have previously outlined. Calls to
decolonize in this manner can be problematic for several reasons. They can imply a sense of
concession; a sort of “guest pass” into the academic fray for subordinate subjects or
knowledge. This implies that the subaltern is absent from academia unless invited, ignoring
relations of mutual constitution. In addition, they ignore the Speech that the subaltern does
not lack; although it may be unheard or “silenced” in the academic arenas of IR. By Speech I
do not necessarily mean the verbal act; rather I refer to a larger set of behaviours, expressions
and acts that can be written, verbal, or physical. 1 For example, physical acts such as suicide
bombings are powerful but non-verbal forms of Speech. Subaltern Speech is generally
excluded from IR unless it presents a “threat” to the powerful such as the events of 9/11. This
exclusion thus misses two critical links of mutual constitution: the mutually constitutive link
between knowledge/Speech in daily life and knowledge/Speech produced professionally; and
the constant relations of mutual constitution that shape the subaltern and the powerful.2
1 This discussion of Speech is based on the position taken by Loomba (2005:193-204); that subaltern Speech can
be consciously presented in academia both through the subaltern directly and through academic interpretation.
Additionally, Speech is not intended to represent pre-colonial authenticity but hybrid and diverse narratives of
those dominated by asymmetrical imperial power dynamics. This helps to avoid homogenisation of the
subaltern.
2 In this case “the powerful” refers to dominant IR knowledges.

8. Conclusion:
The ideas of knowledge and Speech that I have outlined above are not widely accepted by
dominant mapping practices in IR. This essay has attempted to demonstrate how the call to
decolonise IR could potentially challenge this, allowing an opening of the discipline and of
ways to make sense of the international. Whilst this essay has specifically addressed
imperialism, the practice of resistance I have outlined is applicable to those experiencing all
forms of exclusion: women; the “mad”; the economically disadvantaged; and those suffering
from environmental degradation to name a few examples.
Decolonization does not simply mean breaking down the categories, assumptions and “facts”
of imperial knowledges; as to deconstruct is to simultaneously construct anew. Nor does it
pertain to ascribe a new but static knowledge in place of the old dominator, no matter how
inclusive or expansive the new knowledge appears. Resistance, like all that is social, is
movement. Resistance/liberation is precarious, unpredictable and is in constant testing
(Oksala 2005:209); a practice without a clear beginning or end that is ultimately part of the
net of knowledge and power. Decolonization is not a state but a constant and participatory
practice, linked to emancipation in the broader sense.

9. Bibliography
Barkawi, Tarak and Brighton, Shane:‘Brown Britain: post-colonial politics and grand strategy,’
International Affairs 89(5) [2013] p1109-1123
Barkawi, Tarak and Laffey, Mark: 2002. ‘Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International
Relations’, Millennium 31(1) [2002] p109-127
Coronil, Fernando:‘Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical Categories,’
Cultural Anthropology 11(1), [1996] p51-87.
Darby, Phillip: ‘Reconfiguring “the International”: Knowledge Machines, Boundaries and
Exclusions’, Alternatives 28 [2003] p141-166
Doty, Roxanne:‘The bounds of “race” in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies 22(3) [1993] p443-61
Grandin, Greg: “How Slavery Made the Modern World”, published online by thenation.com
[24/02/2014] online copy can be found at: http://www.thenation.com/article/178509/how-slavery-
made-modern-world
Gusterson, Hugh:‘Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination’ Cultural
Anthropology 14(1) [1999] p111-143.
Krishna, Sankaran: ‘Race,Amnesia and the Education of International Relations’, Alternatives 26
[2001] p401-424
Laffey, Mark and Weldes,Jutta:‘Decolonizing the Cuban Missile Crisis,’ International Studies
Quarterly 52(3) [2008] p555-577
Lazarus, Neil:‘What postcolonial theory doesn’t say,’ Race and Class 53(1) [2011] p3-27.
Loomba, Ania: “Colonialism/Postcolonialism”, published online by Taylor Francis Ltd [2005] online
copy can be found at: https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780203087596
Morgenthau, Hans J.: “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace”,published by
McGraw-Hill, London, edition revised by Kenneth W. Thompson [1993]
Oksala, Johanna:“Foucault on Freedom”, published by Cambridge University Press,Cambridge
[2005]
Slater, David: ‘Post-colonial questions for global times’, Review of International Political Economy
5(4) [1998] p647-678