ORIN 5010 - Epistemologies of International Relations

Epistemological debates have been core to IR as a discipline. As such, knowing where one stands in terms of epistemology is core to doing research in the field. Is objectivity possible or is "theory always for someone for some purpose," as famously stated by Robert Cox (1981)? How do gender, sexuality, race, class, ethnicity, and other power relations influence the way knowledge of/about the international is produced? With what implications in terms of methodology, normativity, and research design more generally? This course aims at exploring such questions and the many answers offered by different IR approaches.

Students are expected to have a basic knowledge of International Relations theory. Contact the

course instructor if you have any concern or question on this (beatrice.chateauvertgagnon@sciencespo.fr).

This course is a seminar: the professor’s interventions will be kept to a minimum with student-led presentation and facilitation accounting for most of the sessions’ duration. No lectures will be provided, only opening and closing remarks as complementary to the discussions.

REQUIREMENTS:

Participation 45%

This course is a seminar and therefore relies on your active participation during sessions and adequate preparation before coming to class (see Code of conduct below). Regular attendance is expected, as well as active involvement in discussions.

Participation grades will be awarded based on the following criteria:

 Attendance: Absence from more than one session during the semester will automatically result in the loss of 15 participation points, regardless of justification. You must notify me of any absence before the start of the session. If, due to exceptional circumstances, you need to miss more than one session, you must inform me as soon as possible so that an arrangement can be made and a supplementary assessment assigned.

 Interactions with peers and participation in class discussions: Contributing constructively to class discussions is also a minimum requirement. However, your participation is not evaluated based on the number of interventions you make, but rather their quality. Contributing to a balanced distribution of speaking time between you and your peers, creating a respectful and stimulating environment, and interacting with others' ideas in a collaborative rather than competitive manner are qualities that will be recognized and valued as positive participation.

 100-word commentary on the readings: Each week, you are invited to share some of your thoughts on the readings in a collective document. It should remain a very short commentary (around 100 words) about one aspect of the readings you want to react to: such a format does not allow for exhaustive reflections but should reflect a good understanding of the readings and focus on making connections between readings as well as with other topics seen in class and beyond). It will be used as a support for in-class discussions and to guide the professor’s interventions. The consistency and depth of these interventions will be considered for the participation grade. Such commentary should be uploaded online before Thursday 4pm.

Presentation on the readings and facilitation 55%

Each week from week 2 onwards, a team of 2-3 students will present on the readings and the week’s topic and facilitate a discussion with the rest of the class.

 Presentation: the presentation should not take more than 40 minutes and should focus on some aspects of the readings and what they open up in relation to the course’s topic. The goal here is not to simply present the content of the readings (which we allegedly have all read), but to make original claims about some aspects of the readings you want to delve into. The presentation has to engage with all the required readings and put them in conversation with one another as well as with the rest of the course’s material. The exact format, visual support and division of labour between team members are up to you but good coordination, integrated presentations between team members as well as originality and creativity will be assessed positively.

 Facilitation: your presentation should be followed by a group discussion that you are in charge of facilitating. The format of such discussion is up to you (you can prepare questions for discussion, specific workshop-style activities, divide the group in sub-groups or leave it whole, facilitate a simulation or other role-playing activity, prepare a quiz or game, etc.). This discussion time should allow everyone to engage with the material, be structured and interactive.

You will have to send the professor a detailed outline of your presentation and discussion activities prior to the class for feedback and approval. It should be sent at the latest at 5pm on the Wednesday before your presentation so you have time to make necessary adjustments if needed.

CODE OF CONDUCT:

 This course is a seminar: it involves a lot of interactions and discussions. The success of the course thus relies upon (the quality of) your participation and demands a respectful, professional and constructive engagement with the material and with colleagues. We will disagree, sometimes passionately, on different topics and issues but we are all responsible for creating an atmosphere in which we can learn, make mistakes, change our minds, and feel that our contributions will be received with openness, curiosity, and respect.

 Respect also entails a commitment to non-discrimination, in line with the university’s policy, and working towards an environment in which every individual, regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and dis/abilities can participate equally and fulfill their full potential. There will be no tolerance for any behaviour or speech that goes against this principle.

 Cheating and plagiarism are considered major violations of the University’s academic values and regulations. Cheating is illicit actions or practices to mislead the examiner in an exam or study performance, and plagiarism is the actions or practices of taking and using the words and ideas of another writer as your own. Any of the following practices constitute acts of cheating and plagiarism:

o If you cooperate with another student in a home individual assignment, or individual tasks which are part of an individual exam

o If you change an already corrected exam

o If you write from sources without correct use of references

o If you “cut and paste” from the Internet without correct use of references

o If you use and develop ideas that appears in printed material or film without any reference to the author or the source of that idea

o If you use AI to extensively write assignments

 Students are not allowed to use AI in this course since the goal is to develop your own research ‘voice,’ analytical skills and critical thinking. A sample of your writing will be collected in class during the semester to be used as a comparative against which any submitted work will be assessed to detect the use of AI-based plagiarism and cheating.

COURSE OUTLINE:

Week 1: Epistemologies of IR: How do we know? (September 5)

Required readings:

 Lebow, Richard Ned. 2022. “Section I: What Is Knowledge?” In The Quest for Knowledge in International Relations: How Do We Know? Cambridge University Press: 31-59.

 Mattern, Janice Bially. 2014. “On Being Convinced: An Emotional Epistemology of International Relations.” International Theory 6 (3): 589–94.

Week 2—Where it all began: dissident thought and the epistemological turn in IR (September 12)

Required readings:

 Cox, Robert W. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium 10 (2): 126–55.

 Derian, James Der, and Michael J. Shapiro. 1989. “Foreword” and “Part I: Prologue.” In International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lexington Books: xiii-xxi; 2-22.

Suggested readings:

 Ashley, Richard. 1989. “Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War.” In International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, edited by James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro. Lexington Books.

 Campbell, David. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. U of Minnesota Press.

 Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security As Practice: Discourse Analysis And The Bosnian War. Routledge.

 Smith, Steve. 1995. “The Self Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory.” In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth. Polity press.

 Smith, Steve. 2004. “Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11.” International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499–515.

 Walker, R. B. J. 1993. “International Relations as Political Theory.” In Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Week 3— Epistemological Whiteness and Eurocentrism in IR (September 19)

Required readings:

 Blackwell, James, Charlotte Carney, Keshab Giri, Davina Nair, Kate Scott, and Laura J. Shepherd. 2024. “Interrogating Whiteness in International Relations: Critical Examinations of Race and Racialised Power.” International Politics.

 Manchanda, Nivi. 2018. “The Imperial Sociology of the ‘Tribe’ in Afghanistan.” Millennium 46 (2): 165–89.

 Sabaratnam, Meera. 2020. “Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts.” Millennium 49 (1): 3–31.

Suggested readings:

 Chowdhry, Geeta, and Sheila Nair. 2002. “Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World: Race, Gender, and Class in International Relations.” In Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Routledge.

 Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2007. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. New edition. Princeton, N. J.; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

 Cooke, Samantha. 2022. Non-Western Global Theories of International Relations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

 Krishna, Sankaran. 2001. “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26 (4): 401–24.

 Rutazibwa, Olivia U. 2020. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Coloniality, Capitalism and Race/Ism as Far as the Eye Can See.” Millennium 48 (2): 221–41.

 Vitalis, Robert. 2015. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Cornell University Press.

Week 4—Androcentrism in IR (September 26)

Required readings:

 Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs 12 (4): 687–718.

 Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2008. “Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations.” International Studies Review 10 (4): 581–600.

 Weber, Cynthia. 1994. “Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations.” Millennium 23 (2): 337–49.

Suggested readings:

 Cole, Lorraine. 1992. “Taking Subjectivity Into Account.” In Feminist Epistemologies, 1 edition, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter. Routledge.

 Harding, Sandra G. 1991. “What Is Feminist Epistemology?” In Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press: 105-137.

 Hill Collins, Patricia. 2000. “Black Feminist Epistemology.” In Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Routledge.

 Peterson, V. Spike. 2003. “Feminist Theories Within, Invisible to, and beyond IR Feminist Theories in IR.” Brown Journal of World Affairs 10: 35–46.

 Saltzman Chafetz, Janet. 2004. “Some Thoughts by an Unrepentant ‘Positivist’ Who Considers Herself a Feminist Nonetheless.” In Feminist Perspectives on Social Research, edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Michelle L. Yaiser. Oxford University Press.

 Tickner, J. Ann. 1997. “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 611–32.

 Whitworth, Sandra. 1994. “Feminist Theories: From Women to Gender and World Politics.” In Women, Gender, and World Politics: Perspectives, Policies, and Prospects, edited by Peter R. Beckman and Francine D’Amico. ABC-CLIO.

Week 5—Anthropocentrism in IR (October 3)

Required readings:

 Escobar Arturo. 2020. “The Earth~Form of Life: Nasa Thought and the Limits to the Episteme of Modernity.” In Pluriversal Politics: The Real and the Possible. Latin America in Translation. Duke University Press: 46-66.

 Burke, Anthony, Stefanie Fishel, Audra Mitchell, Simon Dalby, and David J. Levine. 2016. “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the End of IR.” Millennium 44 (3): 499–523.

 Chandler, David, Erika Cudworth, and Stephen Hobden. 2018. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene and Liberal Cosmopolitan IR: A Response to Burke et al.’s ‘Planet Politics.’” Millennium 46 (2): 190–208.

Suggested readings:

 Cudworth, Doctor Erika, and Doctor Stephen Hobden. 2011. Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics. Bloomsbury Academic & Professional.

 Di Chiro, Giovanna. 2017. “Welcome to the White (M)Anthropocene?: A Feminist-Environmentalist Critique.” In Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment, 1st ed., with Sherilyn MacGregor. Routledge.

 Harrington, Cameron. 2016. “The Ends of the World: International Relations and the Anthropocene.” Millennium 44 (3): 478–98.

 Newell, Peter. 2019. Global Green Politics. Cambridge University Press.

 Simangan, Dahlia. 2020. “Where Is the Anthropocene? IR in a New Geological Epoch.” International Affairs 96 (1): 211–24.

Week 6—Cishetero/homonormativity in IR (October 10)

Required readings:

 Berlant, Lauren, and Michael Warner. 1995. “What Does Queer Theory Teach Us About X?” PMLA 110 (3): 343–49.

 Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2008. “Epistemology of the Closet.” In Epistemology of the Closet. University of California Press: 67-90.

 Weber, Cynthia. 2014. “Why Is There No Queer International Theory?” European Journal of International Relations, April 3, 1–25.

Suggested readings:

 Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. Routledge.

 Châteauvert-Gagnon, Béatrice. 2023. “Chelsea Manning, National Security, and the Cishetero/Homonormative Logics of Protection.” Review of International Studies 49 (4): 676–93.

 Haritaworn, Jin, Adi Kuntsman, and Silvia Posocco, eds. 2014. Queer Necropolitics. 1 edition. Routledge.

 Heaney, Emma. 2017. The New Woman: Literary Modernism, Queer Theory, and the Trans Feminine Allegory. Northwestern University Press.

 Rao, Rahul. 2018. “The State of ‘Queer IR.’” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 24 (1): 139–49.

 Rao, Rahul. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. Oxford Studies in Gender and International Relations. Oxford University Press.

 Richter-Montpetit, Melanie. 2018. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (in IR) But Were Afraid to Ask: The ‘Queer Turn’ in International Relations.” Millennium 46 (2): 220–40.

 Weber, Cynthia. 2016. Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, Sexuality and the Will to Knowledge. Oxford University Press.

The objectives of this course are to:

 Compare and contrast different IR epistemological approaches and their implications for producing knowledge

 Understand the role played by epistemology in research design, ontologies, methodologies and their normative implications

 Develop critical thinking through interactions and discussions with others and with the texts brought forward in the course

 Develop intellectual creativity and rigor by taking charge of the learning experience through student-led seminars