This was an exam response I had written whilst on exchange in Monash University in 2018. The question prompt was: "Waever suggests that the development of the discipline has not been shaped by “the power of the better arguments” (Waever 2010, 298). Discuss."
As I re-read my response, I still stand by my concluding hope - that the development of the discipline be shaped by better arguments, arguments that are inclusive, and not skewed to the perspective of one group, the group that holds more power. My 1000-word response is as follows:
The development of IR has not been shaped by better arguments that are more accurate, but are more shaped by power hierarchies and power relations; the discipline is shaped by theorists from privileged backgrounds (such as white, male, high-ranking university). However, in recent history, IR is increasingly shaped by theories that challenge these power hierarchies, and these theories can be dubbed as the “better arguments” because they are inclusive arguments that fill in the gaps that traditional IR theories often leave behind, and are being put forth by people who aren’t from privileged backgrounds. The future of IR can hence be said to slowly be increasingly shaped by the power of the better arguments.
Waever’s statement does contain truth in it, and the discipline has been shaped by power relations, with theories made by the more privileged being favoured and popularised- these theories have more influence on the discipline. Many of the most influential traditional IR theories are formulated by white, Western males: for example, Waltz, Oye, Mearsheimer, etc. Traditional IR is dominated by their thinking, and their masculine priorities have favoured certain areas of the discipline, whilst silencing others. For example, security is traditionally understood in terms of arms, wars, defence, nuclear power, etc. This ignores other understandings of security, such as gender-based violence, simply because they are not propagated by those in power (White men).
The language that those in power use influences how the world sees and understands certain concepts, and this has the power to become an exclusionary tool, thereby influencing the development of IR as a discipline. In the world of defence, it has largely been shaped by White men. As Cohn describes, they use sexual imagery (“phallic worship”) (p. 692) to make nuclear weapons seem more masculine, with the idea of disarmament being a form of “emasculation” (p. 693). This, together with the language of male dominance which relies on certain stereotypes and assumptions of women, the idea is to keep it fun for the boys, so that nuclear arms and their potential destructive power become less serious. In the world of these white men, there is no concept of peace, as it is not part of the language, and to use this concept of peace, one would be branded “soft-headed” (p. 708), in other words, not masculine. The end result of the existence of such an exclusive masculine language is that one can only be taken seriously if one speaks this language (Cohn, p. 708). This eliminates other ways to think of defence and legitimatises one way (the masculine way) only. This influences the discipline to favour certain theories, such as realism, which argue for a build-up in arms, because it is deemed more masculine. Therefore, one can see how a dominant, hegemonic language is able to influence the development of the discipline, despite it not necessarily being the “better argument”, and hence the discipline of IR can be said to be shaped by relations of power.
However, in recent times, the development of the discipline has been increasingly shaped by theories that challenge these power hierarchies, and this has led to a rethinking of IR, providing the potential for the discipline to be shaped in the future by the power of better arguments. IR theory has been exposed for its partial nature of knowledge, and there have been advocates, such as Sabaratnam, that call for more dialogue on IR theory. This shows how arguments that challenge the traditional knowledge of IR (the “better arguments”) are slowly changing how the discipline is developing. Sabaratnam calls out Western biases in order to bring in alternative perspectives, as these Western-biased theories often have gaps in knowledge, because they ignore the experiences of the non-West, or depend on a stereotype of them. Sabaratnam claims that there is a stereotype in IR discourse that the global South requires “external control, involvement and direction” (p. 787), and this ignores their agency, privileging the West in the process. Such objectifications limits the possibility of dialogue, and she argues that there is a need to decolonise IR, through the removal of the centrality of Europe in history (p. 788-9). There is also a need to change IR’s focus on states, and she challenges the centrality of the state in traditional IR, advocating for a focus on collective subjects instead (p. 792-793). To rethink IR, there is a need to go beyond its “imperial, colonial and racist roots” (p. 794), and decolonising theory does this, because it challenges the traditional relations of power that privileges white men and their theories. This creates space for the proliferation of other theories that can then shape the discipline into one that takes into account the experiences of those who have been ignored in traditional IR, such as the women, the experiences of the minorities, those in the global South, etc.
Indeed, there has been the growth and proliferation of new ways to understanding IR, and these are often argued by those who are not in positions of power. Sabaratnam is not white, or male, and yet her theory has challenged the traditional methods of thinking in the discipline, which point to how, relations of power might no longer be shaping the discipline in the future. Additionally, for example, there are now more feminists that argue for a re-understanding of IR from a gendered perspective, and these feminists are not white men who are in power, but are women who were excluded in traditional IR. The women are a mixture of women, including White women such as Jacqui True, but include non-White women as well, such as Mohanty. Their theories have shaped how one understands IR, and expands the discipline into areas not traditionally explored, such as gender-based violence. In this way, one can see how the development of IR in the future is not necessarily limited by relations of power, but by the new theories that fill in the gaps that traditional IR theories have ignored.
To conclude, whilst the development of IR as a discipline used to be shaped by relations of power, as Waever argues, the future of IR has the potential to be shaped instead by the “better arguments” that are able to be inclusive, and fill in the gaps left behind by traditional understandings of IR.
Comments