Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies

Author(s): Richard K. Ashley and R. B. J. Walker

Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, Special Issue: Speaking the Language of
Exile: Dissidence in International Studies (Sep., 1990), pp. 259-268
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The International Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600569 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
International
StudiesQuarterly
(1990) 34, 259-268

INTRODUCTION
Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident
Thought in InternationalStudies

RICHARD K. ASHLEY
Arizona State University

R. B. J. WALKER
University
of Victoria

You will have understood that I am speaking the language of exile. This
language of the exile mufflesa cry,it doesn't ever shout . . . Our presentage is
one of exile. How can we avoid sinkinginto the mireof common sense, if not by
becoming a strangerto one's own country,language, sex and identity?Writingis
impossiblewithoutsome kind of exile.
Exile is already in itselfa formof dissidence,
since it involvesuprootingoneself
froma family,a countryor a language. More importantly, it is an irreligiousact
that cuts all ties, for religion is nothing more than membershipof a real or
symboliccommunitywhichmay or may not be transcendental,but whichalways
constitutesa link,a homology,an understanding.The exile cuts all links,includ-
ing those that bind him to the belief that the thingcalled life has A Meaning
guaranteed by the dead father. For if meaning exists in a state of exile, it
neverthelessfindsno incarnation,and is ceaselesslyproduced and destroyedin
geographical and discursiveformations.Exile is a wayof survivingin the face of
the deadfather,of gambling with death, which is the meaning of life,of stub-
bornlyrefusingto give in to the law of death . . .
This ruthless and irreverent dismantling of the workings of discourse,
thought,and existenceis . . . the workof a dissident.Such dissidence requires
ceaseless analysis, vigilance and will to subversion,and thereforenecessarily
enters into complicitywith other dissident practices in the modern Western
world.
For true dissidence today is perhaps simplywhat it has alwaysbeen: thought.
Julia Kristeva
"A New Type of Intellectual:The Dissident"

It is no longer possible to thinkin our day otherthan in the void leftby man's
disappearance. For thisvoid does not create a deficiency;it does not constitutea
lacuna thatmustbe filled.It is nothingmore,and nothingless, than the unfold-
ing of a space in which it is once more possible to think.
Michel Foucault
The Orderof Things

GuestEditors'
Note:We owean enormous debttotheskillsand laborsofDeborahJohnston, whoworkedwithout
compensation as editorialassociatein theproductionof thisspecialissue.Her talents-especially herinsistent,
informed
theoretically questioning-haveproveninvaluablethroughout all aspectsof thisissue.In addition,
we
mustexpressourgratitude toHaywardR. Alker, Jr.and CraigMurphy whoservedas referees and commentators
uponthearticles collectedhereand whosepainstaking, and constructive
critical, comments havelentconsiderably
to theproject.

?) 1990International
StudiesAssociation

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 SpeakingtheLanguage ofExile

Think, if you will,of all of those familiartimesand places in modern life where
genres blur, narrativesof knowingand doing intersectin mutuallydestabilizing
ways,contingencythreatensto displace necessity, the veryidentityof the subjectis
put in doubt, and human beings live and toil as exiles,deprivedof any absolute
territoryof being to call home. Think,in particular,of the marginalinstancesof:
theworkingmotherwho mustdailypass back and forthacrossthemutuallyintrud-
ing,neverstablefrontiers of career-lifeand home-life-each withitsown distinc-
tive,historicallyelaboratednarrativesof truthand meaningand each withitsown
gender-markedimplicationsfor what the normal subjectwill naturallydo and
thereforeeffortlessly be;
thedraft-ageyouthwhoseidentity claimedin nationalnarrativesof
is simultaneously
"nationalsecurity"and the universalizing narrativesof the "rightsof man";
thedisemployedlaborerwhoseplace in lifeis potentially crossedbyboththe narra-
tivesof "class struggle,"whichmightinscribeforher an identityin oppositionto
an international bourgeoisie,and the narrativesof "nationalcompetition," which
mightinscribeforher an identityin oppositionto the workersof othernations;
the womanwhose verywombis claimedby the irresolvably contestingnarrativesof
"church,""paternity, ""economy,"and "liberalpolity";
the alien worker,whose movementwithina nationalterritory is constrainedby a
nationalnarrativeof "law,"but who at the same timeis deprivedof manyof the
powersand protectionsattendinga narrativeof "citizenship";
the newspapereditorwho mustput himselfin the place of "thereader"in order to
decide whatshallcountas domesticnews,international news,environmental news,
economics,sports,fashion,or non-news,but who,upon encounteringan ambigu-
ous report,findsthathe cannot come to restwitha singlecategorybecause he
imaginesmultiplereadersand multiplenarrativesin whichthereportfindsmean-
ing;
the Chinese businessmanin Malaysiawho mustbear witnessto Malay narrativesin
whichhe and other Chinese are describedas "stingy"and "materialistic" even as
he mustencouragehis childrento learn "Bahasa Melayu"(officially, "Bahasa Ma-
laysia"),thelanguagein whichthebusinessofthestateis conductedand theinsults
are spoken;
the peace activistforwhoma fearsomenarrativeof a futureuniversal"end of time"
callsintoquestion"nationalistic"
narratives ofstatesurvival,butforwhom,also,the
latternarrativescontinuepowerfully to displace a narrativeof "universalpeace";
the Santiagoor Los Angelesbarrio-dweller who findshimselfamidstthe narratives
of a "market"thatfailsto includehim,the narrativesof "honor"withina culture
now displaced, the narrativesof "education"thatpromiseto rectifyand uplift
him,and the narrativesof "law and order"thatthreatento renderhima criminal
objectof police cudgels should educationfail;
the participantin the environmentalor culturalmovementwho subscribesto a
narrativeof theinescapable"interconnectedness" of dispersedlocalesbut who,at
thesame time,would resista narrativeof "rationalization" thatanticipatesa neces-
saryprogresstowarda universaland uniformorder; and
the contemporaryWesternstatesmanwho, upon witnessingall those eventscon-
noted by the collapse of the Berlin Wall, greetsthisrealizationof his long ex-
pressed"fondestdreams"as a "nightmare"in whichtheWest'sveryidentityand
purpose is suddenlyput in doubt and the Westernstateis at a loss to findany
stable,alreadydomesticatedsource of authorityto represent.
These marginalsitesare no doubtverydifferent, butbeyondnoticingthattheyare
proliferating in modern global life today,we can say thattheyhave at least four
thingsin common. First,these sitesare intrinsically ambiguous.In none of these

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J. WALKER 261

instancescan one referto a timeand place sharplybounded, a homogeneousterri-

toryin whichcategoriesare fixed,valuesare stable,and commonsensemeaningsare
sure. In none of thesesitesis therea unique and ultimatesovereignidentity-be it
the identityof the individualor the institutional structuresof a social whole or
community-towhichone can appeal in fixingmeaningsand interpreting conduct.
Here thewords"I" and "we" have no certainreferent.Here, exiledfromthecertain
truthsof everymodernnarrativeof life,one can neverconfidently invokean "every-
body who knows"because one can neverbe surejust who this"everybody" is. As a
result,one cannotspeak as an economistmightof rationalindividualswhoseidenti-
ties are givenand who, in order to findtheirway and give meaningto theirlives,
need onlydeploytheiravailablemeans to servetheirself-generated interestsunder
externalconstraints. One cannotspeak as a moralphilosophermightoftheresponsi-
ble human being who has a dutyto groundhis conductin the transcendent princi-
ples of an ethicalcommunity. And one cannotspeak as a sociologistmightof social
actorswho habituallyreplicatean eternalyesterday, measuretheirpracticesbyrefer-
ence to a recognizednorm,or projectsocial values alreadyinscribedin a coherent
order.
Second,itfollowsthatthesemarginaltimesand places are sitesof struggle,where
poweris conspicuouslyat work.They are deterritorialized siteswherepeople con-
frontand must know how to resista diversityof representationalpracticesthat
would traversethem,claimtheirtime,controltheirspace and theirbodies,impose
limitations on whatcan be said and done, and decide theirbeing.This is not to say
thatpeople here oppose some personifiedactorwho, as external"enemynumber
one,"administers poweroverthem.Sincethedifferences betweeninsideand outside
are here uncertain,none can be clearlydefined.This is also not to say thatpeople
here resistpower in the name of the lifeand freedomof some sovereignidentity,
some communityof truth,some absolute and identicalsource of meaningthatis
victimizedand repressed by power. In these sites,again, identityis never sure,
communityis alwaysuncertain,meaningis alwaysin doubt. Instead, people here
confrontarbitraryculturalpracticesthatworkto disciplineambiguityand impose
effectsof identityand meaningby erectingexclusionaryboundariesthatseparate
the natural and necessarydomicileof certainbeing fromthe contingenciesand
chance eventsthatthe selfmustknowas problems,difficulties, and dangersto be
exteriorizedand broughtundercontrol.Here, in otherwords,poweris notnegative
and repressivebut positiveand productive.Practicesof power do not deny the
autonomyof subjectsalreadypresentso muchas theyworktoimposeand fixwaysof
knowingand doingthatshallbe recognizedas naturaland necessaryto autonomous
being.They workto produce effectsof presence,of identity, of a territorial
ground
and originof meaning.And theyworkby discriminantly readingand representing
ambiguouscircumstances to imposedifferences betweenthatwhichmaybe counted
as thecertainty of presenceand thatwhichmustbe regardedas theabsencebeyond
itsbounds.
Third, thesemarginalsitesthusresistknowingin thesense celebratedin modern
culture,where to "know" is to constructa coherentrepresentationthat excludes
contestinginterpretations and controlsmeaningfromthestandpointof a sovereign
subjectwhosewordis the originof truthbeyonddoubt.In modernculture,it is the
male-markedfigureof "man"-reasoning man who is at home and at one withthe
publicdiscourseof "reasonablehumanity"-whois understoodto be the sovereign
subjectof knowledge.It is thefigureof "man"who is understoodto be theoriginof
language,the conditionof all knowledge,the makerof history,and the source of
truthand meaningin the world.And althoughin moderndiscoursethisfigureof
sovereign"man"is understoodto existin oppositionto an ambiguousand indetermi-
nate historythat here and now limitshim, escapes his mastery,and eludes the

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 SpeakingtheLanguage ofExile

penetrationof his thought,modern discoursenonethelessinvestsin thisfigureof

"man" the promiseof transcendence:throughreason, man may subdue history,
quiet all uncertainty,clarifyall ambiguity,and achievetotalknowledge,totalauton-
omy,and totalpower.This is the promiseimplicitin everyclaimof modern"knowl-
edge"-a claimalwaysutteredas ifby"man"and in thename of "man."This, too,is
thepromisethatthedisciplinesof modernsocialsciencemake-a promiseof knowl-
edge and power on behalfof a universalsovereignfigureof "man" whose voice a
disciplinewould speak. And this,as it happens,is thesame promisethatlegitimates
theviolenceofthemodernstate-the promise,inscribedin a compactwith"man,"to
secureand defendthe"domesticated"timeand space of reasoning"man"in opposi-
tionto therecalcitrant and dangerousforcesofhistorythatresisttheswayof "man's"
reason.
Yet itis characteristicof themarginalsitesjust consideredthattheyresistknowing
in thissense and, in doingso, putjustthispromisein doubt.They resistthismodern
formof knowingbecause here,in theselocal timesand places,thefigureof "man"is
anythingbut an indubitablepresence whose voice can be simplyspoken in the
representationof people's circumstances, intentions,and conduct. Any figureof
"man" whose sovereignrightto speak truthmighthere be assertedis immediately
recognizedas one among manyarbitrary interpretations;it is seen as a knowledge-
able practiceof power, itselfarbitrarily constructed,that is put to work to tame
ambiguities,controlmeaning,and impose limitationson what people can do and
say.
Accordingly, fromthevarious"central"standpointsof modernculturethatwould
speak the sovereignvoice of "man," the variousmarginalzones of lifecan be cast
onlynegatively, as a fearsomemomentof abjection.To theextentthattheyresistthe
impositionof some coherent"man-centered"narrative,these sitescan be under-
stood only to signal an entropicmoment,a momentthatescapes "man's" rational
control,a momentthat spells the death of "man." They can be regarded only as
momentsthatthe modernpersonmustendlesslydeferor promiseto masterin the
name of a life,a truth,an identityin itself.Uncertainty, indeterminancy, darkness,
disorder,turbulance,irrationality, ungovernability,terror,and anarchy-these are
words that modern discourseuses to mark off these marginalplaces and times.
These words demarcatemarginalplaces and timesas voids of truthand meaning
thatmustbe feared,exiled,and, iftheypersist,disciplinedbytheviolentimposition
of the certainvoicesof truththeylack.
Fourth,whilethesevariousmarginaltimesand places defythecontrolof modern
formsof knowledge-while theydefystablerepresentation fromthe standpointof
one or anotherunique figurationof sovereign"man"-it mustnot be thoughtthat
theycan be knownonlythus,as "voids"yetto be broughtunder controlof "man's"
reason.When one allowsthatthesedeterritorialized zones are multiplying so thatit
can be said that"our presentage is one of exile,"itmakessenseto listento theexiles
who liveand move in thesecontestedmarginalzones,respectingthe dissidentprac-
ticestheyundertake.And whenone listensin thisway,itbecomesplainthattheseare
proliferating timesand places whereexcitingthingsof uncertainconsequenceare
happeningin global politicallife. To be sure, the exiles mightspeak in wavering
timbre.Afterall,theseare siteswherethedisciplining metaphysical faithsof modern
cultureare put in doubt,constructsof sovereign"man" cannotbe made practically
effective, and putatively objectiveboundariesof conductauthorizedfromsovereign
perspectivesare seen not only to be arbitrarybut also to produce a scarcityof
resourcesby which people mightstruggleto make life possible. People here are
disposed to question identityas much as theyare inclinedto be dubious of all
universalnarrativesand transcendentalends. If voices are here heard to flutter,
hesitate,and showdoubt,however,thewaveringcannotbe equated withan anxious

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J. WALKER 263

quavering.It cannot be equated witha fear of death thatmustbe calmed by the

impositionof a certainidentityand a universalnarrativein whichan identitymight
securean exclusionaryterritory to call home. For thequestioningof "self"does not
here signala "deficiency," a "lacuna thatmustbe filled."Ambiguity and uncertainty
are not here regardedas sourcesof fearin themselves.
Ambiguity,uncertainty, and the ceaseless questioningof identity-theseare re-
sourcesof the exiles. They are the resourcesof thosewho would live and move in
these paradoxical marginalspaces and times and who, in order to do so, must
struggleto resistknowledgeablepracticesof powerthatwould imposeupon thema
certainidentity, a set of limitationson whatcan be done, an orderof "truth."They
are resourcesthatmake possiblewhatJulia Kristeva(1986) would call the workof
"dissidence," the politicizingwork of thought. In Michel Foucault's phrasing
(1973:386), theyare indicativeof the openingof "a space in whichit is once more
possibleto think."Here, whereidentityis alwaysin processand territorial bound-
ariesof modernlifeare seen to be arbitrarily imposed,thelimitsauthoredfromone
or anothersovereignstandpointcan be questionedand transgressed, hithertoclosed-
offculturalconnectionscan be explored,and new culturalresourcescan be culti-
vated thereby.Here it becomes possible to explore, generate,and circulatenew,
oftendistinctlyjoyful,but alwaysdissidentwaysof thinking, doing,and beingpoliti-
cal.
We do notcall attentionto theseproliferating marginalsitesof modernpoliticsin
order to highlightlapses in contemporary global politicaltheory,some specificdo-
mainsof conductthattheoristshave yetto takeseriouslyenough.We do so in order
to suggestthatthese deterritorialized and decenteredsitesof politicallife already
have theircounterpartsat the marginsof modern internationalstudies.Kristeva
(1986:292) has suggestedthat"A spectrehauntsEurope: thedissident."We wantto
suggestthatforsome yearsnow,a "spectre"has hauntedthe"European continent"
of internationalstudies. It is the spectreof a widelyproliferating and distinctly
dissidenttheoreticalattitudespokenin uncertainvoicebywomenand men who,for
variousreasons,knowthemselvesas exilesfromtheterritories of theoryand theoriz-
ing solemnlyaffirmedat the supposedlysovereigncentersof a discipline.It is the
spectreof a workof global politicaltheory,a dissidentworkof thought, thathappily
findsits extraterritorial place-its politicized"nonplace"-at the uncertaininter-
sticesof internationaltheoryand practice.
These proliferating worksof thoughtare not difficult to find.In the published
literature,more so in the informalxero-circuits of thefield,and stillmore so in the
seminar papers of graduate students,one can detect an increasingvolume and
varietyof workwhoseprincipalbusinessis to interrogate limits,to explorehow they
are imposed,to demonstratetheirarbitrariness, and to thinkother-wise, thatis, in a
way thatmakes possiblethe testingof limitations and the explorationof excluded
Some knowtheiractivity
possibilities. as reflectionon ontology,on epistemology, on
methodology-on what many call the unspoken presuppositionsof a discipline.
Some knowtheiractivity as explorationintothe possibility of a post-positivist
inter-
nationalrelationsdiscourse,a post-empiricist scienceof international relations,or a
criticaltheoryof globalpolitics.Othersknowtheiractivity as a kindof history, albeit
one thatdoes not aspireto rememberan originarypastbut to expose and undo the
arbitrary practicesbywhich"counter-memories" are forgotten in theconstruction of
a "necessary"present.Stillothersknowtheiractivity as attemptsto setup a seriesof
relaysbetweeninternational relationstheory,on theone hand,and European social
theory,feministtheory,and/orcontemporaryliterarytheory,on the other. And
manymoresimplydo theirworksofthought,notpausingto givetheirworksa name
but simplyproceedingstraightaway to a "ruthlessand irreverent dismantling of the
workingsof discourse,thought,and existence"in moderngloballife.Howeverthey

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
264 SpeakingtheLanguage ofExile

are knownand presented,moreover,theseworksof thoughtare to be heard insis-

tentlyquestioningthetime-honoreddualismsupon whichmoderntheoryand prac-
tice have long pivoted.Identity/difference, man/history, present/past,present/fu-
ture,inside/outside, domestic/international,sovereignty/anarchy,, community/war,
male/female, realism/idealism,speech/language, agent/structure,particular/univer-
sal, cultural/material, center/periphery,
theory/practice, state/society,
politics/eco-
nomics,revolution/reform-these and countlessotherdichotomieshavebeen exam-
ined in theirpracticalworkings, turned,rethought, and exposedas arbitrary cultural
constructsby which,in modernculture,modes of subjectivity, objectivity,
and con-
duct are imposed.
As seen fromthestandpointsthatwouldclaimto occupythecenterof a discipline,
it is true,these marginalworksof thoughtare knownprimarilyas indicationsof a
negativity:a crisisof confidence,a loss of faith,a degenerationof reigningpara-
digms,an organiccrisisin which,as Gramscianswouldsay,"theold is dyingand the
newcannotyetbe born."So cast,theyare knownto markan interregnum, a timeof
delaybetweenparadigms.So cast,also, theyare subjectto the disciplineimplicitin
questionsthatmoderntheoristswho long fora center,a securesource of meaning
guaranteedby a "dead father,"so readilyask. Can theynot prove theirmeritsby
configuringthemselvesas a new paradigmwhose knowledgeclaimswould bear a
promiseof controlin the name of "man?" If theyaspire to be takenseriously,can
theynotconfigurethemselvesas a theoreticalcounter-hegemony thatcould speak a
sovereignvoice,assume a name, take a position,commanda space, secure a home,
set down a law,and layclaimto the centerof a discipline?The disciplineis readyto
hear affirmative answersto these questions-answers that would affirmthat the
studyof internationalpoliticsis indeed a businessof makingheroic promiseson
behalfof a universalsovereignfigure.To thoseworksof thoughtthatanswerno, the
disciplineturnsa deaf ear when it can.
It is characteristic
of theseexileworksof thought,though,thattheywillanswerno.
For these dissidentworksare like the marginalsitesdiscussedearlierin thatthey
resistassimilationto modernmodes of knowingin the interestof the powerof the
modernfiguresof sovereignman and sovereignstate.They share the threeother
featuresof these marginalsites as well. These dissidentworksof global political
theorymovein intrinsically ambiguoussites,whererespectfortheplayof difference
and the undecidabilityof historydisplaces the assertionof identity,includingthe
assertionof one or anotherinterpretation of a universalidentityof sovereign"man."
They move in politicizedsiteswherepoweris conspicuouslyat workand subjectto
meticulousexamination.And theyconstitute excitingworksof experimentation and
explorationthatwould transgressarbitrary limits,open up hithertoclosed offcon-
nections,and enable the construction and circulationof new waysof knowingand
doing politics.Requiring"ceaselessanalysis,vigilanceand willto subversion,"these
marginalworksof thought"necessarilyenterinto complicitywithotherdissident
practicesin the modernWesternworld."
The purpose of thisspecial issue, then,is not to announce a new and powerful
perspectiveon global politicsforwhicha disciplinemustmake way.The contribu-
tionsto thisissue do not speak a sovereignvoice or proclaima credo. They do not
fabricateand ritualizea storyof originsthatwould supplyunityto thesedissident
worksof thought.They stakeout no territory to be defended,no boundariesthat
mightseparate citizensof a new discipline fromthose who are alien to it. They
neitherwritenor exemplifya manual of war by whichsoldiersof a new mode of
globalpoliticaltheorymightbe taughtto seize,defend,and extenda domain.They
issue no promises.They bear no flag.
Our intentionin these pages, on the contrary, is to providean opportunity fora
public celebrationof what these dissidentworksof thoughtalready celebratein

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J. WALKER 265

countlessscatteredlocalesofresearchlabor: difference, notidentity; thequestioning

and transgression of limits,nottheassertionofboundariesand frameworks; a readi-
nessto questionhow meaningand orderare imposed,notthesearchfora sourceof
meaningand order alreadyin place; theunrelentingand meticulousanalysisof the
workingsof powerin moderngloballife,notthelongingfora sovereignfigure(be it
man,God, nation,state,paradigm,or researchprogram)thatpromisesa deliverance
frompower;thestruggleforfreedom,nota religiousdesireto producesometerrito-
rial domicileof self-evident being thatmen of innocentfaithcan call home. Our
intention,too, is to enable the furthercirculationof the new strategiesof question-
ing,analysis,and resistancethattheseworksofthoughthave foundto be effective in
one or anothersiteand thatmightproveprovocativeand workablein othersitesas
well. In short,we do not wantto "shout,"as if a voice raised in InternationalStudies
Quarterlymightbespeak the arrivalof a new movementthatwould stormand take
the capitolsof internationalstudies.We wantinsteadto make it possibleto listen
attentivelyto the "muffledcries" of dissidencethatare alreadyeverywhereto be
heard.
The firstcontribution to thisspecialissue,"Patternsof Dissentand theCelebration
of Difference," byJimGeorge and David Campbell,reflects a patientlabor of listen-
ing to the exiled voices of dissidentscholarshipspeakingin a varietyof widely
dispersedsitesover the last decade. In spiritwiththe voices to whichtheylisten,
Georgeand Campbellresistthetemptationto findin dissidentscholarshiptheseeds
of a new orthodoxy.But theydo highlighta varietyof emergentquestionsthatare
repeatedlyengaged by dissidentscholarship,whetherit be a dissidencethat one
mightassociatewithCriticalTheoryof the Frankfurt School and Habermasor the
dissidenceone mightbe inclinedto label postmodernor poststructuralist. These are
questionsbearingupon theEnlightenment ofhistory,
constructs rationality, objectiv-
ity,truth,human agency,and social structure;the relationbetweenknowledgeand
power; the relationbetweenlanguage and social meaning;the role and functionof
thesocialsciencesin modernsocialand politicallife;and theprospectsforemancipa-
torypoliticsin the late twentieth century.Also in keepingwiththe voicesto which
theylisten,George and Campbell resistthe temptationto memorializea founda-
tionalprehistory of contemporary dissidentscholarship.Yet theydo briefly reviewa
varietyof contributions to contemporarysocial theoreticaldebates bearingon the
questionsjustmentioned-a varietythatspansfromWittgenstein, Winch,and Kuhn
throughthe FrankfurtSchool, Habermas,Ricoeur,and Gadamer,to Derrida and
Foucault.They do so not to gesturetowarda "coherentand consensualposition,"
butto accentuatethelivelyand enliveningtensionsthatdeprivethedisciplineof the
presuppositionof an objectivelygiven territorialground,on the one hand, and
enable theopeningup of spaces forthought,on theother.As Georgeand Campbell
showin thelatterpartof theiressay,thesetensionshavebeen productively exploited
in the varietyof dissidentworksin international studiessince the early 1980s.
The papers byJamesDer Derian, BradleyKlein,MichaelShapiro,WilliamCha-
loupka,and CynthiaWebertakeadvantageof theemergentthinkingspace to which
George and Campbellallude. These papers range acrossa varietyof topicsthatare
no doubtfamiliarto readersof theQuarterly:surveillance, simulationand computer-
assistedwar gaming,the accelerationof weapons delivery,alliance politics,arms
transfers,the local politicsof ecologicaland anti-nuclearmovements, the politicsof
internationaldebt,and theproductionand transformation of politicalinstitutions,to
name a few.Yet anyattemptto introducethesepapersand saywhattheymustmean
would be to do violenceto them.For whilethese papers range across topicswith
familiarnames,theydo not approach themfromthe standpointof some sovereign
subject,some centerof interpretation withwhichauthorsand readersare one. They
do not pretendto projectan originaryword of truthand power beyonddoubt,a

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
266 SpeakingtheLanguage ofExile

voiceof "man" thatpromisesto settlethe ambiguitiesof lifeonce and forall. These

papersinsteadapproachthesetopicsin a mannerthatis respectfulof theuncertain-
tiesoflifeat themargins,wheremeaningis in doubt,theplayof poweris visible,and
the fixingof meaningis whatpracticesof powervisiblylabor to do. They thereby
sensitizeus to the politicsinvolvedin assertinga sovereignpresence,givingnames,
supplyingrepresentations, and sayingwhatthingsmean-even in sayingwhatthese
papers mean. More than that,theysensitizeus to the paradoxes involvedin any
attemptto asserta sovereignvoicein a worldwheretheaccelerationand agitationof
socialactivity givesriseto a proliferation
of transgressions ofinstitutional
boundaries
and where,as a result,marginalzones of humanlaborexpand relativeto thesuppos-
edly homogeneous territoriesthat institutional boundarieswould demarcateand
contain.Engagingthe politicsof such a world,thesepapers showthatthe refusalto
embraceone or anothersovereignstandpointand its pretensesof territorial being
does notentaileithera flightto a kindof idealismor a retreatto politicalpassivity. It
instead enables a disciplined,criticallabor of thoughtthat takes seriouslythose
unfinalizedpowerpoliticalstrugglesin whichthequestionis no longerwhichsover-
eignshallwinand whichshalllose but how,ifat all, a sovereign-centered territorial-
izationof politicallifecan be made to prevail.
In offeringthissmallcollectionof dissidentanalysesin the pages of "The Official
Journalof the InternationalStudiesAssociation,"we are of course sensitiveto two
problems.One problemis thatthiscollection,beingsmall,inevitably excludes-or at
least failsto include-many, manyvoicesof dissidencein international studiesthat
deserveequallyto be heard and celebrated.Facingup to thisproblem,all we can say
is thatwe hope thatthe conductof scholarshipin the pages of thisissue renders
somewhatless effectiveanotherwidelyreplicatedand farmore worrisomeformof
exclusionbased noton physicallimitations buton thesupposednecessityof preserv-
ing institutional boundariesin the territorializationof politicaland scholarlylife.
The second problemis thatdissidentscholarship,as Donna U. Gregory(1988:xiii)
has noted, is "more often attackedthan read." For example, one especiallywell
knownline of attack,issued by RobertKeohane (1988:392), is thatso-called"reflec-
whileskilledin criticalarguments,"lack . . . a clear reflective
tivists," researchpro-
gramthatcould be employedby studentsof worldpolitics."As Keohane goes on to
say, "Until the reflectivescholarsor otherssympathetic to theirargumentshave
delineated such a research programand shown in particularstudies that it can
illuminateimportantissuesin worldpolitics,theywillremainon the marginsof the
field,largelyinvisibleto the preponderanceof empiricalresearchers. . ." This is a
fineadmonishment.It is as directas itis succinct.It is deliveredwithouttheslightest
concealmentof the privilegebeingarbitrarily accordedto a certaininterpretation of
"empiricalresearch,"of the policingfunctionbeing performed,or of the punish-
mentthatwillcome to those who failto heed the admonishmentdelivered.But it
could not be offeredor plausiblyentertainedby anyonewho has actuallyread and
takenseriouslytheworksof the"reflectivists" admonished1, as Georgeand Campbell
and Der Derian make clear.

1
Or, for that matter,by anyone who has actuallyread and taken seriouslyImre Lakatos's (1970) most famous
article on scientificresearch programmes. To read Lakatos's article through to theend is to see that it actually
develops as an elaborate sequence of deconstructionsthatproceeds fromnaivejustificationist positionsthrougha
varietyof other positions to finallyarrive at a "position" that Popperians finddisconcertingbecause, as Lakatos
allows,it is grounded in nothingother than the arbitraryplay of aestheticpractices.This last "position,"forall its
potential to disconcertthe male-marked Popperian figureof the sovereign scientist,is one that many dissident
scholarswould happilytake seriouslyas a "startingpoint" fortheir"researchprogrammes."One mightsay,in fact,
that many already do and that to this extent they are far more faithfulto Lakatos's own argument than are
Keohane and many otherswho evoke the firstfewpages of Lakatos's articleand are amnesiac regardingthe rest.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J. WALKER 267

There are, though,othercriticalreadingsof dissidentscholarshipthatdo deserve

a painstakingreply.In the essayconcludingthisissue,we shallconsidera varietyof
such criticalreadingsand offera responseto them.Our intention, as willbe seen,is
not to preemptor stiflecriticismof dissidentscholarship.Since dissidentscholars
laborto expand thespace and resourcesof thought,theywouldbe thelastto gainsay
any criticismof their work that would point out limitationsto which they have
acquiesced or whichtheyhave covertlyinscribed.As evidencedby the essayscol-
lectedhere,in fact,dissidentscholarsexhibita criticalethos,an ethicsof freedom
discipliningtheirwork,thatencouragesand welcomescriticismsuch as this.Our
purpose,instead,is to expose,analyze,and displaythepovertyof a widelyreplicated
strategyof readingdissidentscholarshipthatfunctionsto imposelimitations on the
workof thoughtin replyto the hazards and opportunitiesencounteredin all the
intrinsically paradoxical and ambiguous sites of contemporaryglobal life. This
strategyof reading is "diversionary"in Keohane's (1988:382) sense. It func-
tions,in his words,to "take us away fromthe studyof our subjectmatter,world
politics."
What is at stakeis notjust a matterof academic privilege.It is not a questionof
whetherdissidentscholarsshall be given theirdue or, alternatively, marginalized
and rendered"invisible."Whatis at stakeis nothingless thanthe questionof sover-
eignty:whetheror not this most paradoxical question,alive in all the widening
marginsof a culture,can be taken seriouslyin internationalstudiestoday. More
pointedly,the issue is whetherand to what extentthe disciplineof international
studieswillbe able to exerciseitscriticalresourcesto engage and analyzethe prob-
lem of sovereignty and resistanceto sovereignty as it unfoldsin all the multiplying
deterritorialized zones of a culturein crisis-includingthatextraterritorial zone that
eludes sovereignrepresentation called internationalpolitics.
It would be a mistake,however,to accentuateour criticalanalysisof a strategy of
readingdissidentscholarship.As we argue in theconcludingessay,thisstrategy is in
complicity withall thosepracticesthatworkon theworldscene to read ambiguous
circumstances, imposeboundaries,and excludeparadoxesof space and time,thusto
domesticateterritories of social and politicallifethatmale-markedfiguresof sover-
eignauthority can be claimedto represent.As we also argue,though,thisstrategy of
reading is fastapproachingexhaustionin internationalstudiestoday,just as the
culturalresourcesthatcan be called upon to effecttheterritorialization of socialand
politicallifeare growingthin,more abstractly "philosophical,"less able to speak in
replyto the unsettledcircumstancesin whichwomenand men activelyundertake
theirlaborsof self-making. In an importantsense,the scholarscontributing to this
special issue presume the weakeningof this strategyof reading and disciplining
ambiguoushappenings,both in internationalstudiesand in the world of politics
studied. They, like marginalizedpeoples everywhere,exploitthe openings made
possibleby thisweakening.
Thus, whilethecontributors to thisissue mightoccasionallycasta sidewaysglance
at instancesof thisstrategyof reading,theyrefuseto be delayedor divertedby it.
They refuse to be seduced by a strategyof reading that would draw them into
abstractly theoreticaldiscussionsor self-enclosing simulationsof idealized realities
that functiononly to redeem some notionof sovereignscholarlybeing. Instead,
thesescholarsdo what,we suspect,scholarsof international studiesin generalare
inclinedto do. They geton withtheirwork.They engagetheintrinsically problemat-
icalrealitiesof a worldthataffordsfewpeople todayanythingresemblinga domestic
havenof self-evident beingexemptfromthe playof power.Like all exilesfromthe
supposed sovereignterritories of modernculture,thesescholarsundertakea critical
task,a taskof dissidenceto whichFoucault (1984:50) has gestured.It is a taskof

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268 SpeakingtheLanguage ofExile

working"on our limits,thatis, a patientlabor givingformto our impatiencefor

liberty."

References
FOUCAULT, M. (1973) The Orderof-Things:
An Archaeology
oftheHuman Sciences.New York: Random
House.
FOUCAULT, M. (1984) What is Enlightenment?In The FoucaultReader,edited by P. Rabinow. New
York: Pantheon.
GREGORY, D. U. (1988) Foreword. International/IntertextualRelations:PostmodernReadingsof World
Politics,edited byJ. Der Derian and M. Shapiro. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.
KEOHANE, R. 0. (1988) International Institutions:Two Approaches. International StudiesQuarterly
32(4):379-96.
KRISTEVA, J. (1986) A New Type of Intellectual:The Dissident. In TheKristevaReader,edited by T.
Moi. New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Research Programmes.In Criticism
LAKATOS, I. (1970) Falsificationand the Methodologyof Scientific
and theGrowthof Knowledge,edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.25 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:54:32 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions